More Recent Comments

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Darwin Doubters Want to Have their Cake and Eat it too

The phrase "to have your cake and eat it too" means that you can't have it both ways or "shouldn't try to have two incompatible things" [You can't have your cake and eat it].

The Intelligent Design Creationists are giving us a good example of just what this means. They have a new book coming out called "Darwin's Doubt." It's to be published by the religious arm of HarperCollins. The book will be available in a few months in the USA so the IDiots are ramping up the hype in preparation. We are told that this book, just like several previous books from the Discovery Institute, will definitively refute evolution and demonstrate the truth of Intelligent Design Creationism.

Here's how casey Luskin put it a few days ago [Three (or Four) Reasons Everyone Should Read Darwin's Doubt].
When published, Darwin's Doubt will be the single most up-to-date rebuttal to neo-Darwinian theory from the ID-paradigm. In this regard, one exciting element of Darwin's Doubt is that Meyer reviews much of the peer-reviewed research that's been published by the ID research community over the last few years, and highlights how ID proponents are doing relevant research answering key questions that show Darwinian evolution isn't up to the task of generating new functional information.
Here's how the strategy works. The IDiots are arguing the merits of Meyer's new book on the leading creationist blogs. They are generating lots of publicity and convincing their followers that the book is going to be a devastating rebuttal of "Darwinism." None of their followers have read the book but that doesn't matter. They won't have to.

How are scientist supposed to respond? None of us have read the book so we can't (yet) show that it is just more of the same old propaganda that we've seen before. What we can say is that we are very skeptical of the claims being made and we think it is disingenuous to promote those claims when we can't examine the "evidence." We can confidently speculate about what Stephen Meyer is going to say because he has a history and because he gives away some of his arguments in the publicity surrounding the book. The IDiots only sing one note and there's a very high probability that this isn't going to change.

That's exactly what Jerry Coyne said in his post: A (formerly) reputable publisher sells out to creationists. He puts it very nicely—and undoubtedly accurately— when he says, "But creationist Stephen Meyer, from the Discovery Institute, has apparently wrapped up the story. He’s hit upon the real reason for the Cambrian explosion: it’s intelligent design! Yes, baby Jesus made the phyla!"

Does anyone with an IQ over 50 think Coyne's prediction is wrong?

You know what's coming because we've seen it all before with the pre-publication hype for "The Myth of Junk DNA." "Science of Human Origins," and "Signature in the Cell." This time it's David Klinghoffer who is the designated whiner [Current Trends in Darwinian Book-Reviewing].
With a pub date of June 18, naturally no books are available. (Though you can preorder at a nice discount, for now, better than Amazon, over at Nevertheless, at Why Evolution Is True, University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne assumes he knows what will be in the book. His absurd summary: "Yes, baby Jesus made the phyla!"


Darwinists have a curious way of responding to serious scientific and intellectual challenges to their beliefs. And it's getting more curious, isn't it? It's sort of evolving. If they had answers to ID's challenges, surely they would wait till they read the book, then accurately characterize what it says, and then tell us why Steve Meyer is wrong. But so far, and wasting no time, they have signaled in this strange prophylactic manner their unwillingness to do so.
The solution is obvious to everyone but the IDiots. Don't make outlandish claims about what's in a book until it's published and everyone can check for themselves. It you speculate about what the book is going to say then don't be surprised if others do as well.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.


Unknown said...

This is all about money. Stephen Meyer & Discovery Institute are being paid handsomely to disguise creationism as science and take on evolution. They have no real scientific data to publish in top journals. So the next best thing to do is to write books. Since books are not subject to peer review, they can make as many foolish claims as they want. ID creationists are going to continue doing this as long as they receive funding for it.

Andre said...

Yes Vimal, just like priest Darwin did... no peer review just a book, and another one call Descent of man, a racist masterpiece.

steve oberski said...

Meyers is paid $150,000 per year as a board member of the Discovery Institute so any book sales are just gravy.

I don't think the DI would care if they didn't sell a single copy of the book, they will make their money by convincing IDiots (and idiots) like Gross and Byers (although I'm not sure Byers knows how to read) that they are doing real science, who will continue to fund them.

Andre said...

I did not know feeding the poor funds the DI... Thanks for the heads up Steve!

Unknown said...

There was no peer review during Darwin's time. But the 'Origin of Species' was written based on Darwin's own observations & studies which he has detailed in the book. Most importantly, Darwin's observations & the resulting theory have withstood scientific scrutiny for over 150 years. It has been supported by innumerable peer reviewed publications during those 150 years. Compare that with the reception for ID books and you'll see the gulf between the two.

Diogenes said...

Since you oppose racism so strongly, that you call DoM a "a racist masterpiece" because it had ~2 racist sentences, then I am sure you will oppose the racism of creationists even more strongly. To help you with your noble cause, there is a discussion right now about the racism of creationists going on at Answer in Genesis' Facebook page, of all places (Jeff Bollinger's post).

Here is your big chance to learn about how all the founders of anti-evolution were racist-- it will help you with your crusade. Since you care so much. We know you do.

Bill said...

"If they had answers to ID's challenges, surely they would wait till they read the book, then accurately characterize what it says, and then tell us why Steve Meyer is wrong."

That's exactly what happened with Meyer's Previous Hopeless Monster, "Cigarette in the Cell," and it didn't make any difference. Meyer didn't address any of the technical challenges only to say they were quibbles while the rest of the Disco Tute clowns focused on "tone" and "civility." I predict Round 2 with his latest Hopeless Monster.

The Tute in recent years has been touting the peer-reviewed ID papers (none) and the ID research community (again, none) as if they exist outside of their own snake-for-brains minds.

The Tooters give the game away in their own hype which, apparently, they don't read themselves, namely - Evolution can't do it, therefore design. Poor old design, always the default, never the bride. And they have the temerity to call that the "positive case for design." Dream on, Tooters, but we are laughing AT you.

steve oberski said...

It depends on who you feed them to.

Robert Byers said...

Bob Dylan sang ONE can have ones cake and eat it too.
Who too believe?
This book is a addition to the modern revolution against a old wrong idea.
In retrospect it may be seen as a important chain in authors who led to unraveling a error.
Evolutionists probably are just the protagonists in the story.

Evolutionists should challenge the book on the issue of using mere biological data points to establish the origins of creatures . Its really nothing without the geological presumptions behind it.
Its not actually doing any biological scientific study at all.
However evolutionists make this mistake too!

Nullifidian said...

Its not actually doing any biological scientific study at all.

Yeah, we know that already. You could also eliminate the word "biological" and it would be an equally accurate description of all of Meyer's output.

Pedro A B Pereira said...

Do you think they'll send me a copy for free if I ask nicely?

Unknown said...

Darwin indoctrinates have little to say about Darwin's masterful "scientific" justification for the most extreme form of racist perversions. Ought really to kill of the Negros and the other apes and be done with it. Wonder why? SHHH! (Don't ask ... it will be better for all not to know the truth ... upsets the Darwinist esprit de corps...)

Nullifidian said...

Darwin indoctrinates have little to say about Darwin's masterful "scientific" justification for the most extreme form of racist perversions.

That's because we can't really be expected to comment on something that doesn't exist outside the imagination of creationist ideologues.

Ought really to kill of the Negros and the other apes and be done with it. Wonder why? SHHH! (Don't ask ... it will be better for all not to know the truth ... upsets the Darwinist esprit de corps...)

On the contrary, it seems that we never stop dealing with these misrepresentations. Believe me, I'd love to meet a creationist who has bothered to read Descent of Man instead of carefully selected out-of-context snippets and could intelligently discuss the science therein.

Rather than waste energy refuting this allegation for the thousandth time, I'll just direct you to the TalkOrigins Quote Mine Project.

steve oberski said...

Oh, I don't know, I think you could describe most of Meyer's output as "biological".

Piotr Gąsiorowski said...

Let's call it "biologic" (as in the Biologic Institute) for the sake of keeping different methodologies under different labels ;)

Anonymous said...

Of course Darwin was peer reviewed. Only back then the peer review happened at presentations to the royal society, and discussions within scientific circles. People with good scientific ideas were invited to present their work. Worthy ones were invited to be part of the society. Et cetera ...

Balt Orioles Fan said...

Interesting that his is typical liberal attack and cut down without any of their own theories what caused the Cambrian explosion. Remember Darwin koolaid drinkers, the theory goes that evolution takes place slowly over time not an explosion. So cut away all the attacks and smoke and offer a simple theory of your own what caused the Cambrian explosion instead of stupid statements like baby Jesus created the entities. Come on, scientific fingers rubbing chin explanations of your own? We're all waiting, Moron, er Moran.

Balt Orioles Fan said...

“In the origin of species, Darwin openly acknowledges important weaknesses in his theory and professed his own doubts about key aspects of it. Yet today’s public defenders of a Darwin-only science curriculum apparently do not want these, or any other scientific doubts about contemporary Darwinian theory, reported to students. This book addresses Darwin’s most significant doubt . . . and how a seemingly isolated anomaly that Darwin acknowledged almost in passing has grown to become illustrative of a fundamental problem for all of evolutionary biology.”

Charles Darwin knew that there was a significant event in the history of life that his theory did not explain. In what is known today as the "Cambrian explosion," 530 million years ago many animals suddenly appeared in the fossil record without apparent ancestors in earlier layers of rock. In Darwin’s Doubt Stephen C. Meyer tells the story of the mystery surrounding this explosion of animal life—a mystery that has intensified, not only because the expected ancestors of these animals have not been found, but also because scientists have learned more about what it takes to construct an animal.