Charles Darwin died on April 19, 1882 and he was buried in Westminster Abbey on Wednesday, April 26, 1882.The IDiots have just realized that Darwin is dead. Tonight they will celebrate the event by presenting four discoveries that are not very well explained by Darwin's original theory of natural selection, published in 1859. (That's 151 years ago.) The "four nails" will be revealed at an event being held at Southern Methodist University.
I predict these "nails" are either gross misunderstandings of real science or discoveries that are explained by modern evolutionary theory. I'm pretty confident about this prediction since I know the reputation of the four hammers at the conference. They are ...
Douglas Axe, who thinks that the evolution of new protein folds is impossible.
Richard Sternberg, worries about what a gene is and about the relationship between genotype and phenotype.
Jonathan Wells, who's fond of making up elaborate tales about why evolution is wrong.
Stephen Meyer, who thinks that 2oth1 century biochemistry and molecular biology disprove evolution. I wonder if we're going to get any honest reporting on this event or whether journalists will rely entirely on DISCO press releases?
1. No, this is not a mistake. Meyer hasn't yet made it into this century. Neither have the other IDiots.
Hi Larry. Where are the IDers giving this presentation? Just at their home base, or another friendly campus?
ReplyDeleteThe presentation is to be at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX (7:00-9:30 tonight).
ReplyDeleteApparently they have "four new arguments against Darwin's theory" (bolding added). Which no doubt is why they're showing Darwin's Dilemma, which rehashes old creationist "arguments," most notably the Cambrian "explosion."
Here's my review of Signature in the Cell, if anyone wants to see a bit of the many things Stephen Meyer gets wrong.
Glen Davidson
the four hammers at the conference
ReplyDeletei.e. tools.
Bayesian Bouffant writes:
ReplyDeletei.e. tools.
And blunt ones at that.
Larry:
ReplyDeleteMay I ask why you refer to Doctors Axe, Sternberg, Wells and Meyer as, "IDiots?" Do the fully accredited universities of Cambridge, Caltech, Florida International, Binghamton and UC Berkeley award Doctorates of Philosophy to mentally retarded individuals? Why is it necessary for you to resort to ad hominem attacks on them rather than waiting to actually hear what they have to say?
Are you aware that the Discovery Institute is quite thorough in factually backing up what its Fellows assert—and it makes every effort to respond
to criticisms such as yours (even ones at your level of maturity)?
I have heard what their "nails" consist of and anyone with any modicum of appreciation for objectivity would do well to at least listen to them before lowering themselves to the level of puerility that you’ve done here.
jcc asks,
ReplyDeleteMay I ask why you refer to Doctors Axe, Sternberg, Wells and Meyer as, "IDiots?"
Because it takes too long to type "Intelligent Design Creationists."
Do the fully accredited universities of Cambridge, Caltech, Florida International, Binghamton and UC Berkeley award Doctorates of Philosophy to mentally retarded individuals?
Yes, apparently they do award advanced degrees to mental retards from time to time.
Are you aware that the Discovery Institute is quite thorough in factually backing up what its Fellows assert—and it makes every effort to respond
to criticisms such as yours (even ones at your level of maturity)?
No. I wasn't aware of that. Can you point me to the place where they've defended their insulting tactic of calling evolutionary biologists "Darwinists" and to where they've admitted that modern evolutionary theory has moved well beyond Darwin?
Can you give me a reference to one or more articles where they've apologized for dragging the name of Charles Darwin through the mud in an attempt to discredit modern 21st century evolutionary biology?
Can you cite the articles where they concede that irreducibly complex structures can arise by purely natural causes?
The IDiots are constantly insulting all evolutionary biologists by claiming that we don't understand the very basis of our life's work. These evolutionary biologists have degrees from very famous universities. Do you think those universities are in the habit of awarding Ph.D.'s to mental retards?
Larry said:
ReplyDeleteBecause it takes too long to type "Intelligent Design Creationists."
So, according to you, anyone with a different opinion than yours is, an "idiot." Well, that's real mature. Care to back that claim up with firsthand personal knowledge and/or experience with those individuals?
Yes, apparently they do award advanced degrees to mental retards from time to time.
Wow! Now that’s profound—not to mention, original… How old are you?
I notice that you failed to answer my second question of: why is it necessary for you to resort to ad hominem attacks on them rather than waiting to actually hear what they have to say? Wanna try again?
Can you point me to the place where they've defended their insulting tactic of calling evolutionary biologists "Darwinists"
Sure. Try here.
But why such a thin skin about being called a “Darwinist?” Is it not his original “theory?”—and don’t Darwinists themselves refer to it as “Darwin’s theory of evolution?” Do you get your panties in as big a wad if someone refers to you as a "Canuck?"
and to where they've admitted that modern evolutionary theory has moved well beyond Darwin?
Sorry, no can-do. Last I heard, the foundational tenet of “evolution/neo-Darwinism” is still “natural selection acting on random mutations.”
Can you give me a reference to one or more articles where they've apologized for dragging the name of Charles Darwin through the mud in an attempt to discredit modern 21st century evolutionary biology?
Sorry to disappoint again, but if discrediting an archaic, experimentally unverified “theory” by the objective use of the scientific method is, “dragging Darwin’s name through the mud,” then buddy, you gotta lot to learn about what constitutes genuine science vs. the worldview-first, claptrap, junk science you call “evolution.”
Can you cite the articles where they concede that irreducibly complex structures can arise by purely natural causes?
No, can you cite experimental data that demonstrates that they can?
The IDiots are constantly insulting all evolutionary biologists by claiming that we don't understand the very basis of our life's work.
Huh? Is it insulting, or simply daring to challenge the veracity of your work—not you personally? Jeeze. Man-up, dude. Only tiny people respond to professional criticism with such immaturity.
Do you think those universities are in the habit of awarding Ph.D.'s to mental retards?
Uh, no—you do.
So, now that I’ve answered all your questions, how ‘bout you answering the one of mine you ignored before?
Oh, and by the way, have you actually heard what their "4 Nails" counter-arguments are yet?
Hi Larry, sorry I couldn’t respond yesterday (had a long day at church). Sorry also to have to make two separate responses to your questions, but it seems your server can’t handle the length of fully articulated replies…
ReplyDeleteYes, apparently they do award advanced degrees to mental retards from time to time.
Wow! Now that’s profound—not to mention, original… How old are you?
I notice that you failed to answer my second question of: why is it necessary for you to resort to ad hominem attacks on them rather than waiting to actually hear what they have to say? Wanna try again?
Can you point me to the place where they've defended their insulting tactic of calling evolutionary biologists "Darwinists"
Sure. Try here.
But why such a thin skin about being called a “Darwinist?” Is it not his original “theory?”—and don’t Darwinists themselves refer to it as “Darwin’s theory of evolution?” Do you get your panties in as big a wad if someone refers to you as a "Canuck?"
and to where they've admitted that modern evolutionary theory has moved well beyond Darwin?
Sorry, no can-do. Last I heard, the foundational tenet of “evolution/neo-Darwinism” is still “natural selection acting on random mutations.”
Can you give me a reference to one or more articles where they've apologized for dragging the name of Charles Darwin through the mud in an attempt to discredit modern 21st century evolutionary biology?
If discrediting an archaic, experimentally unverified “theory” by the proper, objective use of the scientific method is, “dragging Darwin’s name through the mud,” then buddy, you gotta lot to learn about what constitutes genuine science vs. the worldview-first, claptrap, junk science you call “evolution.”
Hi Larry, here's the rest of my reply:
ReplyDeleteCan you cite the articles where they concede that irreducibly complex structures can arise by purely natural causes?
No, can you cite experimental data that demonstrates that they can?
The IDiots are constantly insulting all evolutionary biologists by claiming that we don't understand the very basis of our life's work.
Huh? Is it insulting, or simply daring to challenge the veracity of your work?—which is not insulting you personally. Geeze. Man-up dude. Only little people respond to professional criticism with such abject immaturity.
Do you think those universities are in the habit of awarding Ph.D.'s to mental retards?
Uh, no—that would be you.
So, now that I’ve answered all your questions, how ‘bout you answering the one of mine you ignored before?
Oh, and by the way, have you actually heard what their "4 Nails" counter-arguments are yet?
jcc asks,
ReplyDeleteI notice that you failed to answer my second question of: why is it necessary for you to resort to ad hominem attacks on them rather than waiting to actually hear what they have to say? Wanna try again?
I've been listening to their arguments, and actively refuting them, since 1989. I've heard what they have to say ...
... many times.
That's why I know they're IDiots.
Oh, and by the way, have you actually heard what their "4 Nails" counter-arguments are yet?
Sure. I've heard the most recent ones in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. I'll probably hear them again in 2011.
The IDiots aren't very original, they keep recycling the same old arguments and counter-arguments year after year after year. They didn't work the first time and repeating them doesn't make them any better.
It doesn't matter to them. There are plenty of gullible people out there (like you) who don't understand science. They'll believe anything as long as it's creationism. That's the audience the IDiots are aiming at. (They don't aim very high.)
Hope you had a good time in church yesterday. Sorry you were too busy to learn about science.
Keep trying.
So Larry, again you failed to answer my questions: can you cite experimental data that demonstrates that irreducibly complex structures can arise by purely natural causes?
ReplyDeleteI've been listening to their arguments, and actively refuting them, since 1989.
Really? Like with the junk-science pap you post over on Talk Origins?—That pseudo-scientific bilge has holes big enough to drive a truck through.
I've heard what they have to say ...
Ok, so can you humor me and just tell me what the titles of their 4 nails are?
That's why I know they're IDiots.
Hmmm, more ad hominem sans plausible scientific refutation.
The IDiots aren't very original
Uh, huh. Just like your use of that term…
There are plenty of gullible people out there (like you) who don't understand science.
Whoa! Now that’s original! Was that the best you could come up with?
Hope you had a good time in church yesterday.
Thanks, I did. I’m preparing to go over my class covering logic, the Anthropic Principle, and Teleology with the Senior Highers next month. It’s a blast blasting materialistic worldviews like yours out of the water.
Sorry you were too busy to learn about science.
Oh don’t be. I’ve done my time in the well—with a degree in the science of Geology and an advanced degree in Computer science you can’t insult me (though you might want to wipe that egg off your face).