Tuesday, August 02, 2005

More Deception From ID Proponents

This makes me want to vomit. I'm going to be very brief, and quite blunt.

According to Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Dr. Paul Nelson, "There are serious scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory, and people want to know why students aren't learning about them."

This statement is ridiculous. Students are learning to think critically about evolution. That evolution occured is a fact. There are absolutely no scientific "criticsms" that hold water disputing the fact evolution occured, only theological propaganda. However, I do recall learning the different models as to how evolution occured in my freshman biology class at the University of Nebraska. So Doctor Paul's statement is an assinine rejection of the fact evolution occured (not a more than reasonable request to criticize the mechanics of how) and a complete ignorance of even introductory biology texts.

"Those who dare question modern evolutionary theory are often portrayed as creationist simpletons with only tired, religious criticisms to offer," says Lewis Young, conference organizer.

Sounds about right. Bring the science and I'll change my mind. We've been waiting for scientific evidence that shows your "theory". Saying "ID did it" is the same as saying "Goddidit", which proves nothing. Didn't your magical friend create you in His Almighty image? Don't you want to know how goddidit??

"We're going to bury those old stereotypes by showcasing prominent scientists and scholars who find Darwinian evolution unconvincing."

Not bloody likely. But think about this: if I was able to convince a "prominent scientist", by any means necessary be it a bribe or a brain-washing religion, to say that Invisible Pink Unicorns live in my butt, would you believe it? Probably not. Frankly speaking, even if James Randi, Emperor of all Skeptics came out and said that Hobbits live among us, we'd all ask for proof right? WHY DOES THIS NOT APPLY TO ID??? Where do you draw the line as to where unprovable nonsense and ID lie? In this case, I don't care if you have 76 PhDs and a Sword of Smite-All + 16, unless you have the evidence, you can never destroy me!!

Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe will take attendees into the molecular realm and explain how the "irreducible complexity" of many cellular systems poses an obstacle for the power of natural selection to create such systems, Darwin's other major claim.

Two things wrong with the above statement. One, Behe's theroy is not based in science, only philosophy. It has been debunked so many times that only a great fool would take this as proof of a designer. Two, I'm tired of being called a "Darwinist" for not buying into religious nonsense. Don't you assholes think there has been advances in the field in the past 150 years?? Probably not, as the only advance Cretinism and ID have made is taking the word "God" out and replacing it with "designer". (Actually, I'm being unfair. They have also mightily advanced their perceived foolishness with their convoluted nonsense.) Calling a non-ignoramus a "Darwinist" for validating evolution is like calling a NASA rocket scientist a "Goddardist", a physicist an "Archimedian", or Doc Orac a "Hippocratian".

And finally, Dr. John Angus Campbell, a noted rhetorician of science, will explain how Darwinian evolution should be taught in contemporary, pluralistic American society.

I can only imagine how this will go, but I think P.Z Meyers at Pharyngula has an idea.

What drives me nuts folks is that these "prominent scientists" have less a grasp on scientific method than a lowly, uneducated Rockstar. Bring on the science!

9 comments:

Glintir said...

Funny as always Rockstar. And I've taken to calling anyone who doesn't understand what a theory is, but still believes in gravity a Newtonian.

Oh.. one other thing. Gamer Geek! Gamer Geek! Nonny nonny nee nee. Sword of Smite-all +16. You're a gamer geek. Pbbbbbt. And don't bother arguing, I have a Cloak of Greater Irascibility and a Helm of Infinite Implacability.

-Shawn

Rockstar Ryan said...

Thanks Shawn. Like a pirate ship wheel in my pants, it drives me nuts when these IDiots use the term "Darwinist".

Anonymous said...

It's true. I have not read a single argument by THE Rockstar that was not well thought out and logically pure. Congrats. I myself am a religious ID simpleton. Why? Because I need to believe in something higher than me. Every law we have in modern times is based on religious principles. You can't dispute that. Just for instance, why is adultery wrong? Well, what is adultery? It is sex outside your marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. It always has been. Religion is a fools resort, a desperate attempt to justify existence based on a higher authority. Right? So adultery isn't wrong. What about lying? What about stealing? What about murder? All of these are laws that rose from religion. In the Middle East, the laws are different, so it is not morally wrong to kill an adulterous woman. If we are simply animals descended from apes, what makes it wrong for me to hunt you down and kill you? Lol. The reponse to that one is usually "ummmm..." But I know you won't disappoint me. I bow to the Rockstar.

Bronze Dog said...

I myself am a religious ID simpleton. Why? Because I need to believe in something higher than me.

Why?

Every law we have in modern times is based on religious principles. You can't dispute that. Just for instance, why is adultery wrong? Well, what is adultery? It is sex outside your marriage. Marriage is a religious institution.

Marriage wasn't always religious. It was, and often still is, economic and political.

Religion is a fools resort, a desperate attempt to justify existence based on a higher authority. Right?

Right.

So adultery isn't wrong.

Non-sequitur.

What about lying? What about stealing? What about murder? All of these are laws that rose from religion.

Those laws are inherent to society. It can't function if those laws are in place. Try reading something about Game Theory, too.

If we are simply animals descended from apes, what makes it wrong for me to hunt you down and kill you?

That would require a great deal more discussion, likely leading back to Game Theory. As for the "animals" thing, I have a rant about that. Arbitrary taxonomic labels have nothing to do with morality.

The reponse to that one is usually "ummmm..." But I know you won't disappoint me. I bow to the Rockstar.

See above, and I suspect you never listened to any responses.

Of course, religion doesn't resolve the question. It just passes the buck to an invisible man in the sky. Why bother with middlemen?

Bronze Dog said...

Typo correction and clarification: Society couldn't function if laws against lying, stealing, and murder weren't in place.

Also, a point anonymous completely neglected: Adultery usually involves a violaton of trust. That's why it's considered immoral. The sky daddy has nothing to do with it, except as a convenient argumentum ad baculum.

Anonymous said...

The sky daddy. Ok, I concede. You are definitely funny. Sky daddy. I'm keeping that one.

What do you mean, marriage wasn't always religious? It wasn't? An economical device? How the heck does marriage benefit evolution? Now, I think it would benefit evolution much more if a woman got pregnant as soon as she was old enough. But not just by one guy. That doesn't make sense, evolution-wise. She should sample a wide variety. And yet woman like that are known as 'sluts' or 'promiscuous' or the term 'sleeping around'. Where did those come from?

Oh yeah. The animals? We are mammals. We are predators. We spread fast, we cultivate other species for our benefit and amusement. What animal are we?

Bronze Dog said...

What do you mean, marriage wasn't always religious? It wasn't? An economical device?

Yes. What do you think all those dowries and inheritances were about?

How the heck does marriage benefit evolution?

We're a type of organism that produces few children and devote a lot of effort into raising those few. Having a commitment aids in raising those children.

Now, I think it would benefit evolution much more if a woman got pregnant as soon as she was old enough.

Why? Premature pregnancies tend to produce bad families that inhibit the offspring's ability to prosper.

But not just by one guy. That doesn't make sense, evolution-wise.

Maybe, but humans tend not to see things in terms of what would be "best" for the species in the long, long term.

And yet woman like that are known as 'sluts' or 'promiscuous' or the term 'sleeping around'. Where did those come from?

Natural variation. One of the driving mechanisms behind evolution.

Oh yeah. The animals? We are mammals. We are predators. We spread fast, we cultivate other species for our benefit and amusement. What animal are we?

Homo sapiens. What's your point?

Sanjay said...

All of these are laws that rose from religion In the Middle East,

Bronze Dog said...

That sounds like a rather extraordinary claim to me, especially since there were other unrelated civilizations around with the same necessary laws and restrictions.