If you’re concerned about the escalating creationist activity in the Texas Board of Education, then SIGN THIS PETITION. Now. Let’s send a message.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
If you’re concerned about the escalating creationist activity in the Texas Board of Education, then SIGN THIS PETITION. Now. Let’s send a message.
done and done
Done.
I’ve seen comments that claim that “all they’re doing” is trying to keep the old “teach the weaknesses” language, as if that is acceptable.
I’d like to see math being taught along with its “weaknesses”. Gee, I wonder if the geometries of Riemann and of Lobechevsky really need to be taught to children who still don’t know Euclid’s geometry.
It really is the same principle, essentially the desire to prevent the teaching of the basics which are needed even to produce intelligent criticisms of either Euclidean geometry or evolution.
The only saving grace of the language these IDiots want to “defend” is that reportedly few teachers have availed themselves of the chance to confuse children.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Done, done, and done.
Hey, if we’re going to be “teaching the weakness”, should we be teaching the “demon theory of disease” alongside germ theory? Might as well give it even-handed coverage, right?
Signed! What’s worse is they imported the big guns to push the issue. Maybe we should get PZ and RD on the board to “balance” things out properly.
Signed several months ago!
I notice they’ve allowed for provinces and postal codes, but is it helpful or useful non-Americans (or even non-Texans) to sign this petition? Usually when Canadians weigh in on American issues, Americans tend to want to tell us to piss off (especially if they disagree), and that reaction is not necessarily unreasonable. Obviously, I’d prefer that Texan schoolchildren learn real, actual science in their science classes (crazy notion!), but given that I don’t actually live there, I don’t imagine I have (or should have) much of a say in that.
Basically, I’d sign the thing if I didn’t think that having non-resident signatures might actually undermine the petition (i.e.: the opposition takes one look at the petition and says, “it’s signed by a bunch of Canadians and Europeans, so it’s not valid.”).
If you want to see a doctrine of ignorant, close-minded hate, look for the “Texas Republican 2008” platform.
Done.
Azdak,
The importance of non-Texans, at least American non-Texans, making their voices heard is the huge influence the Texas market has on nation-wide texbook publishing decisions. Essentially, any textbook which can be sold to Texas, California, or Florida stands a great chance at becoming the de facto text for the rest of the country.
Azdak, if it makes you feel better, I’m a Texan and I signed the thing.
Are non-US citizens allowed to sign the petition? Because for the record, I’d be happy to.
I signed it (used my real name too: Hyperdave Kingston Sylvia Nikolaos Running-Tap Fourteen Brownian), and I’m Canadian, so you’re not the only one, Azdak.
As I’ve come to learn from the Pharyngulons (and as Autumn noted above), states like TX, CA, FL have inordinate influence on what goes into textbooks, so, unless you want kids in Bio 30 studying from Biology: The Parts of My Body that Aren’t Silicone by ‘Dr.’ Pamela Anderson, you should sign it.
I don’t see anything on the petition that says that non-US citizens aren’t allowed. Hopefully it allows more than five characters (or even, god forbid, letters) in the zip/postal code area.
I’m in Canada, can I sign? I’m interested in this for the same reason I’m interested in Barack Obama’s campaign — long term economic and social health for the United States is important to long term economic and social health for the rest of us.
Post Script: I guess so, since you can specify “State / Province”. Done.
I think that now might be the time to let some folks know that if this goes through, Texas will be put under an unofficial interdict as far as science students go.
Simply put, any college that isn’t an unaccredited Fundie factory is going to take a dim view of the high school science credits offered up by Texas schools. Students whose grades may have got them scholarships if they’d been earned at non-Texas high schools will be surprised to learn that they might not even suffice to get them into college at all.
Name and e-mail are the only required fields on the petition, but address is optional. I didn’t check the dropdown list to see if provinces are included for the “state” field. I figure as long as I fill it out honestly, I’m not hurting anything. If they want to sort out the non-Texans, they’re free to do so. (I’m from Illinois.)
I actually share the question (concern?) of some posters here wondering whether non-Texans signing this does any good. (Leaving aside my general belief that online petitions are sort of like prayer for the computer literate). I’ll happily sign the thing if there’s even a CHANCE it’ll do any good, but I can’t imagine anyone in Texas giving a damn what people outside the state think about their science standards. (Or people inside the state, for that matter.)
I think we need to take Phoenix Woman’s idea and expand on it. Or take it to its logical conclusion. Since a federal court has said that ID isn’t science, but is in fact religion, the federal government should be required to completely cut off all education funding to states that include allowing ID in their science requirements. That’ll take care of the problem rather quickly. Remember, when you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.
(I realize the Dover decision only applies to that particular fed court district so far. I am open to suggestions on how to implemen it nationwide.)
And now for something completely different (and mildly stupid):
Richard Dawkins and Emma Watson
I am a Texan I signed it. I am raising my son to know the difference between Science(reality) and Fantasy(made up stuff) It is truly amazing when he makes reality based decisions. He is seven years old. He shows more wisdom in his belief system than many adults that I know. I do not want him having to learn ID. He already calls ID “junk pseudoscience” and I couldn’t be prouder. Start the fight for rationality at home and show them the light. It is the sun and it is fusing hydrogen. This is science and it was not created. I don’t care what any ancient scrolls say about it.
I laughed. Out loud. And I have no idea who Emma Watson is. Those photos weren’t doctored at all? Very well done.
BTW, is it typical for British people to use “actors” to refer to women? Interesting.
Happily signed and forwarded by this liberal Canuck.
Everybody: Just shut up and sign the damned thing. What could it hurt? It’s not a philosophy thesis.
Technically, a District Court Decision only applies to the district in which the court has jurisdiction, but it is generally expected of judges in other districts to seriously consider it when a similar case comes up in their own. And, if they expect it to survive the Supreme Court should it go there, it would be in their best interests to explain why that decision doesn’t apply or is wrong if they disregard it.
Nah, it’s faked.
The comment thread did remond me of this classic, though:
http://xkcd.com/331/
(I’ll post it since windy’s not here at the moment.)
Signed. And I not only live in Texas, but have two school-age children.
You don’t have to be a fundie nutjob to be allowed to homeschool, right? (Sigh.)
No, but if you are a fundie nutjob and homeschooling, it’s a good bet it’s not to teach them evolution.
Well, then Canadians would be morally compelled to speak up, since the non-silicone parts are Canadian as well.
I’ve signed the thing, for what it’s worth. So if you wind up with Flintstone pop-up books in your science classes, Blame Canada.
I signed the petition – they mention nothing about atheism on their website, though, so I’m worried about whether Texans for Freedom will ensure atheists in Texas have their rights ensured, too.
Autumn nailed it… Texas is the tail which wags the dog of textbook purchasing for the entire country. Too bad the elitist Northeast Establishment doesn’t call the shots here.
This petition is being pushed by the DI, and one of the usual hacks, Robert Crowther:
Frankly, I doubt that any of these web petitions have a lot of effect, though I went ahead and “signed” the pro-science one. I suspect that they’re more about engaging the public–which I do applaud on the science side.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I’m a Brit and I signed!
Done
Why don’t the right wing fundamentalist nutters have the same enthusiasm for ‘teach the controversy’ when it comes to abstinence only sex education?
Disclaimer: I’m mostly right wing, mostly not a nutter and not at all fundamentalist. Plus I’m Canadian and will sign that petition.
Done. Glad I can do at least something to support rationality in Texas schools…
Cephus #5 wrote:
Oh, you mean Alternative Medicine? Yes, that is indeed making popular progress against the hegemony of science-based western-ways-of-knowing — and now it’s infiltrating major academic medical centers. Let the consumer choose!
Sorry; I agree with your sentiment, but it’s not a good example. There really are a lot of people out there trying to replace the germ theory of disease with the belief that illness is actually caused by blockages in “energy fields” which can’t be measured by science, but were known to ancient shaman. And, they’re starting to succeed using the same sort of “teach the controversy” strategy as the Creationists: “complementary” medicine uses BOTH forms of knowledge, scientific and “alternative,” in order to treat the whole person, body and soul. Ick.
DONE!
FYI Canadians, just go to a Texas real estate listing for your “Texas” address.
Name and phone number — well the internet can supply those “God given” pieces of information too.
I’m a Texan and I signed it.
This will devastate UT and A&M as educational institutions. They must accept all students who graduate in the top 10% of a TX high school. It’s part of their charter. Of course, nothing compels them to pass the little morons when they can’t hack it, but how soon will it be before these god-bots try to force universities to teach creationism?
They won’t be happy with limiting this crap to K-12 schools. They are never happy. They won’t be happy when they turn Texas into Gilead, because there are all those other states to “save” too.
God’s work is never done, y’know. This is why religious lunatics make such good serial killers.
So Aquaria,
You think that creationists should not be admitted to universities?
Done.
Meh. I expect the power of Pharyngula is such that we don’t have to resort to underhanded tactics to bolster the side we support. I used my postal code and an email address with a Canadian domain. If that’s not good enough for people, the thousands of American Pharyngula readers’ submissions should suffice.
Thousands, right? Right?
That’d be a bit difficult; it’s hard to test for lying and intellectual dishonesty. One can only hope they might learn something while they’re there.
Excluding anyone from getting an education is never a good idea. There should be no problem at all if creationists want to get into university to do biology, but they’ll have to pass university biology classes in order to achieve. Who knows, they might even learn something in the process. Something they should have learnt already in highschool, maybe this speaks more about science’s failure to teach than student ignorance. We are at a stage now where everyone is a self-proclaimed expert; we really need to show them how science works and why it’s findings are not going to be replaced with a 3000 year old myth rather than the idea that any two concepts are comparable.
Randy: They will eventually exclude themselves, if they attend mainstream universities. I had a number of creationist-adherent fellow students, and they quickly turned to other disciplines after grasping that a study of Biology was impossible without evolutionary theory. Impossible. They would gird their loins with faith or whatever else and march into class for the first week of first semester. Then, by about three weeks in, after having their faith shaken by the “meh” response of others to what they were told were /devastating/ arguments against evolution, they became Political Science majors.
It will be interesting to see how this is handled in court. Of course, the Discovery Institute outside instigators will not help the school district pay for the significant cost of defending the stupidity of those who plan to teach Creationism as a valid alternative theory. Although the DI will make a lot of money selling their material to the schools.
If this should last, will colleges seriously view applicants with such need for remediation in science? Will non-Creationist religious schools seriously view applicants with such need for remediation in religion? Not that they are likely to want to go to someplace that recommends questioning dogma.
The Texas State Board hasn’t got their fucking heads screwed on straight. They’re considering taking away the extra GPA credit that kids get from taking honors courses. Are they TRYING to have no Texan kids go to college?
::::::: TEXAS vs DARWIN, Counter-Attack # 1 ::::::
Jeff Tamblyn confirmed for tomorrow night Thurs 10pm Central.
Jeff Tamblyn is the producer of the documentary Kansas vs Darwin
A good place to start, the birth of FSM, first big Scopes revisited, and I believe the first appearance of ID on the national stage.
Unfortunately, we’re in fund drive so no phone calls, but plenty of opportunities in the future as this will undoubtedly be the main topic of my program, and in conjunction with Staci’s program, for quite some time.
Yall can call in and pledge a few bucks, if you want.
Listen @ http://stream.kpft.org/streamkpft.m3u
Signed.
Hell, my cousin and his children live in Texas. I’m a concerned citizen of Canada who wants to make sure my cousins once removed get a proper education.
So WowBaggar,
I assume you went to college. Am I right? In your own words, what was the most convincing evidence for evolution that you learned while you were there?
Randy,
You assume correctly – I went to college. However, I didn’t study evolution at that level; I didn’t need to in order to understand it is the only explanation for the current state of life on this planet since I’d learned it at school like everyone should.
However, I can imagine that some unfortunate people are only free to open their minds when they get to college; when they’ve escaped the god-soaked Lies For Jesus™ rammed down their throats by home-schooling parents and/or science teachers forced to repeat untruths because the creationist-laden, school boards will fire them if they don’t.
If I must pick one thing to be the ‘most convincing’ evidence for evolution is the existence of DNA and the understanding of how it works and what it’s for, which I accepted when my age was in single digits.
Here’s what my eight-year-old brain managed to understand – and what I’m still amazed people will lie to themselves about: If god made everything, why do we need DNA, a physical instruction manual? God has magic; he can just poof everything into the way he wants it. If he can’t then he isn’t infinite and therefore can’t, by definition, exist.
Of course, that I’d already read The Hitch-hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by that stage probably helped.
How long will it take before the courts hold that it’s bleeding obvious that such attempts violate the First Amendment and that the school board members who voted for them do not enjoy qualified immunity?
A bunch of people losing their boats, cars and houses would put the kibosh on that right quick.
Normally it wouldn’t make sense for non-Texans to sign the petition. But since the Texas State Board of Education has put three non-Texans on its textbook review committee, I guess all bets are off.
So Wowbaggar,
Your eight year old brain managed to ask it self a question that it couldn’t answer and concluded that there is no God. For the record, I don’t think it matters if you believe in God or not. What matters to me is the amount of bigotry and hatred spewing from this blog toward people of faith.
I hope you don’t mind if I probe a little deeper. You went to college. Which one? Did you graduate? What was your major? What science classes did you take in college?
Your concern is noted….
Yet of what “bigotry and hatred” do you speak?
lol, you serious?
Randy,
While I’m pretty sure you’re just a troll looking to disrupt this thread because you’re absolutely sure that creationism (or if you prefer, intelligent design) is true; let me suggest, if you’re really interested in finding out about the evidence of evolution, you do the following:
First off, set aside your assumptions that the book you’re reading, that is roughly based on stories written two thousand years ago by superstitious farmers and herders, and edited several times by rulers looking to forward their own agendas, is true (just for now).
Second, sit down with a good book on evolution written by a proper evolutionary scientist recently. I hear “Why Evolution Is True” by Jerry A. Coyne is a good one for beginners. Read it with a purpose of understanding it, not just glancing through looking for things to nit-pick.
Third, think for yourself. Don’t just accept what you’ve been taught from early childhood indoctrination (this is also called brainwashing when it’s done in cults), but actually consider the evidence.
Most creationists (and that includes intelligent design) say there is no evidence of evolution. There’s a preponderance of evidence, creationists just choose to ignore it or write it off as baloney.
My eight-year-old brain grasped that god is unneccessary to explain life.
Read for comprehension, Randy – I said I didn’t study evolution at college. Apart from first-year chemistry I didn’t do any hard science at all; my degree is in psychology – which, indirectly, provided me with just about everything I needed to understand religious belief.
There’s not much point going into too much detail about where I did it – unless you’re familiar with the relative prestige of Australian universities.
Like the qualifications matter, of course they help but in the end it’s all about the argument / evidence.
Kel,
I wouldn’t be referring to you. I visited your blog Kelosopy and read several articles and didn’t find a trace of bigotry. What I found was written arguments supporting your world view. I did notice some confirmation bias. The blogs you follow all support your world view. Same thing goes for your blogroll.
I searched your blog for “entropy” and found nothing.
Why on earth would this matter?
SASnSA,
Actually I am here for debate which I consider fun. And it seems you have mistaken me for a Christian. I am not.
And can’t you guys come up with a better argument then “go read a book”? I’ll tell you what. I go read Why Evolution Is True if you spend 10 minutes proving to me that you are a half-way-intelligent person. I think that is a fair trade of time. All you have to do is take this 10 minute test and score 150 out of a possible 500+ points.
It would be amazing if anyone could write something free from confirmation bias.
Funny about that. :P
Why would I need to talk about entropy?
WowBaggar,
I can check Wikipedia to see how your university ranks. Did you complete a whole year of chemistry? What about highschool science classes?
Why would I need to talk about entropy?
so he can cycle back the oft refuted SLoT arguments probably.
don’t waste your time.
just preemptively post a link to the Index to Creationist Claims
And can’t you guys come up with a better argument then “go read a book”?
something tells me you aren’t getting the right message out of seeing it repeated to you so often.
since there’s no making a dent in your preferred level of ignorance by actually suggesting you bring yourself up to date with modern biology, try this instead:
go fuck yourself.
HTML FAIL.
I always wonder what inheritable mutations and natural selection have to do with thermodynamics. And I wonder even further that those who make the argument don’t take into account that external source of energy.
I always wonder what inheritable mutations and natural selection have to do with thermodynamics
it’s a twisted take on information theory and the “complexity” argument.
please, don’t ask me to detail it (I don’t have a headache, yet ;) ). the ICC actually does have a decent takedown of it, or if you really want to torture yourself, you could just google on “SloT + creationism”.
Kel,
I don’t have blog roll.
There is no need for you to talk about entropy. However, if you knew more about it you might not be so confident in your world view. PZ doesn’t talk about entropy either.
If you do decide to write a blog entry on the topic and how it applies to the evolution vs intelligent design debate I will be happy to comment. That’s a challenge.
Ichthyic, how about “go fuck a book”?
Randy, Your website says you believe in god. Which one?
Well, I think it could be argued that the chemical reaction that is life could not exist as we know it if energy did not flow along an irreversible entropic gradient.
But I suspect that creationists don’t think along those lines…
You’ve seen this, right?
Fundamentalist Almost Discovers the Sun
that’s nice. I joined the blogroll in order to get my blog out there. I’m also on the Canberra blog list, though to be on that I don’t have to have it in my layout :P.
How do you know that my knowledge on entropy is lacking?
Maybe one day, got several more posts waiting in the wings first. Plus I’m about to commence work on a new programming project so I’m not sure how much time I’m going to have to dedicate to my blog. Hell, I might even merge the programming project with the blog and put up some HOWTOs on certain aspects of game programming. But we’ll see. I may just get bored one day and do it for the hell of it.
PZ doesn’t talk about entropy either.
yes, he has.
you’re lying again.
really, it’s not hard for anyone to search the site and find out.
Ichthyic, how about “go fuck a book”?
someone must have already given Stimpson that advice.
he sure doesn’t actually READ them, based on what he posts.
no, I’m going to stick with suggesting he fornicate himself.
thanks, though.
;)
GASP! A conspiracy of silence! EVILUSHUNISTS ARE FOUND OUT!!!
Or maybe it’s a FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
(and CF001_1, and CF001_2, and CF001_3, and CF001_4, and CF001_5, and so on and so forth)
Sheesh. Entropy.
Look up, dammit! No, the other up!
If you think of entropy only in terms of its application to thermodynamics then it doesn’t really apply to evolution. That’s why I talk about entropy in my blog and not SLoT.
And its easy to refute a strawman argument. If you argument is going to suggest that I don’t take into account external energy sources then you are refuting a strawman argument.
No, the other up!
LOL
well, have fun playing with Randy. I’m off to seek sustenance of a more “material” sort.
So you are talking about Shannon Entropy?
So what is this non-thermodynamic entropy of which you speak?
There are other definitions of entropy, but since you don’t specify exactly what you mean, I kind of suspect that you don’t know either.
If you start off with invoking a sloppy and ill-defined concept, don’t be surprised if people suspect that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Kel,
You don’t work for Torus Games do you?
Ichthyic,
I am actually ready three books right now.
Pro BizTalk 2006
Core Internet Application Development with ASP.NET 2.0
Biochemistry for Dummies
Does that make you feel better?
Randy the IDiot:
So, since the actual definition of entropy doesn’t work for your purposes, you just make up your own definition. See, pseudoscience is so EASY! You can just make shit up whenever you feel like it! Isn’t it so much fun being a Liar For Jesus™?
This Humpty-Dumpty tactic of yours is stupid and dishonest, but at least slightly less so than your fellow IDiots who don’t even bother creating a fake definition when the real one doesn’t help them.
Nope, I went into general software development after I finished my degree. I’m just looking to get back into game programming in my spare time. I have an AI simulator which was my main project for university that’s still half-finished. The new project I’m going to be working on is just something to do in my free time; much like my blog was a year ago.
Notice that he doesn’t identify his god.
So let’s have fun guessing.
I’ll say it’s Pan, the god of unbridled lust and sheep fornicating. Well known and loved in Enumclaw!
Advanced alien race
But what about the advanced alien race that made the advanced alien race that made us?
Those were the ones that evolved.
Randy,
I’m not a science graduate, or especially well-versed in science; I’m not going to attempt to debate relative scientific merits of anything beyond a layperson’s level of understanding. There are plenty of people here who will take you up on that – and whom you seem to be avoiding in favour of attempting (unsuccessfully) to goad me.
I accept that evolution is what the evidence supports. Should better (or, in fact, any) compelling evidence for creationism become available I will consider it. But it still wouldn’t change my mind about the non-existence of the god of the abrahamic religions.
I’m still betting on Pan, but aliens could be the winner.
Just watch, some damned heretic noodle head will show up demanding the FSM is Randy’s god.
I’m about fed up with the Ramen crowd. Bastards! Peasants! ARRRRR ya listen’n? Everybody knows Eris rules. Discord and confusion!
Sounds about right. The universe is a very violent place.
Another alien race made them. Duh
Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer #66 wrote:
Well, this isn’t exactly debate, but I read your essay and would like to ask you some questions. You claim to be some form of Deist. It’s a little unclear, though, since most modern Deists reject Intelligent Design because it posits an interventionist God, injecting miracles into Natural development. You yourself say “I believe God exists but don’t think God interferes with the affairs of mankind or natural laws of the universe.”
1.) So my first question is how you reconcile a God which doesn’t not “interfere with …the natural laws of the universe” with a belief that evolution requires divine intervention at various intervals? It’s confusing. I’m missing something here.
2.) The second question has to do with what you think did happen. Since you’ve rejected “evolution by natural selection and random mutation” as “implausible,” then you can’t just be referring to Fine Tuning the laws of physics. The laws of physics could have been fined tuned to set up natural selection and random mutation.
I know you’re not a biologist, but you’ve thought about this a great deal. If you had to guess, what would you guess? That the chemicals and molecules were moved into place by divine psychokenesis, so that someone watching would see something gradually assembled as if by invisible hands? Or would there just be a sudden pop — and there is the brand new cell. Or animal. Or what?
3.) My third question is a rather strange one, but since you say you’re not Christian, I’d be curious to see your answer. The theory of evolution says that evolution is directionless — there is no pre-planned goal created in advance. I’m assuming that you think there was a goal. Us, presumably. So here is a hypothetical:
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that human beings didn’t evolve. Instead, the contingencies and accidents and little tweaks of fate ended up forming a MORE impressive species than human beings (that is, we would be more impressed if we saw it.) Faster, stronger, smarter, kinder — whatever. A species of animal better than us, from an objective standpoint.
Would this change your view of Intelligent Design? Would it make ID more likely; less likely; or would it make no difference at all? And why?
Thanks. I’m not necessarily setting anything up here to leap on you. I’m just curious. Christians usually don’t answer these kinds of questions because they appear to believe there is virtue in not asking them, just as a child does not pester or question the parent. It’s supposed to be a mystery. But since you’re a Deist, that attitude may not shut it down for you.
Nerd of Redhead – May I sign you up then as a follower of the goddess Discordia?
A terrible and mighty battle is brewing between the followers of the FSM and the believers in confusion and discord.
Our leader here on Earth, the Emperor Norton, is spinning in his grave, and inspires us everyday – like John McCain, that the dead can walk, in confusion among us.
Hail Eris! Hail Discordia! Hail…er, I’m confused…
Looks like I messed up on that test link. I know you all want me to read Why Evolution Is True so let me try again.
If SASnSA or Owlmirror can score 100 out of 500+ on this test I will read the book.
I suspect that Kel will score respectively high but I’m not making that offer for Kel.
So Randy, why are you dodging me?
You post that you believe in god. Which god?
My bet is on Pan, the sheep fornicater.
Could be the goddess Sidori, goddess of brewing beer.
Could be good ol’ Bacchus, god of wine.
Being an ignorant slut, I’m in favor of Maenads. But sometimes that gives the gents a bit of the willies. *smirk*
To OwlMirror way back at #59,
The bigotry and hatred to which I refer would be typical of that exibited by Molly Award winner Ichthyic. For example, Ichthyic would rather assume that I am lying than mistaken when I said that “PZ doesn’t talk about entropy”.
I did in fact search for “entropy” on Pharyngula and found several blog entries. But all references to entropy that I checked were in the comments and were made by others.
So Ichthyic, could you kindly point me to a Pharyngula blog entry on the topic of entropy.
Relatively, annoyed with myself for not getting them all though. That’s what I get for rushing through it :P
I am not dodging you Patricia. My answer is here.
Would anyone here like to share their test score with the group. My offer extends to you Patricia as well.
Randy, I don’t care if you read James Herriot’s Yorkshire. I’m not taking your test, you can shove your test up your pie hole.
You believe in god. Which one?
I believe I could fork a half ton of chicken shit into your well, and all the gods on the planet wouldn’t keep you from getting sick. Fool.
Bullshit Randy! Like all the other trolls that come here you try to dodge and twist, and run away.
That website does NOT name your god.
Name it, claim it, or run away little troll.
And lay onto Ichthyic when he has left for supper – coward.
To OwlMirror way back at #59,
Take note of Patricia’s remark.
For example, Ichthyic would rather assume that I am lying than mistaken when I said that “PZ doesn’t talk about entropy”.
because Ichthyic, who is back from eating a delicious meal now, remembers you saying the same damn thing about a month ago, and providing the actual links then to prove you wrong.
now, you’re just lying.
go fuck yourself.
If SASnSA or Owlmirror can score 100 out of 500+ on this test I will read the book.
you really like to play reverse-burden, don’t you, fuckwit?
Patricia,
A good troll doesn’t tell all. The answer to your question is in the fifth sentence of the first paragraph.
Even coward’s have to eat dinner.
Darlin’ you haven’t sampled half of Patricia’s god bothered, 50 years of christian servitude remarks. Want some christian remarks fool?
How deep a hole straight to hell do you wanna dig?
Let’s go, boy.
He puts money into the pocket of Jerry Coyne if Owlmirror is able to get 1 out of 5 on a relatively easy test. Sounds like a good deal to me.
you go girl.
Stimpy gets tedious after a while, but he also tends to tire easily.
just remember that no matter WHAT you say, the next thread he invades he will have completely reset himself back to square 0.
so, just have fun, don’t try ta larn him nuthin’.
;)
Molly Award Winner Ichthyic,
I am beginning to wonder if you are capable of making a comment without calling a name.
Randy – You fuckwitted retard!
The day Ichthyic is a coward is the day I will eat a half ton of chicken shit.
Fool. Prancing around like Ted Haggard with a hard on doesn’t impress anyone here. Name your god or begone.
Patricia,
I wasn’t referring to Ichthyic as a coward. I was just pointing out that I went to go eat dinner when Ichthyic chimmed in.
Owl Mirror at #59,
Note that Patricia called me a “fuckwitted retard”.
Ichthyic, You’re probably right. The fool is probably spinning somewhere around Mars.
They just piss me off to the inth-degree.
Well, I’m off to bed. I’ll see if Randy has answered my questions in the morning. I’m just looking for more information on his views, which shouldn’t be that taxing. Despite IDist insistence that their ‘theory’ is non-specific and generic, it’s a bit rare to find ID advocates who are neither Christian nor Muslim. He’s apparently a kind of Deist.
Which means that he can’t answer your question, Patricia. Not won’t, can’t. Deists don’t have a holy revelation which gives their version of God a name. They use “natural revelation” — inferences from the study of nature alone (along with huge dollops of intuition.) God is some sort of Cosmic Intelligence, or Force of Creativity.
I suppose he could name it “Fred.”
I have to go now. But if Patricia and Ichthyic can refrain from making hate speech for three days I will read Why Evolution Is True
Oh christ. Now he’s blatting that I called him a fuck witted retard.
Yes I do fool.
You are a complete god bott retard, fool, IDiot, jackass moron…
It wears me out, calling you christian idiots names. FOOL!
You won’t name your god Randy. Put up or shut up.
Name your god.
“fuckwitted retard”
Insulting? Fuck yeah! It was meant to be.
Hate speech? sigh…
Randy, you really are a putz.
(Oops! I am afraid I just committed a hate crime!)
So Randy, what do you believe about the history of life on earth? Saying you support intelligent design is one thing, but it really is open and ambiguous. Can you give a basic summary of “Randy Stimpson’s: a brief history of time” in order to better understand where you are coming from?
It’s probably his hairball gland. He certainly lives up to his name when it comes to the amount of stinky glop he barfs up.
Sastra,
You are right. I can’t answer Patricia’s question. I will try to answer yours sometime this weekend. I didn’t see your earlier comment until just now.
Goodnight.
It’s probably his hairball gland. He certainly lives up to his name when it comes to the amount of stinky glop he barfs up.
I knew someone would get the reference.
;)
I wonder if he would push the history erase button?
Refrain from making god mocking, dipshit fool bothering speech for a week – ha!
Fool.
Note that Patricia called me a “fuckwitted retard”.
obvious and necessary response:
Your concern is noted…
some else can do the “mommy! sissy just called me a name!” response.
Answer it dumbass.
A fool sayeth in his heart there is no god.
Patricia sayeth – there is no god.
Fool.
Show us your god. We will fall on our faces and worship. Show us your god.
Let’s go boy.
We will fall on our faces and worship.
not me.
I’d be busy trying to figure out what anesthetic to use to capture it so we could analyze it and see what makes it tick.
I have to go now. But if Patricia and Ichthyic can refrain from making hate speech for three days I will read Why Evolution Is True
“No more deals child, it is your flesh we want to experience, not your skill at bargaining. ”
5 points for the character and movie reference.
There isn’t going to be a god answer. The idiot is a complete fool.
Time for me to go to bed.
Good night sweethearts!
That’s exactly what Intelligent Design supporters try to do when they deny the evidence for evolution.
Have you considered reading Stimpy’s blog to it?
I read his blogposts on evolution and entropy and wondered if he had watched CDK007’s videos on youtube that showed exactly how natural selection can indeed maintain the overall fitness of a population.
Icthyic @ #129-
Ooooh, snap! “Hellraiser”, baby. Pinhead (though he’s only credited as “lead Cenobite” in the original.
“We have all eternity…..to Know. Your. Flesh..esh..esh..sh.”
[Geek mode off]
Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer #123 wrote:
Ok, thanx — I’ll bookmark the thread.
You know what? I really don’t care if you read the book or not. You asked for evidence of evolution, and I pointed you to a good source. Not being an evolutionary biologist myself, I know I couldn’t do it the same justice that Jerry Coyne does, and a forum really isn’t really the best place to lay down all that information.
Obviously I was correct in my first assumption, and shouldn’t have even bothered pointing to the book. It seems I often forget the advice not to feed the trolls
As for your little IQ test, is 421 an acceptable score? Though it has nothing to do with the whole matter of evolution.
Looks like I am going to have to read a book. 421 is an impressive test score for someone taking the test for the first time. Less that 1% of test takers score that high. I am now wondering what your educational and professional background is. Can you indulge me with an answer?
It’s true that the test has nothing to do with evolution. The first question evaluates your deductive reasoning skill. You would be surprised by the number of people who think they are rational but don’t have deductive reasoning skill. Having deductive reasoning skill is important for science. If you don’t have deductive reasoning skill you can’t draw proper conclusions from data or design meaningful experiments.
Now before I pull out my wallet and browse over to Amazon.com, please enter the link below in your browser. This will allow me to get your IP address and use it to verify your test results.
http://prtracker.com/?GETIP=SASnSA
Well, I got 491. And just to make sure that you know it was me, I changed the “from” to say “pharyngula-Owlmirror”.
Remind me again what the point of this rigamarole was? Yes, you buy the book… but why is educating yourself dependent on the intelligence of any of us? And why did you exclude Kel?
the same reason my questions keep getting excluded by godbots. If they ignore it, they go away. Now SilverFox is gone, I shall never know how we are more than material! And I still haven’t got Randy Stimpson’s A Brief History Of Time.
I thought that was John Knight’s “A Brief History of Time as Derived from Christianity” — Randy has yet to give us “What Entropy Means to Me”, and answer Sastra’s very patient and politely worded questions.
Well John Knights would be good too, but I did ask for Randy Stimpson’s version.
Can you give a basic summary of “Randy Stimpson’s: a brief history of time” in order to better understand where you are coming from?
That was the 17th. Today is the 18th.
I hate piss ants.
There’s my hate speech for the day. And you continue to be a fuckwitted retard.
SIGNED
Incredible how things like this continue especially in our present time …tsk tsk
So you did.
Well, perhaps he is hard at work typing it up.
Or perhaps he has writer’s block, and is praying for the help of the non-interventionist-only-not-really-because-sometimes-he-gives-things-a-nudge-when-they-really-really-need-it God.
I wonder if Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer will remember to get back to this thread, and those 3 question in #97. I’m not counting on it, but maybe. He said he’d try this weekend, but things might have come up for him.
If not, I can stop checking in.
I’ve had a busy weekend but I’ve ordered the book. I am going sit here and think about Sastra’s questions and post an answer in about an hour.
Sastra,
Your first question points out an apparent contradiction in what I believe about God, and I don’t have a good answer for you. I don’t think we are capable of understanding what God is, although many religions try. Whatever anyone says about God is speculation, and that includes my belief that beyond creation, God doesn’t interfere with the universe. I will say that I was a Christian for about 20 years and prayed plenty but I can’t point to one circumstance where I could say I know it was an answer to prayer.
What did happen? I don’t know. Like most of you I went to public school and to a public university. I was taught evolution, questioned it, and found the answers I got back unsatisfactory. I concern myself more with what I can observe now than what might have happened billions of years ago. And besides gravity, entropy probably affects our day to day life more than anything else and I think that precludes evolution by random mutation. I think evolution guided by intelligent design is a possibility but there isn’t enough fossil evidence to persuade me to take that position. Taking that position would, however, imply that God is not all powerful and not all knowing but does interfere with universe.
As for your last question – I would have to ask my dog. Actually I don’t think it would make any difference at all and I can’t tell you why.
By entropy, can you say you mean Shannon Entropy as opposed to the standard meaning about isolated systems tending to disorder?
Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer #147:
Thanks for getting back to me.
As you point out, this belief of yours that God doesn’t interfere with the universe contradicts your other belief that God does interfere with the universe. The problem here isn’t that you ‘don’t know’ about God. It’s fine to admit ultimate uncertainty there. But if you’re contradicting your own self about what you say you believe, then I think you need to rethink what it is you think you believe about God.
My second question highlights the fact that, if evolution by random mutation plus natural selection is inadequate, then we are indeed talking about supernatural miracles. A Deist God sits in the background of the deep, inaccessible past, “setting things up” in such a remote area and such a remote way that no finding of science would or even could ever refute that “this is the way it was meant to be.”
But that also means that no discovery will ever point to God, either. A God inferred through ordinary nature is basically inert. Although 18th century Deists still talked about how Providence smiles on the affairs of men (whatever that means), I’ve never met a modern Deist who advocated Intelligent Design as a replacement for evolution (or to help it along.) I think that’s a contradiction.
So whatever it is you are, I don’t think you can call it Deism. And you do need to consider that second question. That’s not just speculating about God: it’s speculating about the theory that you’re proposing.
If you’re proposing a theory on what might have happened billions of years ago, then I think you’re automatically concerning yourself with what might have happened billions of years ago.
Keep in mind that all the processes which involve evolution are happening today, and can be observed. When it comes to replication, variation, and selection, all the physical laws today were operating just the same as in the past. If a mother having a baby which develops into an adult which also has a baby does not violate the laws of entropy, then it did not violate them a million years ago, and a million mothers and a million babies would not violate them either. The theory of evolution doesn’t add in new processes — it deals with picking out patterns which can be discerned from a distance.
Those miracles in my second question — the chemicals swooping together through psychokenetic powers of God’s Mind, or the popping into existence of matter and energy from nowhere — are what’s going to cause serious havoc with entropy.
As for the third question, I find it interesting that you apparently don’t think that the existence of an amazing species of animal with incredible abilities and virtues would make it more likely that God exists. Since the existence of God is often inferred from the fact that it’s just too hard to believe that human beings just “happened” to arrive by chance, I would think that argument would be strengthened if we were dealing with something even better. Plus, something even better would presumably be even more ‘in the image of God.’
For example, if two full houses in a row made you suspect that the poker dealer was cheating (and arranging the result in advance), a run of 10 royal flushes in a row would increase the odds that you think he’s cheating. Dealing himself a mere two pair twice in a game decreases the probability that you will suspect him of cheating, and stacking the deck for a particular result.
So I’ll ask a follow-up to that last question:
In a hypothetical world, let’s say that human beings never evolved. In fact, no form of life more complicated than the most basic form of bacteria ever does or did evolve on planet earth — or any other planet.
Given this, would ID theory be more likely; less likely; or would it make no difference at all?
Adding enegry to a system can decrease entropy to a degree. But even spontaneous generation of the simplist bacteria is beyond what could be hoped for by just adding energy to a system. Even now with all the technological advances we have made as humans, we still don’t have the intelligence to synthesize a simple bacteria. Some time ago PZ said it might be possible within a decade. When an if we do succeed in doing that, it will take more than energy — it will take intelligence.
So given the existence of only bacteria, intelligent design is higly probable.
So given the existence of only bacteria, intelligent design is higly probable.
that’s some really inane logic there, boyo.
since Sastra seems to be the only one really interested in what you have to say, I’ll leave it to her to set you straight…
I mean, as if that were possible and all.
How many people propose the spontaneous generation of bacteria? The only people I hear talking about that are IDiots. Every non-IDiot scientist seems to talk about a number of steps from organic matter to bacteria, and presently we don’t know all the steps.
It seems like nothing more than a strawman statement coupled with an argument from personal incredulity.
Yeah Kel, it sounds like all creationist/ID arguments. All blather, no substance. Not one scientific paper in sight.
Diminishing personal incredulity is overrated. Using algebra I could prove that 1 = 2 and Nerd of a Redhead may not be able to identify where my reasoning went wrong but she would know I was wrong.
A mechanical engineer could tell me he’s created a perpetual motion machine. I could argue that such a machine violates the laws of physics. He could tell me I know nothing about mechanical enginnering and that my argument is based on personal incredulity.
Well I’d know where you are wrong on the algebraic proof, and I can still see your argument is from personal incredulity. ;)
Kel,
I am not sure what you mean by “number of steps”. Can you give a software analogy?
Okay, just imagine you want to go to pharyngula to post a comment but your computer is off. To get there you need to have an internet connection, a web browser and you have to put the address in. But you can’t put that address in until after you have turned on the browser. Likewise you can’t use the browser until after you have gotten an active internet connection. You can’t turn on the internet until after your computer is booted up (you have a 56K dialup account), and you need to turn your computer on before it can boot up.
Likewise before you get bacteria, you are going to need replicating polymers, before you have replicating polymers you are going to need non-replicating polymers, before you get that, you are going to need monomers. If you don’t have the monomers, you won’t get the polymers, just as if you don’t have your computer on, you can’t connect to the internet. Each step in the process requires a trigger, on the computer side you have yourself; the user. On the biological origins of life, you have any one of a number of processes that lead to bonding. We don’t know what the exact steps that lead to replication are yet, but we know they are necessary before you are going to get basic cells (which would me much more primitive than today’s cells – natural selection & mutation in action)
Have upper and lower bound estimates for the number of steps been made?
Well it’s all unknown, we have no idea how long a process would take to occur. We’ve got a limit of about 700,000,000 years or so before we start to see life in the rocks (3.7BYA±300M), and that’s while the earth is going through a whole series of environmental and geological changes. Now any one of a series of potential conditions could have to occur before you get life, if anything like the Miller experiments turned up anything more than amino acids or nucleotides in just one step it would be surprising.
There would also have to be a stage where chemical bonding of non-replicating chains would be less advantageous than replicating strands. In any case, no-one is ever positing that we went from organic compounds to complex bacteria. Even before we see complex cells like we have now, there would have to be primitive cells before that, where they gradually became more advanced as per being advantageous. There also may be a few different points of life, that the same process happened in more than one place worldwide. All of this happened almost 4 billion years ago now so the best we can ever do is try and find a way life could have evolved. What is not a good idea is to just look at the final product and say it’s all too complex to happen by chance because that way you are no better than the young earthers.
Yes, and the only way that you could get that result is by performing an illegal divide-by-zero in the “proof”.
Just as you are performing the equivalent illegal logical operation by insisting that chemicals cannot possibly bootstrap to life, and thus require a pre-existing powerful intelligence. If simplicity cannot bootstrap to complexity, your pre-existing powerful intelligence could never have arisen in the first place.
If your powerful intelligence spontaneously appeared, then it is far more likely that a simple primordial bacteria could spontaneously appear (not that anyone is suggesting such a thing – it’s merely a point about probabilities).
Every article on abiogenesis that I have seen has described falsifiable suggestions on how organic chemicals could eventually become complex life. They aren’t even mutually exclusive; there’s nothing preventing one sort of reaction taking place near undersea vents, and another taking place in water-ice mixes at the poles.
The point is, the planet we live on is billions of years old. There were innumerable potential locations and chemical combinations and reactions that could have taken place, and which can be investigated.
As merely one example, this is a summary of the work of the Szostak Laboratory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
What you have described is a chain of events leading to more and more complexity going against the tide of entropy. Adding energy isn’t going to help you.
Around the world we have millions of cars running and we add energy to these cars regularly in the form of gas. All of these cars eventually break down and die. They don’t evolve into better cars all by themselves just because we add energy. Intelligent intervention is the only way keep them going. This is one of many examples of entropy that affects your everyday life.
Everyday you add energy to your body in the form of food. Yet no matter how much food you eat, you still grow old and die. This is entropy.
To believe in evolution one has to discount their everyday experiences with energy and entropy and insist that it must have happened because we are here. Evolution is contrary to one of the most observable laws of science — that entropy (disorganization) tends to increase.
[blithering moronic idiocy culminating in:]
READ
THE
FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
Sheesh.
And in case you’re too incompetent to click on a link and read for comprehension:
OwlMirror,
You might try sighting a reference more credible than talk origins. And sorting molecues by size is hardly going to produce anything remotely related to life. If you don’t like the word “disorder” use “mixed-upness”.
“Entropy is often said to mean disorder, but in some ways the word ‘mixed-upness’ (Willard Gibbs’s coining) fits better.” — Richard Dawkins
The National Center for Science Education endorses it, as does many universites (on their sites on biology), and biologists. What’s not credible about it? That it disagrees with your point of view? Well you are welcome to voice your concern to them. They will listen if you can provide suitable evidence.
Only a perverse moron would assert that a site that specifically cites actual peer-reviewed science has any problems with its credibility.
Oh, and you misspelled “citing”. Are you also dyslexic, by any chance?
It’s a specific example of a more general case.
“Mixed-upness” is specifically a reference to the concept of a thermodynamic tendency to an equilibrium state. Once again, you don’t understand what entropy means.
Apropos, the latest Scientific American has an article that specifically addresses thermodynamics and entropy.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-nature-breaks-the-second-law
The National Center for Science Education !? That sounds offical. Their mission is to defend the teaching of evolution. Who cares if they endorse it.
You might try sighting a reference
what, with a telescope?
you did say you went to college, right?
Said the moron.
Because, hey, actual scientists who actually do science, and publish actual evidence-based falsifiable science in actual peer-reviewed science journals… have no scientific credibility.
That sounds offical
sounds what now?
Ichthyic,
You want to pick and spelling and grammar issues because that’s all you’re capable of.
You want to pick and spelling and grammar issues because that’s all you’re capable of.
LOL
no, It’s because it’s the only thing left of interest to pick on you for.
you’ve repeated your inanities so many times now there is really little left to do but laugh at you, as you continue to claim authority and education on matters in which you obviously have none of either.
why not laugh at the fools hat, or the bells on his feet?
About 99% of the scientific population.
CAPTAIN STRAAWWWWWWMMMMMMMAAAAANNNNNNNNN!!!
Randy. I’m interested what the intention of your comment on my thread at my blog about my dog was?
CAPTAIN STRAAWWWWWWMMMMMMMAAAAANNNNNNNNN!!!
regressive geek moment…
Is that a play on Captain Caveman?
:P
That’s what i got out of it.
Indeed.
so long as we’re all on the same page, then.
;)
I don’t think Randy is ever going to be on the same page. Whenever he seems to be making progress to the same page, he thinks it’s a “choose your own adventure” book and flips back to the page that doesn’t violate Shannon Uncertainty.
Rev.
I was expressing condolences in my own way. Occasionally I look in the mirror and have the same thought.
I recently buried my mom’s dog in my back yard. She died the same way, but not before woofing down a couple of steaks.
…
Looks like this thread has degenerated to adolesent remarks and I am busy coding and don’t have time to proof read mine.
Stay tuned for a book review on my blog and pray that Obama wins.
The moral high ground is not yours for the taking.
Why can’t you give us a run down on how you think it happened? Why can’t you give us your brief history of time?
Ok. I wasn’t sure how to take it.
But thank you.
Looks like this thread has degenerated to adolesent remarks and I am busy coding and don’t have time to proof read mine.
you mean all we had to do to get rid of you was spout adolescent remarks?
damn, if only I had known.
oh wait, I did.
I wrote #149:
Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer #150 replied:
Ok. So the real issue for you isn’t minds, or morals, or the amazing and suspiciously fortuitous existence of human beings, but life itself (I’m working on the assumption that you think that a hypothetical universe with no life at all wouldn’t suggest or require the need for Intelligent Design — if I’m wrong, let me know.)
I’m trying to figure out where you think “energy” is added to the universe when life evolved. Consider life as we know it today. We are living, our cells are living — but the chemical that compose the cells are not, themselves, alive. The molecules are not alive. And yet, with every conception, life comes out of non-life. Constantly. With no outside energy added to the cosmic system. You yourself are life emerging from non-life — presumably without the activity of constant miracle.
Which suggests another question: are you a vitalist?
That is, do you believe in a Life Force, a form of energy special to life, which animates non-living matter (and presumably leaves when it dies)? Belief in Vitalism lies at the heart of a lot of alternative medicine therapies, like reiki or the form of acupuncture which manipulates the “chi.”
And if you’re NOT a vitalist, then how do you account for living things being made out of non-living components, with no added energy or life force?
Thanks.
Kel,
If I am going to write that much I’ll do it on my own blog. And like a lot of people, I am busy making a living. I also run my own business so I have the option of working any 60 hours a weeks I want.
If only I had the same resolve :P
I’ll gladly write out 6 or 7 paragraphs on a thread like this only for it to be lost in time a couple of days later. More people would read it than if it were put on my blog anyway :P
Lets see here. Any reputable scientist with a new breakthrough idea would write it up and send it off to one of the scientific journals. The idea is meaningless until published and communicated to the scientific community. If the idea is good, some fame may come of it, even up to a Nobel prize.
Compare this to what Randy is doing. Hinting at something on a blog. That tells me all I need to know about Randy’s idea.
Exactly. Even if the idea has some merit, fighting it out in the public arena is not going to do anything more than win over the ignorant masses. Any idea that has scientific merit will eventually win out over time, the evidence will just be too hard to ignore. But of course, credulity in the academic community is hard to get while in the public arena it’s easy. Anyone can say anything and there will be plenty of people who latch onto it.
If your idea has merit, you need to fight for it among those with intelligence, knowledge, and training in that field. This is the path all science takes, it’s a strong battle in order to maintain the status quo because that way the bad ideas are weeded out. If your idea has any merit Randy, then you should be able to fight for it in the academic arena. Writing blogposts about it is at best going to convince a few of the ignorant masses who take the time to understand what you have to say. It’s not going to make your idea any more credulous and no amount of popular support among non-scientists will make it any more scientific. You want to go against the scientific grain? You have to show scientists why it should be.
http://www.reuters.com/article/sarahPalin/idUSTRE49K9L320081021
did i say it was an 8 point lead?
my bad.
Closing paragraph of the Scientific America article:
Or is a physicist who is a published expert in thermodynamics just not credible?
Completely lacking in credibility, right?
Sheesh.
Sastra,
Generally speaking, I don’t concern myself with theology. I used to but I don’t think it’s important. I do concern myself with issues of peace and justice and most of my blog entries relate to that in some way. I not worried about you all being atheists. However, there are some things that I have read recently by activist atheists that would suggest that degrees shouldn’t be awarded to people of my persuasion. Some have, perhaps jokingly, suggested that maybe people like me shouldn’t be admitted to universities. That’s an issue of justice.
I also find it odd that some people here appear to dislike religious people and feel a need to ridicule them. That’s an issue of peace. Maybe they were harmed by one, who knows. Personally I think that growing up intellectually means that you don’t automatically presume that the people who disagree with you are idiots, liars, or otherwise disingenuous.
to be continued …
You don’t see why people ridicule the ignorant? If people want to believe, that’s their right. But I’m not going to hold back in mocking those who come up with incredulous nonsense; especially when they are trying to push their own ignorance on others. Why do we mock the religious? Because they are an anachronism in the scientific age, beacons of ignorance proudly displaying their lack of knowledge as if it were virtuous.
Note not all religious people do this, and there are many to be respected. But those who ignore the science, who ignore enlightenment, who place their bronze-age storybook as divine truth, they really set themselves up for mocking.
My theology is simple and I wouldn’t try to defend it intellectually. Nor do I think it is important to. But here is the short version of what I believe:
The universe was created by God and we are his children. God doesn’t want or need to be worshiped but would like for us play nicely together and to appreciate and respect creation. So when I am walking on the beach, hiking in the mountains, looking through a microscope, giving to the poor, or working for justice I am appreciating and respecting God’s creation. And yes I do think there is some kind of life force and that there is life after death.
In regard to the nature of the universe I would speculate that we humans experience a very small part of reality. Being a mathematician I lean toward the idea of string theory which strongly suggests that there are 11 dimensions to reality. We only experience four – three for space and one for time. Empiricism is the exploration of the dimensions of reality that we can perceive and there is much that we can’t know. Perhaps there is life in those other dimensions. Maybe we go there after death. Maybe God is there. Who can know?
Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer #193 wrote:
I assume that you’re referring to the suggestion that science degrees shouldn’t be given to Intelligent Design creationists. I think that the issue we see here isn’t ‘justice,’ but a concern for standards and consistency.
Keep in mind that scientists don’t just think ID is wrong — they classify it as pseudoscience. It’s wrong in a way that bespeaks a serious misunderstanding of not just the body of scientific understanding, but the process of science itself.
It might be like giving an astronomy degree to someone who thinks the universe is only a few thousand miles wide, or an anthropology degree to someone who thinks the cultures of ancient people were strongly influenced by space aliens. Or an engineering degree to someone who thinks the laws of thermodynamics are a ‘hoax.’ An art major? Sure. But to have them go on to practice in the field when they don’t understand the field at all? No. That’s only fair.
But what if they got all the answers right on the tests by answering against what they really believed? That’s tricky. There could be several conflicting issues of justice there.
Several things going on, I think. One is the belief that religion has been granted an unearned status in the culture, and ‘respect’ needs to be replaced with criticism, mockery, and even ridicule in order to bring the subject down to the level where it’s treated like any other kind of belief, and has to stand on its own merits.
Sometimes, as you suggest, people have a personal grudge, a history which makes it very hard to take this all academically.
And my guess is that a good part of it is the nature, not of religion or atheism, but of the internet. It’s a very free and open forum, and any area with controversy seems to foster the cyber equivalent of raucous pub arguments. I’ve seen people seething with furious invective and hurling gratuitous abuse at each other over esoteric subjects like, say, math. Or TV shows. It seems to come with the territory. Try not to take it too personally.
What, by the way, are your views on vitalism? Do you think life requires its own special form of energy or force?
Sastra,
I wouldn’t dispute that intelligent design is pseudo science; however, I would consider evolution to be at the same level because it is not subject to repeatable experiment and it’s contrary to the very observable phenomena of entropy.
I don’t think you have provided adequate justification for ridicule. It’s most frequently used by those who are uneducated, hurt, or have low self esteem. I try not to assume that someone that uses the tactic of ridicule is stupid but it’s hard not to. Having been a Christian and been subject to ridicule I can assure you it won’t accomplish what you think it might. I have drifted quite far from Christianity, and from a practical stand point there isn’t really much difference between a deist and an atheist. Looking back my journey began after watching Gandhi and discovering that there are exceptionally good people who are not Christians.
I have a M.S. in Applied Mathematics. It took me only one year to earn the degree at a university considered public ivy. I could have easily have gone on to get a PhD in Applied Math or Physics. If I havd decided to do that do you think I should have been denied the degree because I don’t think evolution is true?
My theology is simple and I wouldn’t try to defend it intellectually.
not just your theology.
..and your “defense” of all of it has been an egregious affront to actual knowledge and logic.
I have a M.S. in Applied Mathematics.
not worth the envelope it was sent in from the mail order house, apparently.
I don’t think you have provided adequate justification for ridicule. It’s most frequently used by those who are uneducated, hurt, or have low self esteem.
…they laughed at bozo the clown, too.
actually, yes, she has. …and not only Sastra, but everyone who has had anything to say on the subject since long before your arrival here.
frankly, I don’t see how you can’t get that nobody here takes you seriously.
that you’re nothing more than the jester in the courtyard.
I guess you think it somehow makes you stronger to suffer the slings and arrows, eh?
Since Sastra appears to be trying to house-break you, I suppose you should at least be thankful that someone is at least willing to string you along.
frankly I KNOW she’s wasting her time, but it’s her time to waste.
Speciation: OBSERVED
Mutation and adaptation: OBSERVED
Increase in information: OBSERVED
Natural Selection: OBSERVED
Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. Can you not see how genetic drift post a problem, and over a long enough period of time of genetic isolation can cause speciation?
Entropy and evolution?
Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer #197 wrote:
I think you’re missing the distinction between science and pseudoscience. The theory of evolution provides a testable model, generates experiments, and presents itself to the criticisms of scientific experts. It might be wrong — but even if it’s wrong, that won’t automatically make it pseudoscience. Pseudoscience seldom has an explanatory mechanism, and ignores experts in favor of persuading intelligent, science-oriented people who don’t have the relevant background in the particular area.
I wasn’t trying to justify it. I was trying to explain it.
Of course not. But I think you would have run into some serious conflicts — not just with the academic community, but internally, within yourself — if you had decided to pursue a PhD in Biology while also trying to deny that evolution happened.
I’m starting to wonder if your underlying problem with the theory of evolution isn’t really ‘entropy’ as such — it’s what happens with entropy when you add in a new life force or energy ‘from nowhere.’ It requires magic.
If so, this shifts your concerns into the area of physics, instead of biology. You might want to start looking then into what scientists say about Vitalism. If you’re assuming vitalism somewhere, this could be why you’re having trouble understanding why physicists and biologists can’t see that evolution violates entropy. Vitalism isn’t part of the theory. Or any current theory.
Maybe you should try not being a disingenuous lying idiot.
So? I suspect that many liberal theists, even those who are of specific denominations, believe something similar. That is, they accept that the scripture of their religion was written by mere fallible mortals, and that the “real” ineffable God is just out there somewhere being ineffable.
The problem is that whatever the formulation, it runs into the same problem as all postulations that there is a powerful knowing benevolent entity out there somewhere: Silence and ineffability are direct contradictions of the claimed traits of power, knowledge, and benevolence. You say that God is a parent; yet every example of good parenting out there never ever includes total neglect, which is exactly how a hypothetical eternally silent and ineffable entity would be treating us, even assuming it existed.
And as I keep pointing out to you theists, not only does this alleged ineffable God neglect us in general, it neglects us specifically when violent conflict arises over who God is and what God wants; a caring God could stop such conflicts with direct communication. Again, this contradicts even more so the alleged traits of power, knowledge, and benevolence.
If God, a powerful knowing benevolent entity, exists, then that entity would speak for itself.
That’s you being a disingenuous lying idiot, again. STOP DOING THAT.
Also: something you theistic evolution-denialists keep forgetting is that evolution is universal. If God is deliberately interfering to counter entropy itself so as to permit humans to evolve/have evolved, then God is performing the exact same deliberate interference for all of the microbes and parasites that attack humans and kill them, all in the service of their own reproduction.
God is good and God is great
God’s a big invertebrate
In this very thread, you have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate an utter ignorance of entropy as a fundamental physical principle. You’ve been corrected, and you’ve ignored the correction multiple times, with a few sneers that are utterly hypocritical given how you whine about being ridiculed.
You are being a disingenuous lying idiot, yet again. STOP DOING THAT.
That article you posted about Thermodynamics was great. Randy, what’s with you telling biologists and biochemists that physics is their shortcoming when almost all scientists don’t see it as a problem?
Randy, you should watch this. It would explain how a simple cell could develop, and oddly enough it involves the real application of thermodynamics :P
I haven’t answered every issue in this blog entry and I am too busy to provide good answers right now. When I have time I will address in my blog (1) the talk origins discussion of entropy, (2) the stupid youtube video Kel wanted me to watch, and (3) the article from Scientific American. No worries for me.
Stupid?
Currently, there is a campaign by the Coalition for the Support of Public Schools in Bryan and College Station, TX, to collect signatures [and funds] to place a signed advertisement using the text –with permission– of the 21st CSC petition. College Station, as you prob’ly know, is the home of Texas A&M and Texas SBOE pinhead-in-chief, Don McLeroy.
I emailed PZ about the campaign yesterday. In the meantime, you can read more about it at:
http://philebus.tamu.edu/CSPS/csps.html
I started writing a blogpost to counter your “shannon entropy”, then after about halfway through I just couldn’t think of any reason how anyone who understands evolution could think it a problem. It’s just absurd to apply it to evolution.
Mr Stimpson, can you please explain how Shannon Entropy prevents evolution? I really can’t see where you are coming from.
Are you there Mr Stimpson?
Maybe Mr. Stimpson is working on his paper for Nature.
I really did try to see how he could think that it would pose a problem for evolution, but the more I read into it and the more I thought about it, the less I could see where he is coming from. It would be nice to get some clarification to see where he is coming from, because it seems that either he has a profound misunderstanding of evolution or I have a profound misunderstanding of where he is coming from. Since I’m in a charitible mood, I’ll chalk it down to my own misunderstanding of what Mr Stimpson is arguing for and give him the chance to explain himself.
Randy, can you please answer what information entropy has to do with evolution? I’ve really tried seeing it from your perspective, I just don’t know what you are on about.