Aww, the creationists are criticizing me. It would be so darned hurtful if they actually had valid complaints, but as usual, it’s all half-truths, misrepresentation, and selective quoting … and projection. It’s amusing how their complaints are more accurately reflected back at them.
Poor pathetic Michael Egnor is accusing Orac and me of lacking credibility and resorting to ad hominem in dealing with marketing master Pat Sullivan — he even quotes my criticism of Sullivan, in which I pointed out that he was wrong in substance and was misrepresenting Behe’s and Miller’s books. It isn’t ad hominem at all — it’s explaining how Sullivan’s understand of biology is exceptionally poor and that he doesn’t even seem to have read the source book he’s citing. I would think that the fact that IDists need to prop up demonstrably uninformed marketers to defend their ideas is rather damaging to their credibility.
The second attack is coming from wacky ol’ Vox Day who accuses me of cowardice for advocating that we don’t debate creationists. It’s a remarkably cowardly job on his part: he quotes the bit where I say that the ‘debate’ format is tactically poor and throws away the strengths of science, and then stops right were I start to make suggestions for actively engaging the public with substance and evidence and ideas. Is Day dishonest? Why, yes. But that kind of fraud and blatant twisting of words is Day’s specialty, right up there with his penchant for looney right-wing theocratic babble.
I hate to actually link to those clowns, but go ahead, read their screeds — you’ll see how far off base they both are. It’s a hoot.
I love how ol’ Voxy attempts to 1-up you by proclaiming his willingness to defend Austrian economic “theory” in public. If anything that’s a demonstration of your thesis. AE is the economic equivalent of creationism, and “debating” Austrian economists in front of a lay audience is likely to produce similar results to a “debate” against a creationist.
From the Vox Popoli article:
I’ve never heard any real scientists make any of these rebuttals, and I can’t imagine them doing so. I have, however, heard creationists talk repeatedly about the need for faith. So what, exactly, is the point being made here?
Both Egnor and “Vox Day” find it more convenient to debate what they *wish* their opponents had said rather than what they actually did say. Why pick a fight with PZ when PZ[Redacted] is so easier a target?
Did you see where PZ[Redacted] said, “Is Day …honest? Why, yes”? (It’s even more impressive when you elide the ellipsis, as the more vigorous quote-miners are wont to do.)
I don’t know how you manage to sleep at night with minds like those pitted against you, PZ, I really don’t.
Right, I’m off to bed.
Months ago I was directed to Pat Sullivan’s “blog” by an Orac post. As someone who cringes at people with no grasp of the sciences who insist on beshitting the Internet with input pertaining to topics of scientific interest, this was also the last time I needed to visit his site.
I hadn’t known you had blogged about him. Like the slightly more expansive Vox Day, he’s a self-aggrandizing nobody, a typical ME-ME-ME-LOOK-AT-ME! by-product of an age in which everyone with a Web site is (in their minds if not in reality) magically transformed into an authority, facts be damned. If your Sitemeter or Technorati stats are robust, it means you can claim to be smart and demand equal respect for your opinions, whatever that implies.
I just finished watching Michael Behe’s performance on C-SPAN Book TV; he was promoting his new book. I have to vent my frustration. He completely ignored all the refutations of his previous book, “Darwin’s Black Box”, and went on spouting his standard talking points. He actually used the “flagellum argument”. The event was held at the Discovery Institute. And during the Q&A, a series of sycophants kissed his ass with really softball questions. It was pathetic. And I feel dirty having watched it.
Please, do keep linking. It has long been one of the hallmarks of the science vs. religion debate that reality-based community consistently links to its enemies, whereas the fantasists rarely respond in kind.
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
And if you link to the most pathetic examples you in effect do a kind of goggle bomb that puts the utterly ignorant, like Voxy, out there in on top of the goggle search results.
But the problem with continual linking, as we will no doubt find out later, is that Vox’s legion of idiots will soon infest the place.
I caught a little bit of the Behe charade — I saw Jason Rosenhouse ask a hard question, and then Behe just sailed blithely by it in his non-answer.
I’m not so sure they will. The very first time I linked to Vox a couple of years ago, my blog was infested by Vox sycophants. Back then, though, I was just, a I put it, an “itty-bitty” blogger whose traffic was minuscule compared to Vox’s, and the influx was disconcerting. These days, I’m averaging about the same or slightly greater traffic than Vox, and now when I link to him I hardly notice a blip from the Vox-philes. I don’t think the two necessarily have anything to do with each other, but it is an interesting observation.
The real reason that I think the Vox-ites no longer swarm to my blog when I link to Vox is because, quite frankly, I usually slam Vox for his horrible understanding of some scientific issue or another and his minions simply don’t know how to respond.
Either that, or I’ve picked up my own little stable of loonies and trolls to annoy the rest of my regular readers and don’t even notice a few more directed to me from Vox.
Orac,
Maybe it’s topic matter. I tend to frequent Pandagon a bit, and the Voxites go insane when (primarily) Amanda links over. Maybe that’s not so surprising, though, considering how absolutely misogyinist Vox and his acolytes are.
Insane is the word. The Voxites wither outside their little hothouse, so I don’t expect to see much of them.
Daniel Dennett is hardly the intellectual enemy of a person like PZ Myers; in fact, quite the opposite.
PZ Myers offers plenty of rebuttals to the garbage that creationists spew, so he certainly cannot be called ‘intellectually bankrupt’. If he doesn’t directly acknowledge em, that’s simply a refusal to feed the trolls. Dawkins does the same, and I do believe that if Dennett has had the experience of being trolled by people who are not interested in truth but merely in attempting to mislead the public about science, then he most likely agrees with the Dawkins/Myers approach.
Orac wrote:
I’ve only done one post on Vox, here, and not a single Voxite showed up. Vox himself wrote a post catching me in a real mistake, I missed how he invented a new word, “Sciencists,” I just thought his spelling sucked and he meant scientists, and still no Voxies. Just some guy asking about Steve Fuller for some reason I can not fathom.
I didn’t even know Vox had legion of idiots.
I wish I had a legion of idiots, loonies and trolls: “fly my little blue monkeys! Fly! Bring me the ruby slippers.”
The best short response to a debate challenge is to accept: as long as it is in writing. A written debate has a ton of advantages over a live spoken one:
1) Filibustering/Gish Galloping is impossible.
2) All points get their due attention, and lies can be exposed.
3) It draws a larger audience.
4) The audience has time to ponder the points made fully and can return as needed for a reread.
Of course, all of the above (except #3) are exactly what creationists are trying to avoid, which is why they insist on spoken debates in the first place.
I can’t be bothered to read more of Sullivan than was quoted by Egnor (and really, merely reading Egnor is sufficient risk to one’s blood pressure and neural net), and I find I have to agree with him (in a limited way). Yes, Darwinian (with or without the “neo-“) evolution is moderately hard to wrap your mind around — it goes against what are probably built-in biases in favour of perceiving agency and teleology. So Mr. Marketeer is correct on that score. However, he seems to confuse what is easy and intuitive with what is real. I suspect it’s an occupational mental hazard of a profession in which you have to believe your own BS to do your job effectively.
Do you suppose Egnor is squeaking in outrage over being called a creationist?
Know what’d be fun to watch? PZ posting a hearty rebuttal to Vox Day on Vox’s blog. Just one post. I think the internets would implode from the sheer number of inane responses.
I can’t tell-is this video being ironic and making fun of Vox or not?
Wow. Videogame designer. Libertarian. Fantasy Novelist. Obscure techno musician.
What a fucking prick. And he calls “intellectuals” ‘pussies’? And brags that in college, brilliant Vox Day made his teachers stutter with his brilliance?
He needs a beating.
I’ll be happy to oblige.
Vox Day exerts Divine Dominion over his blog. He’ll delete any such posts as quickly as he can.
Vox Day exerts Divine Dominion over his blog. He’ll delete any such posts as quickly as he can.
I’m sorry, PZ, but I think you snarled too readily at Mr. Day, although I also think a snarl is too mild for Vox. I teach statistics to undergrads, and over time I’ve found out some hard facts. First, rational thought is very hard work, and many people aren’t prepared for it. Second, most humans think deterministically. A major stumbling block for my students is the concept of probability, that life isn’t a straight line between cause and effect. Stuff happens. We’re not made familiar with probabilistic thinking patterns until we hit college, and then it may be too late to change. That’s what Mr. Day is pointing out. Science begins where common sense ends. If “everybody knows it”, we don’t need hypothesis testing and controlled experiments. Science exists partly to challenge overly simple, deterministic thought, but by so doing it puts itself in a position of ambiguity and cloudiness, so far as the average person can see it. Science gradually penetrates back into the daily life, of course. The germ theory of disease long ago supplanted the idea of humours even for high school dropouts.
Still, the world revealed by science actually is hard to understand. When I drive in congested rush-hour traffic, I know the stops and starts are caused by random events, but only because I’ve read it in the literature before observing it. Most people, even after they know of the shock effect, still crane their necks looking for a nonexistent accident. I know of chaos theory and see its results in the real world, even in mundane matters like weather. I know that whether I fall sick on any given day is not necessarily traceable to a single sick individual who sneezed at me the day before. But it’s taken me a long time to learn these things. Most people never do. And evolution requires such a background to fully understand it. The same people who will unquestioningly nod when workmen describe their air conditioners or automobile electronic controls will balk when told that the world isn’t designed. At least they know their machinery was designed once, and understood by their designers, so the world remains largely understandable. To ask them to make the intellectual leap that the universe is not understandable in that way is counter to intuition.
Science really is at a disadvantage here. Mr. Day is right. Understanding science requires at least a modicum of background and learning. Medieval nonsense does not, so it’s an easier sell.
Has no-one else come across the ad hominem fallacy fallacy? It seems pertinent here.
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
Actually, PZ, if you weren’t such a vicious little jerk to those who disagreed, you might actually have an impact for science.
Instead, you merely jack up your blog ratings.
Whatever.
(And I know you know what I mean buddy so don’t play coy.)
Hey Walking Joe, PZ isn’t a jerk to those who honestly disagree with him. He’s a jerk to those who lie for Jesus and know they’re lying, but do so anyway to sway the people uneducated on the subject.
Those people deserve to be called the scum they are.
Keep it up, PZ!
PZ[Redacted] writes:
… the creationists are … so … valid …, … as usual, it’s all … truth …
amusing … is … Orac … lacking credibility and resorting to ad hominem … criticism of … Behe’s and Miller’s books. It is … ad hominem …
Sullivan’s understanding of biology is exceptional…
You know, the PZ [Redacted] articles are even better than the original PZ ones! Can I get an RSS feed of them too?
Surely it’s possible for people to understand the basics of statistics? You can’t predict nor does anyone control which raindrop falls on you, but in a rainstorm, enough will so that you’ll get wet.
re #20:
I’m guessing that’s not intended to be funny, seeing as the ending promotes what sounds like an obvious right-wing nutball station, but the revelation that Vox was in Psykosonik is comedy gold. I happen to have one of their old albums… and it’s exactly what I think of when someone mentions “gay nightclub.” Especially when they try to sound “hard”.
Know what’d be fun to watch? PZ posting a hearty rebuttal to Vox Day on Vox’s blog. Just one post. I think the internets would implode from the sheer number of inane responses.
Well, I gave him a point by point rebuttal, but so far no invasion. Of course, it’s Sunday, they are probably all resting.
To catch new readers up to speed, could you start referring to Vox Day as (with the link) “Future Toddler Chopper Vox Day”? It makes a good point about how much stock one should put in his opinions.
Richard Dawkins has long refused to debate these clowns. In fact, he and S.J. Gould were writing a statement to that effect when Gould died. Their basic reasoning was that the creationists believe that to simply share a stage with a real scientist (the more prominent the better) gives them credibility. See Dawkins’s “a devil’s chaplain”.
I noticed John Derbyshire was on Day’s list of “Blogs of interest”. I emailed him to let him know Derbyshire considers creationists like himself to be nutjobs.
Not that it’ll do much good.
Science and religion can never meet. Whatever spin they may put on it, religion is deterministic, hence simplistic. That’s most obvious when a clown like Egnor spews his ignorance. Look at the number of entities he assumes, the hypothetical scenarios, analogies, he comes up with. It is all the mark of the religionist for whom the world is a simple place. Unfortunately for these nuts the world moved past them a while ago. That’s why Dawkins is a tenured prof at Oxford while Dembi is a crank quacking for a living at a diploma mill. It is fun to watch the likes of Dembi, Egnor, Behe, Wells etc., sputter with righteous indignation when scientists superciliously turn down their invitation to a debate. Of all the nuts Dembi is a little worse off than the rest, because he clearly has a problem working with women who don’t buy into his nonsense. Count the number of times he rails against Barbara Forrest and Genie Scott two women who time after time have torn up his pathetic rants to shreds. And have you noticed how quickly the DI notice board has changed colors. While Gonzo was filing self-righteous appeals at at ISU the board kept coming up irrelevant and immaterial evidence in support of Gonzo. Now that Gonzo has been finally shown the way out of ISU (did the Regents uphold the President’s decision?) the DI hacks have gone all quiet and are now parroting the half-wit ramblings of a business quack like Sullivan
grendelkhan wrote:
“Future Toddler Chopper, Vox Day” oh now I need a reason to use it on my blog. I like that even better than “Al Sharpton admits the Bible is a bunch of crap.”
Dear Mr. Egnor,
It seems you’re having trouble with the concept of ad hominem. Let me enlighten you by using Vox Day in my example:
“Who in the hell cares what someone who looks like Alan Cumming’s Macheath in Die Dreigroschenoper has to say?”
Maybe you could call him, after my post at #36, “Vox the Knife”. ;-)
#23 Tim,
“The common man is stupid and incapable of learning.”
It’s irrational exuberance like that that gets a fellow into trouble.
Well, he also thinks that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
I wrote:
I found an excuse:
Vox the Knife wants your Anti-Christian arguments
Ted: John Derbyshire? Oh, I think he needs to be “confirmed pedophile John Derbyshire” from here on out. If you don’t want to read through his reams of wanky prose, Pandagon pulled out the important bits for your perusal.
Norman Doering: Oh, thank you. I’m tickled, tickled, tickled pink. Also, “Vox the Knife” has an excellent ring to it.
Link doesn’t work.
Link doesn’t work.
Vox posted on the women-voting thing today, actually. See here.
Wow. I mean, just WOW. This Vox guy is absolutely the most hateful asswipe I have ever encountered. I’m normally a pretty even-keeled person but I really hope this piece of shit dies a horrible death. And I mean this in the nicest possible way. I must admit to being curious about who “all of those women” are who would agree with his opinion that women should not be allowed to vote. I’m sure they’re all too busy squeezing out babies and/or getting beaten by their husbands right now to post on Vox’s blog in support of him, though.
Hrm… How about my wife Wolfhound? She’s an MD… An anesthesiologist to be exact. Care to compare to diplomas with her?
She agrees that women shouldn’t vote.
That’s because she can read… and think. Something I suspect even a few of you good folks could do, if you could ever stifle your emotional outbursts enough.
Oh, silly me! People who “think” and “can read” agree that women shouldn’t vote. Perhaps you shouldn’t vote, either, since I assume you believe yourself to be capable of thinking and reading. BTW, there are more than a few IDists out there with doctorates. Possession of said sheepskin does not automatically convey good sense/judgment so forgive me if I’m not impressed with your argument from wifely authority. Perhaps a poll of other women with the required education to be entitled (in your eyes) to an opinion is in order. I wonder how many would agree with your rather sexist position? Not many, I’ll wager. Meantime, your wife is perfectly welcome to (not) exercise her right to (not) vote. More power to her. Or not.
The only valid grounds for 50%, or more, of a population not voting would be roughly summed up in the altered philosophical statement, “What if they held an election, but no one came?” I am sure, being someone that “reads” you can figure out what that is an altered version of, then again maybe not, you don’t sound terribly bright, beyond the fact that you seem to have the capacity to do what even parrots have proven capable of, and use language. And, just to be clear, the hypothetical question only works if **100%** of people don’t vote in protest, just as with the original question.
In any case, I think you need to take a damn good look at a lot of the BS shit men used to vote for *before* women advocated for that right, and where that would have *really* put us today, if we had been stupid enough to not declare denying them illegal. Whose next, black people and Asians?
Always just my luck that a real catch like Nate has already been snapped up…
Wolfhound, Vox apparently does have a significant other, who posts on his blog as “Spacebunny”. She claims that theology does not diverge from reliable science, that theory means the same thing as hypothesis, and other interesting things.
I’m not sure how she deals with Vox’s assertions that women are flighty, inherently incompetent and would set up a dictatorship if given the slightest opportunity. Maybe she consoles herself by saying that she’s not one of those women; maybe she’s convinced that she in fact is inherently lesser because she’s female. I really don’t know.
Sorry, we’re too busy voting.
-pr
Am I the only one who’s reminded of Ray Comfort here? All you need are eyes that can read and a mind that can think to see that women shouldn’t vote. Oh, and that God created bananas and, therefore, everything else.
Asserting that your position is obvious doesn’t make it so, though if you share Vox’s creationist position perhaps you don’t realize that magical thinking doesn’t work.
Apparently, Vox’s position that women shouldn’t vote is based on the fact that women are statistically more likely to favor big government. Seriously, that’s his argument. I don’t have the imagination to make up something that stupid.
Of course, he’s stupid enough to think that big government is always and everywhere an unmitigated evil in the first place, which only proves he is incapable of reading and comprehending a book on 20th century history.
Nate (#46):
So in other words: you respect your wife’s opinions sufficiently to expect the wider community to do the same, yet you argue that she should be deprived of the most fundamental mechanism for having her opinions respected by the wider community?
This is a clear contradiction. If you’re going to argue that such compartmentalisation of thought is valid, you’ll have to offer something better than the non sequitur cogito ergo non scisco (“I think, therefore I should not vote”).
I hate to say tu quoque, but it does have a nice ring to it.
It’s so very nice that “Spacebunny” the anesthesiologist was able to earn that diploma that Nate is so proud of. I wonder if Spacebunny would have been one of those who opposed women being granted the right to study at universities back in the 1800’s. After all, when you allow those weak-minded females to use their inferior brains they end up THINKING. Thinking about how unfair it is that they aren’t allowed to vote, perhaps.
Oddly enough, I am a women and am not in favor of big government. Does that mean that Vox and Nate would let me vote in their perfect world or is my supposed good sense negated by my conviction that religion is a bunch of bullshit?
Oh, look, here’s Vox fantasizing about breaking Katie Couric’s jaw, because that’s the reasonable response when someone is slapped. How Christian of him. The post is, cutely enough, entitled And then she voted.
Is it just me, or does he seem to really like the idea of hurting women? It’s not the first time he’s written rapturously about it.
Re: Vox, Women voters & Big government (too many to quote)…
Our problem with big government to date, is that it’s always been mishandled… by men!
I’m pretty certain, having seen how well most organizations run by women (not a large sampling I’m afraid) actually operate, that big government numerically dominated by women would be more consensual and less dogmatically hidebound (and would likely spend a lot less of ‘big shiny WMDs’)
Note: I said NUMERICALLY DOMINATED by women… so don’t come back with ‘female CEO runs amok’ stories!
The point I was refuting that only the uneducated believe that women shouldn’t vote.
Its simply not true.
To argue that women favor independence over security is to ignore basic pyschology and the whole of history.
Does anyone here know the demographics of Hitler’s electoral support?
How about his friends down in Italy? Anyone know the demographic base of support for the Fascist Party?
Anyone?
Sky’s blue. Water’s wet. Women vote themselves into comfortable well decorated cages… at least until the tyrants they elect decide to start forcibily breeding them.
I have a responsibility to think for myself and research the issues and candidates before I vote, same as any voter, male or female. I resent being designated as “female” in this aspect of my life. Yes, if I go to my doctor it does make a difference what my gender is. But to the voting booth? My gender doesn’t determine how I do my job or pay my taxes, read my newspaper or buy a car. It would be great when we treat all Americans as Americans first, not female, male, black, white, rich, poor, etc. There are times when it is important to distinguish, but it happens too often IMO.
Yes, you report, we decide, right?
Not like you were advocating your wife’s batshit-crazy position or anything like that. All you wanted to do is counter our narrow wrong assertion. Riiiight.
If all you wanted to demonstrate is that MDs can be spectacularly wrong about things outside their specialty, we’ll always have Egnor for that.
BTW, Nate–
Do you know the demographics of Hitler?
Insane is the word. The Voxites wither outside their little hothouse, so I don’t expect to see much of them.
Posted by: PZ Myers
What are you talking about? I offered to debate you on your own terms and you declined.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19426083.100-evolution-hacking-back-the-tree-of-life.html;jsessionid=DLGGABJKJPMO
No, you failed. His “own terms” were, in essence, to just post your damn propositions in the comments. You’ve shown yourself incapable of doing anything but sobbing over how mean and closed-minded people here are. Given that the one proposition you did advance was countered by not one, but two commenters, I don’t think you’ll have a problem getting responses. You’re welcome to start in any thread, but at least have the common courtesy to be honest: it’s you who has declined the debate. You’ve stipulated terms which you know won’t be accepted, and your only goal has been to acquire for yourself the status of having supposedly intimidated PZ into submission.
If you’re going to be that dishonest, why don’t you go back to your own blog and post about how you beat PZ and his hordes of helper ninjas to within an inch of their lives using only your pinky finger? It’ll have the same effect, it’ll be just as accurate, and you’ll save us all some time and effort.
Wow. Priceless. You can’t make up stuff like this! Well, she wouldn’t be the first one who got a little too, ah, involved in her work.
Personally, I think Republicans shouldn’t be able to vote. I mean – look! Just look! Sky’s blue, water’s wet, dude! Sharks gotta swim. Bats gotta fly! Am I right? Am I right?
Anyone know the stats on how many blogthreads collapse under the weight of Godwin?
No, you failed. His “own terms” were, in essence, to just post your damn propositions in the comments.
He made no such offer. Pay attention.
Close enough, though:
Post your argument for ID on one of your blogs the_P and send PZ an email.
If it’s worth commenting on, he will. He likes to poke holes and fun at lame arguments.
Close enough, though:
You don’t have to wait for me to find time to swap essays with you. You’ve got a blog, or you’re willing to create one, so just do it and put up a summary of your position.
Like I said he declined to debate, words have specific meanings.
If it’s worth commenting on, he will. He likes to poke holes and fun at lame arguments.
First you assume that he can, and if he can’t, no one would be the wiser.
Yes, “debate” has a specific meaning. Of course, the specificity vanishes when expedient: check out all the blogs and the comments that are claiming that my refusal to use a particularly poor form of public discussion means that scientists are cowards who refuse to engage the public altogether.
I’ll also point out that your version of “debate” seems to be especially vague and nebulous. You refuse to even state your opening premise or any supporting evidence. Give me a reason to engage you, something other than that you stamp your little foot and demand it. As it stands, I get a dozen letters every day insisting that the writer can disprove evolution, and every one is from a clueless nitwit with no understanding of the basics, and I just ignore them. You’re pretty much in the same boat with all the other caterwauling loons, so you have to do something to show you are different.
And if you won’t even make that effort, why should I bother?
As it stands, I get a dozen letters every day insisting that the writer can disprove evolution
and
You’re pretty much in the same boat with all the other caterwauling loons, so you have to do something to show you are different.
And if you won’t even make that effort, why should I bother?
Loons, that’s a good foot to start out with, is that your best foot forward? I do not intend to “disprove” evolution I intend to make a case for intelligent design and prove that it is not axiomatic if evolution is true, then there is no ID. Which you regularly imply. You are incorrect sir and I will prove it.
Uh huh.
Throw down the gauntlet with your “proof” smart guy.
Nothing you’ve said thus far as shown you to be less of a nit wit than the Kent Hovind fans.
Nothing you’ve said thus far as shown you to be less of a nit wit than the Kent Hovind fans.
Sorry, dont know Kent Hovind, never heard of him. I have indeed already proposed a mathamatical proof when I stated that “it is not axiomatic if evolution is true, then there is no ID”. I welcome anyone of you here to dispove it. “nit Wit” is not proof.
Steve: Maybe he left the proof in his other pants, or in Dick Cheney’s office along with the proof that Iraq has WMDs and that Saddam was involved with 9/11.
Sorry, Physicist, I’m actually what might qualify as one of your supporters here on Pharyngula, in that I think you generally post in good faith and have some willingness to accept new information and adjust your views accordingly. In this case, however, it seems you’ve already crossed the “Put Up or Shut Up” line. The terms have been clearly stated. So get to it, mister!
Ks
Thanks for the kind word, I believe you were typing during my last post, look up one comment.
Out to lunch….
Physicist, if you were to somehow disprove evolution (like all scientific theories, it is theoretically disprovable), it would have no bearing on the likelihood of your god claim being true whatsoever.
Just so you know, in case you think that by winning a debate you’d win a bunch of converts or shore up your own beliefs.
I think he’s saying he’s come up with a mathematical formula that shows evolution and ID can coexist.
I don’t get it. Evolution has shown that any “ID” is completely unnecessary.
The Physicist,
In his most recent comment, PZ makes one particularly good point with regard to your offer to debate:
“As it stands, I get a dozen letters every day insisting that the writer can disprove evolution…”
Though you do not intend to disprove evolution, you can see the problem: How can PZ decide which debate offer to take up? I don’t think it’s unfair to ask you to persuade him that a debate with you would be more fruitful than the many he receives from others.
—-
One more thing, The Physicist. I’ll volunteer to debate you. I may not be a biologist, but I am a trained debater and have easy access to research material in the sciences. We’ll have a third party start a fresh blog for us, so neither of us have administrator access (and therefore would be unable to modify each other’s posts or delete or otherwise modify visitor comments). We’ll agree to a format, the number of posts, time between posts, to what degree we participate in the comments section, as well as to the specific resolution for the debate. If this finds you well, we could get all the details ironed out and the blog page launched by the end of the day.
Micheal
It would be fine with me, as long as you understand I am not debating wheter evolution is true or not, even though I am a sceptic. What I was intending to debate is that Evolutionist err when they say there is no creator. And I am a Physicist, not a trained debator. Go for it, if you could find some one to administer it.
Oh, you’re off to a bad start already, Physicist.
Evolutionists do not claim there is no creator, they claim there is no need for a creator.
If this were Karate Champ, I’d have to give a half-point to Michael already.
Meanwhile, poor Nate’s special flavor of misogynist wingnuttery is failing to register in all the noise over the “debate”.
It’s a sad day when “women shouldn’t be allowed to vote” isn’t even the trolliest topic on the thread.
Evolutionists do not claim there is no creator, they claim there is no need for a creator.
This is absolutly incorrect, there has to have been a creator. Logic and the laws governing the physical universe demands it. I’ll save it for the debate.
Ouch. I almost did a spit take with my lunch.
That’s funny stuff P.
Kseniya:
(sings)
I gotta love one woman till I die. . . .
To Ed or Dick or Bob
She may be just a slob,
But to me, well,
She’s my girl. . . .
OK, OK, sorry.
As I mentioned, I understand that the topic of debate is not meant to be evidence for or against evolution. My understanding is that for the sake of the debate, you are postulating its truth as understood by modern biology. That is OK by me.
The resolution: “Evolutionists err when they say there is no creator” seems incomplete. Do they err because there IS a creator (making this a philosophical/religious debate), or because doing makes it harder to convince the general public (making this a debate about framing/rhetoric), or some other reason?
If Ksenyia was up for it, I would certainly not object if he/she played moderator/holder of the administrative password.
I don’t wish to sound unkind, but I think it is fair to ask that you not misspell my name.
I would add that Brownian does make the point that “Evolutionists do not claim there is no creator, they claim there is no need for a creator” is a more accurate statement than your first proposed resolution.
That said, there are some who insist no creator exists, some that say there is no need for a creator for evolution to occur, and some who are silent on the subject. Our resolution should reflect which evolutionists you are addressing, specifically.
I would also point out that the study of biological evolution is not relevant until after the existence of the first life form. If you intend to speak for the necessity of a creator beyond the realm of evolution, that also needs to be specifically laid out in the resolution.
The resolution is the boundary of our debate, and entering in the debate is an explicit agreement on both our parts that we don’t leave those boundaries. As such, and I think this is fair to both of us, it is necessary that the resolution is as clear as we can make it.
Why do I get the feeling that the whole argument of ‘The Physicist’ will consist of ‘you-can’t-explain-how-logic-and-the-laws-of-physics-came-about-so-god-must-exist’? Just once I’d like to see a creationist argue from the position of positive evidence. This false dichotomy thing gets more boring every day.
Michael
Every Evolutionist “I know” is an atheist. The Boundrys are simple, that I intend to make a case for a creator with more factual evidence than there is for evolution. As I said I am a sceptic about evolution, but it matters not to me if life has periods of spontanious generation caused by enviromental factors. But my debate is these things Had to be cause by a creator. That is the boundrys in which I will stay, but I will use science and logic to to make my case.
Randy Tyson
Wrong, and I will not respond to any more outragous speculations.
Posted by: Randy Tyson | July 9, 2007 02:10 PM
Wrong, and will not respond to any more outragous speculation.
Not gonna happen.
Plus you need a spellchecker…
Look a “Physicist” is going to prove that the universe is IMPOSSIBLE without a creator!
I’m bored again.
Ooooo! The suspense!
My eyes are beginning to hurt from rolling them too much.
Physicist, if you reread my comment, you’ll see that I was not making a claim about the universe, but a claim about a group of people’s claims about the universe. You’re of course, free to debate the claim about the universe, but my claim about evolutionists’ claims about the universe is correct.
If this is level of intellectual rigour that you’re going to display in the debate, I’m afraid you won’t be demonstrating much of anything to anybody other than poor spelling and grammar skills.
Finally, by your own claim, if logic demands a creator for the universe, then logic demands a creator for the creator of the universe, and a creator for the creator for the creator of the universe, and so on ad infinitum. Is this seriously what you’re going to propose?
“Every Evolutionist “I know” is an atheist.”
The majority of evolutionists I know are not atheists. When you say “Evolutionist” I interpret you to mean “any person who believes that evolution correctly explains the diversity of life on this planet.” Do you mean something different?
“The Boundrys (sic) are simple, that I intend to make a case for a creator with more factual evidence than there is for evolution.”
Boundaries and intent are not the same thing. We will absolutely craft the resolution around your intent, but a resolution needs to express:
1. Exactly what is sought to be proven.
2. Exactly what areas are on- and off- topic.
3. Distinct areas of rebuttal.
From what you have written, the following resolution would be one that I would agree to:
“Empirical evidence demonstrates that the existence of a Creator better explains the diversity of life on planet Earth than the theory of evolution as understood by modern science.”
If this resolution is not agreeable to you, please feel free to amend it as you see fit, and we’ll come to an agreement soon enough.
Regardless of what we eventually settle upon, I would ask that our first set of posts be for an explicit definition of terms. In particular, a fruitful debate requires that we precisely define what we mean by “the existence of a Creator” and, more specifically, “a Creator.”
Michael
1) I do not intend to engage or read all the comments.
2) I sugest a 3 day reply window
3) The subject matter is Intelligent design
4) I intend to use a spell checker as not to offend the grammtical police.
5) Your turn.
“Empirical evidence demonstrates that the existence of a Creator better explains the diversity of life on planet Earth than the theory of evolution as understood by modern science.”
Close, I intend to prove the need for a creator for evolution or the diversity of life to exist. And that it is axiomatic that a creator exists, and it is not neccesarily so for evolution.
Creator = GOD
Why not Dragons?
Dragons are SOOOO much cooler than god.
To your 1), that makes a good deal of sense. The point is the debate, in any case, and not the comments.
To your 2), I would ask, at least at first, for a 5 day window. I’m about to travel to visit family and celebrate a grandmother’s 90th birthday, and then soon after travel for business. I’ll have my laptop the whole time, but I’d like the extra time window since my schedule on both trips is up in the air.
To your 3), please define Intelligent Design. In any case, I insist that we adopt a carefully worded resolution for our debate. You have yet to comment on either of the resolutions I have proposed.
To your 4), I’m a grammar fiend, and it’s as much a character flaw as it is a talent. Criticism of grammar is obviously off topic, so don’t worry about that. To me, I think that’s only good etiquette. Like I said, I’m weird.
I’d suggest treating “Physicist” like the troll he is, an incompetent buffoon who has related no substance whatsoever, and wishes a “debate” simply to fob off a bunch of old recycled bullshit metaphysics. If he had anything to say to the science of evolution he’d have said it already, instead of bragging about his BS in physics (which is not very impressive, even if true–and why would anyone believe anyone as obviously intellectually dishonest as he?) and making a slew of empty boasts.
Stylistically he’s different from JAD, substantively he’s not. He’s the perfect example of a useless and stupid bigot not worth responding to, for he has essentially no learning in biology, and clearly no interest in learning (or he’d go off and learn about evolution instead of threatening with a bunch of derivative creationist stupidity). He’s exactly the kind of uneducated and stupid troll who should be ignored rather than engaged.
Glen D
http://geocities.com/interelectromagnetic
“Close, I intend to prove the need for a creator for evolution or the diversity of life to exist. And that it is axiomatic that a creator exists, and it is not neccesarily so for evolution.
Creator = GOD”
Two points; tack them my previous post as 5′, and 6′.
5′: You continue to be unclear on what areas are being covered. Is this a question of physics, chemistry, biology, philosophy, something else, or everything? Adopt a specific resolution, drafted in the style that I have done for you so far, that you intend to defend; we’ll go from there.
6′: We started with a word, Creator, that could mean almost anything, and while you’ve clarified that you intend to argue for a SPECIFIC creator, namely “GOD”, but we’re still left with a word that can mean almost anything, and are therefore no farther along. What do you mean by Creator/GOD?
Doesn’t the DI specifically avoid naming the “designer”. And don’t they tend to try to stick to biology with their lame attempts at discounting evolution.
Sounds like the P isn’t even going there… so actaully his arguments have nothing to do with ID arguments.
His are either abiogenesis or big bang/first cause arguments. Both have little to do with biology.
But damn it’ll be funny to watch him prove god exists with a math equation.
5′: You continue to be unclear on what areas are being covered. Is this a question of physics, chemistry, biology, philosophy, something else, or everything? Adopt a specific resolution, drafted in the style that I have done for you so far, that you intend to defend; we’ll go from there.
6′: We started with a word, Creator, that could mean almost anything, and while you’ve clarified that you intend to argue for a SPECIFIC creator, namely “GOD”, but we’re still left with a word that can mean almost anything, and are therefore no farther along. What do you mean by Creator/GOD?
5) Physics, Math and Philsophy in that order of importance. Biology is pretty much irellevent to my claim. But you are free to use it if you like.
6) God, an omnipotent being that trancends the 3 dimensional realm.
The God of the Bible, if that is what you are trying to get me to say. And if you like we can discuss the Bible. in context with the claim.
The God of the Bible, if that is what you are trying to get me to say. And if you like we can discuss the Bible. in context with the claim.
Glen Davidson wrote:
That should be “a perfect example” not “the perfect example.” Do you know how many perfect examples we have to choose from?
We have, for example, Orson Scott Card and there’s a couple more like ’em posting over on Dawkins’ site and they’re easy to find on Panda’s Thumb. Are you trying to make The Physicist feel like he’s special and unique? He’s not.
So, Physicist, you’re going to demonstrate that the laws of the universe require not only a creator, but an omnipotent and metaphysical one as well? That’s a tall order.
BTW, there are at least four that we exist in. I thought you were a physicist.
BTW, there are at least four that we exist in. I thought you were a physicist.
I don’t have time for the fourth.
“5) Physics, Math and Philsophy (sic) in that order of importance. Biology is pretty much irellevent (sic) to my claim. But you are free to use it if you like.”
No, no I’m not! That’s the point. The rules apply to both of us equally, and I’m trying to pin it down so we can do this right. Look, if you’re not interested in a “debate” and would rather have an “argument” or a “discussion,” then say so. But if it’s going to be a debate, I insist on doing this right.
“6) God, an omnipotent being that trancends (sic) the 3 dimensional realm.”
Still vague, but I have a better sense of what you mean. I would expect, however, that your first post would include a better fleshing out of this being. Failing to do so would be unfair to me, since I would be arguing the contrary position, and you would hardly want me to define God for you.
For example, what does it mean to transcend the 3 dimensional realm? How does this being interact with the 3 dimensional realm? How does the 3 dimensional realm interact with this transcendent being? Where does this being come from? What precisely do you mean by omnipotent (this is a more complicated question than it may at first seem)?
“The God of the Bible, if that is what you are trying to get me to say. And if you like we can discuss the Bible. in context with the claim.”
I’m not trying to “get” you to say anything. I’m not trying to trick you. I simply insist on clear definitions of important terms. Without that, we too easily could end up talking about completely different things, leading to an unfruitful debate.
I’ll only discuss the Bible if you insist to bring it into the debate, but I don’t think that’s either necessary or appropriate. If you cannot define God or determine his/her/its/their attributes without recourse to the Bible, please say so now.
Michael
5 Day Window – Agreed.
How can I define the God without the Bible it is the historical evidence of his very essence. The Bible is the second person in a triune God.
He’s already used the “natural world does not apply”, as in 3 dimensions, to my god statement. From there he claim anything… evidence is unnecessary.
If the Physicist means the Abrahamic god, then he should say so or he is being dishonest.
If he does not mean the Abrahamic god, then he must justify any characteristic of this ‘god’ he invokes. For example, if he says the universe must have been created by an omnipotent god, he must then demonstrate why this god must be omnipotent (rather than just having the ability to create universes). If this god must also ‘transcend’ the (at least four) dimensions of spacetime, he must then demonstrate why. In other words, you gotta define this god from scratch. If you wanna take the easy way out and say that this god is essentially the same as the Abrahamic god, then don’t waffle.
This is what you are going to need to do, Physicist. Frankly, I’ll put down money that you’re not up to the task, but it’s your call, of course.
There we go. Physicist is going to demonstrate why the existence of the universe requires the god of the bible to exist, and not, say, Gitche Manitou.
The bible is a person? Evidence of essence?
You should just quit now. Actually, please just stop until you post your “evidence” on the 3rd party blog where it can be easily ignored.
Brownian, you must think little of me if you go and make my objections for me. :P And to his credit, he has specifically referenced who he claims “God” to be.
The Physicist,
“How can I define the God without the Bible it is the historical evidence of his very essence. The Bible is the second person in a triune God.”
Many a person throughout history have claimed that the being they call God is knowable without recourse to the Bible, and that such outside knowledge only confirms what is said in the Bible. It is not preposterous that you might be one of those people, given that your stated topics of interest were Physics, Math, and Philosophy. I assumed that the absence of Theology and The Bible were intentional on your part.
Additionally, if the Bible is the second person in a triune God, then using the Bible to define God is a tautology. God is God is not a definition that offers any information.
Again, I must urge you to suggest a resolution that fits what you want to argue, as I feel you are moving away from the original debate you proposed to PZ.
BTW, there are at least four that we exist in. I thought you were a physicist.
Actually there are six dimensions described in pathagoreom form. a^2+b^2+c^2-tn^2-tp^2-tf^2= any time or place in space time
a,b,c = three dimensional space
tn = now
tp = past
tf= future
The Physicist,
Brownian seems to have crystallized your desired areas quite nicely, so I suggest the following resolution:
“By recourse only to Physics, Mathematics, and Logic, the existence of the universe requires, as a prerequisite, the existence of the God described by Christian scripture, rather than any other God, gods, or no god at all.”
The Physiscist,
He did say at least four. Anyway, that’s off-topic; we’re running out of day to get this sorted out.
Agreed. And if you agree to those terms, might I suggest that this proposition be posted by the adminstator as the top Post. You can Namae the blog, don’t care, just no insults.
I’m about to start making a few insults. Instead of babbling incessantly about what you’re going to do in this ‘debate’, if you’d put one tenth of that effort into actually saying something substantive, we’d be almost done with it all.
Quit trolling with the nonstop nattering and get on with it. You are boring me acutely, and that’s the first step to finding yourself banned.
And don’t start whining.
Jewish scripture also,I assumed you meant the entire Bible, not just the new testament.
I’m through PZ, sorry for boring you. It’s all in Michaels hands now, it is all sorted out as far as I am concerned.
Michael go here for my email so I won’t bother PZ any more.
http://www.blogger.com/profile/11582607766228861518.
Ooops
Link don’t work go here and click on my profile.
http://cgb777orbust.blogspot.com/
After a bit of a spelling snafu, the blog site is up. PZ, we’re taking the carnage over there, sorry for the thread-jack.
http://topicaloctogon.blogspot.com
My irony meter just tipped me off.
Octagon. Oy.
Let’s try that again.
http://topicaloctagon.blogspot.com/
Physicist (I will not use the “The” because it is arrogant), are you saying you will argue that the Earth was created (by a super being) or the universe in general? If it is the latter then what about your “proof” about everything else? If the universe then what about life in general? Your argument needs to be much more specific.
Nate (#58): Women vote themselves into comfortable well decorated cages… at least until the tyrants they elect decide to start forcibily breeding them.
That’s funny, I thought anyone who points out the awfulness of well-decorated cages and forced breeding gets slammed by the social conservatives as a horrible anti-family feminist.
RamblinDude: Also, that Dennett and PZ wouldn’t be on the same side against creationists is ludicrous.
Errr… :-)
Kseniya,
We got it sorted out. I’m just a little sensitive to the many creationist sites that regularly delete substantive comments for having the audacity of not toeing the specific creationist line. I looked at your comments and thought you would be a good neutral 3rd party if it came to it.
(and the latter comment about spelling was meant for Physicist)
Hi Michael,
I was away from the thread for quite a few hours, but I’ve caught up, and can see that you’ve launched the debate on your Octagon page. Your faith in me is flattering and not entirely misplaced, but I do believe that any regular Pharyngulite would be a trustworthy moderator who’d allow the debate to proceed unmolested.
As for the spelling comment, I readily understood that it was addressed to The Physicist – but I had to grin over the inevitable manifestation of Hartman’s Law. ;-)
#45: I think another, more subtle reason for the animosity between “creationists” and those who study evolution is that certain authoritarian doctrines have more appeal to control freaks. It’s not surprising that creationism might appeal to those who like the idea that men are “supposed” to have dominion over women, animals, etc.; and that all living things are “supposed” to exist in a certain fixed way. Any deviations from the norm are seen as threats to this controlled order and labeled “bad”. An understanding of evolution, on the other hand, is more objective in that it does not pander to the inner child-ego. It acknowledges that variations can occur, change can take place, and that humans aren’t necessarily the center of the universe.
Ironically, religious mandate that everyone should reproduce may have contributed to less uniformity and greater variations within the human population. We have a wider variety of behavioral and temperament patterns than most other species occurring in nature, whose more uniform behaviors are the result of natural stabilizing forces.
If creationists believe that a more theocratic society is a good thing, all they have to do is visit countries like Afghanistan to see the effects of fundamentalism and cultural stasis (and what good it’s done for them). Maybe countries like that could be held up as examples of the Second Law of Thermodynamics from a cultural perspective.
Actually, octogon is the correct spelling. :-}
And please stop confusing spelling and grammar, everyone!
Actually, octogon is the correct spelling. :-}
And please stop confusing spelling and grammar, everyone!
My references tell me otherwise, re: octogon vs octagon.
FWIW, I always regarded spelling as a subset of grammar; now that you mention it, though, I don’t know why I organized it in that way.