« BACK | PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

“Chrissy Matthews — You Ignorant Slut!”

By: David Hinz (Diary) | May 11th, 2009 at 06:37 PM |

RESIZE: AAA

Chris Matthews, who earned his impartial bonafides as an acolyte of anti-Vietnam War activist Eugene McCarthy, as a speech writer for President Jimmy Carter and as an aid to Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, has attacked Conservatives as “anti-science” claiming, for all intents and purposes, that conservatives are ignorant hicks clinging to their guns and bibles.

To which, I can only say, “Chrissy, you ignorant slut!”

May I beg to differ with the king of tingly legs — the bard of partisan attack.

He attacked conservatives on three fronts: evolution, stem cell research, and global warming. His smug attack left no doubt that he felt himself on firm ground — after all, there is a consensus on all three subjects — a consensus reached by shouting down and ignoring any evidence that would throw into question the lack of evidence to support the theories.

Conservatives are not anti-science — we are anti pseudo-science! Whereas the internal combustion engine would have seemed as magic to a savage of the first century BC, so does the pseudo-science of global warming seem as magic to the savages of today. Except today, those ignorant savages are the ones in power, making decisions that affect the lives of every human on this planet. It is the Chris Matthews of this world, in their unquestioning awe and wonder of government intervention, that we need fear — not conservatives.

In his recent attack on Rep Mike Pence specifically and conservatives in general, Chrissy Matthews displayed his own ignorance of science — and the awe with which he holds pseudo-science.

Evolution

“Do you believe in evolution!” he demanded of Pence, in the manner of a prosecuting attorney questioning a hostile witness. Witlessly, Matthews equated the broad term “evolution” with science. My question for Matthews, should the subject ever come up again, would be, “What do you mean by ‘evolution,’ Chrissy?”

You see, there is a reason that it is called the “Theory of Evolution” Chrissy. The entire “theory” on which this pseudo-science is built is the work of Charles Darwin, a 19th century British naturalist. His book, “The Origin of Species” forms the basis of Evolutionary Theory as taught in schools today.

But that is the condensed version of his tome — that is used to prove this pseudo-science masquerading as science. The entire name of that book is “On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.” A better title for today’s teachings would be ‘Natural Selection” instead of “Evolution.”

Because, while Darwin’s work does a wonderful job of showing how certain species’ survival is dependent upon natural selection, the conclusion drawn from that theory, that somehow mankind emerged from a primordial goo into homo erectus and eventually modern man is entirely without evidence. Evolutionist point at fossil evidence that show all sorts of semi-humanoid creatures — but the missing link still remains missing.

When Chrissy makes the outlandish claim that many Christians believe that fossil evidence has been planted by liberals to promote evolution — thereby discrediting any Christian thought on the pseudo-science claiming to be science — one can only ask the question, “Huh?”

Unless, of course, Chrissy was talking about the apparent missing link found near the English village of Piltdown in 1912. For more than five decades that discovery was held up as proof of the theory of the descent of man from the great apes, but was proven to be a hoax in the mid-1950s.

Now at the micro-evolutionary level — the actual subject of that Darwin book — survival of the fittest actually does have impact on species. The classic example, the peppered moth of industrialized England, demonstrated that as soot and other industrial pollutants darkened the air, the darker spotted moths seemed to better survive the bird population — then as air pollution came under control, the lighter colored moths appeared to return.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Chrissy’s second attack on conservatives was Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Of course, he didn’t call it that. In the manner so common of the left, he simply called conservatives anti-stem cell research. In this blurring of science and pseudo-science so common on the left, the issue is boiled down to religious bigots attempting to prevent Christopher Reeves from ever walking again. The left, in blurring Embryonic Stem Cell Research with Adult and Cord Blood Stem Cell Research is engaged in offering hype instead of hope to the American people.

Science, not pseudo-science promises great hope for research into life-saving adult stem cell cures. Embryonic stem cell research, however, while offering a wonderful political hammer with which the left beats the right, has proven itself to be nothing but a dead end.

Bone marrow transplants, the implanting of adult stem cells from one person to another, have become the staple in fighting Leukemia. I know of nobody on the right with religious or any other convictions against the use of adult stem cells and cord blood cells in the interest of science. But it is the left, for some reason known only to themselves, who seem bent upon the destruction of life as a means to advance science. Is Dr Mengele so removed from memory as all that?

Global warming

If pseudo-science needed a poster child, Al Gore and Anthropogenic Global Warming, would perfectly fit the bill. What minute evidence Evolution and Embryonic Stem Cell Research might be able to muster, AGW is the scientific equivalent of the red-headed step child.

In the AGW debate, — which is not allowed, by the way, in the name of scientific consensus — are we to accept the offerings of the handful of political hacks at the IPCC who put together the 40 page “analysis” of climate change, or the thousands scientists who contributed the actual research. many of whom refute the political conclusions drawn? Don’t take my word for it:

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” — Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

When questioned about the questionable conclusions drawn, or the absolutely destructive cap-and-trade legislation proposed to ‘combat’ it, the answer from the left is “the debate is over — we have scientific consensus.”

I would venture to say, Chrissy, that your knowledge and understanding of AGW is on a par with your knowledge and understanding of embryonic stem cell research and the theory of evolution. Which is to say, you don’t understand pseudo-science, but it is that lack of understanding that convinces you that it must be correct.

Chrissy, that tingly feeling up your leg? It is your brain falling asleep — I suggest you stand up for a while!

Originally posted at The Minority Report

Tags: Chrissy Matthews, liberal attacks, liberal bias, pseudo-science

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

Achance
ntrepid

…and you put it to much better use than I ever could have. Excellent post.

Congratulations, you are the recipient of the second ever Ntrepid Recommendation.

Ntrepid
Proud Member for 4 Years and 8 Months
settingsun

First things first, I whole-heartedly agree that Chris Matthews is a tool and likely comically uninformed on each of the issues you highlighted.

The only concern I would raise is the characterization of Evolution as pseudo-science. I believe I understand that your calling into question only macro-evolution/speciation/common descent, etc.

Most of the evidence supporting common descent has been uncovered over the last couple decades most notably at the molecular level but also through the discovery of transitional fossils.

Common descent is the only current scientific explanation for the existence of vestigial anatomical and genetic traits (most famously vestigial tails in humans and hind limbs found in live whales and dolphins).

Macro-evolutionary theory allows us to form testable hypotheses. For example, University of Chicago researchers believed that based on their study of ancient fish dated to about 380 million years ago and tetrapods dated to about 365 million years ago that a transitional form would be found in strata that fell somewhere in that 15 million year gap. And after finding a location in Canada dating to that time and searching for five years, they found Tiktaalik.

Tiktaalik represents an intermediate form between fish and amphibians. Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, Tiktaalik’s ‘fins’ have basic wrist bones and simple fingers, showing that they were weight bearing.

On the molecular level, scientists could also hypothesize that if common descent was valid that there would still be molecular evidence of biological processes that were active for our ancestors but not active in humans. Just such an examination was done on the inability of humans to synthesize vitamin C.

The gene that allows for synthesizing vitamin C was found in humans (and our other closest primate relatives and guinea pigs) but the gene was not functioning. By comparison, this gene is functional for most other animals.

These are just a couple examples of the tested validity of macro-evolutionary theory.

As opposed to global warming, where AGW critics have a number of climatic, solar, and geological forces that they can cite to call into question the validity of man-made global warming, no such alternative scientific explanation exists to evolution to explain the diversity of life. There are certainly still many unanswered questions in biology and I understand that no amount of evidence will convince everyone, but I would respectfully observe that labeling macro-evolution as ?pseudo-science? is counter-productive to your larger argument.

McKinley

nt
DONTREADONME

why as conservatives do we have to discuss evolution. The argument is not, in my mind about the best theory we have to date, but rather the silencing of those that think otherwise. Nothing wrong with a physicist or engineer believing in ID, rather it may be a little different if a biologist; however, we must remember that a Roman Catholic Priest theorized the “Big Bang” which was verified by Hubble, I am sure that man believed in a Creator behind all things in the process.

Lastly, the was before it was is all I need to know something greater exists. That does not mean I have to give up evolution, that is until a better explanation exists. I can not wait for the fossil record to show the missing link.
Puritan

These debates are instructive, not because one side or the other is able to convince the other, but because it demonstrates something about the nature of the argument itself. Typically these discussions don’t go anywhere and actually end up with each side digging in and becoming even more entrenched in their position. There’s a very good reason for this which I will get to in a moment, but first I want to say something about science itself.

We make a mistake when we naively think that “science” as it has come to be known, is merely the discovery and establishment of objective facts. Thomas Kuhn demonstrates in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” that facts cannot be conceived of apart from the interpretation of those facts, or as the late theologian Cornelius Van Til put it, there is no such thing as a “brute” fact. The point is that scientists have their own usually unstated presuppositions (prejudices if you will) that acts as an interpretive grid. This interpretive grid (identified by Kuhn as scientific paradigm) governs how facts are interpreted and even what one accepts as fact. As such, it is difficult for younger scientists who propose a new paradigm to overturn the reigning scientific paradigm. The older generation of scientists will tenaciously defend the reigning paradigm because they have a great deal to lose if the paradigm is overturned (funding, reputation, etc.) Moreover, the existing paradigm is further entrenched because many of the newer scientists will be naturally drawn to it in order to secure reputation and funding. It is only when the anomalies that don’t quite fit the reigning paradigm become so apparent as to make the existing paradigm impossible to defend that a new paradigm can gain a foothold. Galileo’s fiercest opposition came from the scientists of the day.

By now you see where this is going with regard to the debate between evolution and creation. I mentioned earlier that the discussions typically do not go anywhere and both sides just become more entrenched in their positions. The reason for this is that each side is operating under a different paradigm, even if they don’t realize it. The interpretive grid that the majority of scientists are operating under is the theory of evolution itself. That’s the public face of the paradigm. There is also the unstated part, the unacknowledged religious and philosophical commitments. The creationist likewise has their religious and philosophical commitments, but in general these are in fact stated and out in the open. And there’s the rub. Science we are told is not supposed to be influenced by religious or philosophical commitments. But is it really neutral? Do you really think the likes of the late Stephen J. Gould are really as objective and disinterested as we have been led to believe? Gould himself in an apparently unguarded moment wrote in 1977: “The general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism [evolution] is a metaphysical stance embedded in the history of western cultures. It is not a high order
empirical observation induced from the study of nature.”

One last point about the reigning scientific paradigm, is that the adherents of said paradigm get to define what is and is not deemed legitimate science. This is why intelligent design adherents don’t get peer reviewed and why they don’t even get the benefit of the doubt that they are even doing science. What they are doing is not “real” science, because science by definition is what conforms to the reigning paradigm. So now we have this new movement, intelligent design. ID present evidence that seems to suggest the falsity of the theory of evolution. But then evolutionists present a solution from within their framework that plausibly explains the anomaly (e.g. formation of the eye) but there is something uncomfortable about the proposed solution. It seems forced, like a round peg into a square hole. But it must be defended and used to bludgeon the opposition because to do otherwise would admit a weakness in the reigning paradigm upon which so many rely.

settingsun

One last point about the reigning scientific paradigm, is that the adherents of said paradigm get to define what is and is not deemed legitimate science.

That’s true, science has determined for example, that astrology is not a topic that belongs being taught in public school science classes. Since ID has not been able to distinguish itself in any meaningful way from astrology — in fact, ID advocate Michael Behe had to admit in the Dover trial that his own definition of science would actually allow astrology to be considered science — I would observe that insisting that ideas that claim to be scientific actually adhere to normal scientific parameters is probably a good thing.

ID present evidence that seems to suggest the falsity of the theory of evolution.

What evidence has ID presented to falsify evolution?

What is the “scientific” theory of intelligent design?

ID advocate Paul Nelson doesn’t seem to think one exists:

Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don?t have such a theory right now, and that?s a problem. Without a theory, it?s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we?ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ?irreducible complexity? and ?specified complexity?-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.

ID is a religious tautology. It points to anything it can find in biology that is complicated and claims “design”. I assume you’re familiar with the Discovery Institute’s wedge document?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

It clearly details how ID was created by opponents of “scientific materialism” to try and muddy the scientific debate. Do you think that’s the kind of “paradigm shift” that is to the benefit of science?

Your example of the eye is particularly interesting.

ID advocates have largely stopped using the eye as an example for one reason, while they initially thought it would be an effective example because if its complexity, it turned out to be one of the features of human anatomy that is dramatically better explained by evolution than design.

I?ll paraphrase a quote from a biology and zoology professor Frank Zindler:

As an organ developed via the opportunistic twists and turns of evolutionary processes, the human eye is explainable. As an organ designed and created by an infinitely wise deity, the human eye is inexcusable. For unlike the invertebrate eyes ?, the human eye is constructed upon the foundation of an almost incredible error: The retina has been put together backwards! Unlike the retinas of octopuses and squids, in which the light-gathering cells are aimed forward, toward the source of incoming light, the photoreceptor cells (the so called rods and cones) of the human retina are aimed backward, away from the light source. Worse yet, the nerve fibers which must carry signals from the retina to the brain must pass in front of the receptor cells, partially impeding the penetration of light to the receptors. Only a blasphemer would attribute such a situation to divine design!

JDidSaint

Keep it up! I’m interested to see how this turns out. A biologist debating a philosopher of science. Mmmm…

I will say that although ID may not be the next scientific paradigm, there are questions that macro-evolutionary theory needs to answer and has failed to answer at this point. The beginning of life, mitochondria, the first ribosomes, etc. are tricky phenomena that will eventually require an answer from evolutionary science. They don’t disprove evolution, prove ID, or prove the need for another scientific paradigm, but in my mind, they indicate that there will be another paradigm shift in the future (although I can’t begin to imagine what the next paradigm could be – I’m no biologist.)

Too many people (including Chris Matthews from the sounds of it,) take the fact that theories explain many things as evidence that they will one day explain ALL things. History has showed us this error in classical Newtonian physics, Freudian psychotherapy, and many other scientific paradigms well respected in their time.
Puritan

“That?s true, science has determined for example, that astrology is not a topic that belongs being taught in public school science classes. Since ID has not been able to distinguish itself in any meaningful way from astrology”

You miss the point. My point is that it is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. If ID is not testable via scientific method, neither is macro-evolutionary theory. It’s a way of looking at things, which is another way of saying:

“?The general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism [evolution] is a metaphysical stance embedded in the history of western cultures. It is not a high order
empirical observation induced from the study of nature.?

Now I don’t really on principle oppose scientists having a metaphysical stance that informs their work (in fact it isn’t possible to not have such a stance). I just want honesty in the endeavor. Evolution is a dogmatic religion disguised in scientific sounding terminology. It is as least as old as the pre-socratic philosophers (Anaximander) but dressed up in modern terminology.

“ID is a religious tautology. It points to anything it can find in biology that is complicated and claims ?design?.

Do you not see that evolution does the same in reverse? You are confusing scientific method with naturalism. Naturalism looks at biology and says “there must be a naturalistic explanation for this”. It may come as a shock to many people, but that is not science, it is philosophy. It makes a metaphysical assumption. I would be very happy to leave my religion out of the science classroom, but only if you agree to leave yours behind as well.

“It clearly details how ID was created by opponents of ?scientific materialism? to try and muddy the scientific debate. Do you think that?s the kind of ?paradigm shift? that is to the benefit of science?”

I disagree that it muddies the debate. It focuses it on the fact that what has passing as “science” is really a philosophical assumption. I’m really not interested in replacing the dogma of evolution with a new dogma. In my view ID need not be taught in science classes to have been successful if evolution is exposed as the unscientific dogma that it is.

Your Zindler quote above on the eye demonstrates well that what is being argued is philosophy, not science. Nobody with an ounce of objectivity can read that and come to the conclusion that it is anything but objective.

Puritan

Nobody with an ounce of objectivity can read that and come to the conclusion that it is anything that resembles neutral objectivity.
settingsun

You miss the point. My point is that it is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. If ID is not testable via scientific method, neither is macro-evolutionary theory.

No, I understand your point completely. In the absence of any evidence you offer tortured philosophical arguments in an attempt to tear down macro-evolution. You seem curiously unwilling to acknowledge the first examples I offered. Researchers did not find Tiktaalik by accident and then attempt to explain it through macro-evolution. They searched for it deliberately because macro-evolutionary theory predicted its existence. Here it is again:

University of Chicago researchers believed that based on their study of ancient fish dated to about 380 million years ago and tetrapods dated to about 365 million years ago that a transitional form would be found in strata that fell somewhere in that 15 million year gap. And after finding a location in Canada dating to that time and searching for five years, they found Tiktaalik.

They formed a hypothesis within the framework of evolutionary theory (that a transitional form would exist at a point in the past where you would expect it to) and they located exactly what they thought they would find, where it should be found according to macro-evolution. And remember, this is just one of the many transitional forms scientists have found not to mention the numerous molecular examples of the same.

ID can tell us nothing about the world. Macro-evolution tells us that Tiktaalik exists. If ID (or whatever creationists pivot to next) was allowed to pollute science we would have likely never found Titaalik, because?we would have never thought to look.

Evolution is a dogmatic religion disguised in scientific sounding terminology.

It?s clear that you believe that if you keep repeating this it will somehow come true. As for ?scientific sounding terminology?, no description evolutionists have ever used could top the legally necessitated shift from the term creation science to ID which gave us the greatest phrase in the history of the evolution/creation debate: ?cdesign proponentsists?.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

You are confusing scientific method with naturalism.

And you are confusing the scientific method with magic.

I disagree that it (ID) muddies the debate.

How then would you label an effort created not from scientific observation but born from the mind of a USC lawyer Phillip Johnson and subsequently advanced through PR efforts culminating in legislative campaigns aimed at having public schools ?teach the controversy??

As for the eye, let?s take a look at how scientists arrived at that hypothesis. In evolution the eye would have developed in stages. And we are not proposing those stages in a vacuum ? we can find examples of each stage of that development in the animal kingdom today.

There?s a pretty good video on this if you are interested:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

The point of the quote is to beg the question? How would so called ?design theory? better explain the eye as it formed today? And curiously, while the eye was a common example used a decade ago by ID proponents, it has largely dropped off the talking points as professional ID advocates move on to ever more obscure claims of ?irreducible complexity? or whatever the notion du jour is.

I would be very happy to leave my religion out of the science classroom, but only if you agree to leave yours behind as well.

I think we both know that if you were in fact willing to leave your religion out of science that we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Puritan

“No, I understand your point completely. In the absence of any evidence you offer tortured philosophical arguments in an attempt to tear down macro-evolution.”

And where is the evidence for macro-evolution that comes as a result of the scientific method and not open to interpretation by competing paradigms? The problem with either macro-evolution or ID is that neither are empirically testable. They are both beyond the scope of being testable scientific hypothesis. However they are both valid ways of looking at things, but then we are back to what you derisively call “tortured” philosophical arguments. By the way, is Gould and Eldredge’s claim also “tortured”? How about that rabid creationist Karl Popper:

“I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme?a possible framework for testable scientific theories ? This is of course the reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accepted. Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that no ultimate explanation has been reached.”

Hmmm…. a metaphysical research programme–sounds scientific to me. Popper hits the nail on the head here.

“You seem curiously unwilling to acknowledge the first examples I offered.”

That’s because your examples are open to interpretation. A quick google search on “Tiktaalik” bears this out. There is nothing about your examples that comes as a result of scientific methodology. It is rather a combination of assumptions and historical reconstruction. It is pointless to get in an argument over whether some particular fossil represents a transitional form or not. Fossils are not complete organisms, and what evolutionists think they see is quite open to debate. I find it amusing that evolutionists latch on to particular fossils and think they have found some kind of missing link. They overstate their case, then it gets debunked at some point down the road (often by other evolutionists!) and they move on to the next “missing link”. Tiktaalik is just the latest fad amongst evolutionists in the long line of embarrassing “missing links”.

“It?s clear that you believe that if you keep repeating this it will somehow come true.”

Sometimes repeating things is necessary to get the point across. Unfortunately it is not just my side that is saying it. Many evolutionists have also acknowledged it as well. Here’s another one from Richard Lewontin:

?We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.?

Notice the admission of a commitment to materialism? “isms” are not scientific. They are ideological.

“I think we both know that if you were in fact willing to leave your religion out of science that we wouldn?t be having this discussion.”

Okay, I admit, it was a throwaway comment. I was referring specifically to ID, but in general I in fact agree with you, because it is impossible to leave one’s pre-commitments behind whether it be science, journalism or anything else. Objectivity in the way most people have conceived of it is a myth. We should instead be pursuing truth. That means being honest and forthcoming about our pre-commitments, particularly in the fields of science and journalism.
The_Gadfly

Evolution is testable. The problem is, the results of the testing keep coming up negative.

Even the example of the moth cited in the main article above is an article of faith amongst the evolutionists which has been debunked. Had evolutionists at the time bothered to have a short conversation with the bug watchers they would have avoided the whole fiasco. You see the moths for all of those photos were dead moths taped to the tree trunks. Now, this might, al-la the 20-20 story about cars blowing up because of fuel tanks rupturing when hit by other cars in a particular type of collision, been a lie that illustrates an actual truth, except for one minor detail. The photos in question make it look as though the moth spends some significant portion of the day on the tree trunk exposed to sunlight in such a way as to make the coloration something that could be an evolutionary selector in predation. Unfortunately, during the daylight hours the moth sleeps on the underside of the tree branches, so it’s coloration is not a factor in its predation.

As you noted, time and time again new single instances of “transitional species” are heralded as the final proof evolutionists have been searching for, only to later be debunked as complete hogwash.

If evolution were true, there would be necessarily need to be more transitional species than we have current known species, and you ought not be able to take a sample anywhere without hitting one.

What I find most telling about evolutionists is that they are not actively seeking transitional species in live experiments which can be documented. So what if it’s a one in a billion chance you are going to get a new mutation in a given species? Every biology class across the country does fruit fly experiments in which students study the effects of various mutangens. These experiments are run over multiple generations of fruit flies for each class. So there are trillions and trillions of opportunities to find a new mutation. Yet there is no mechanism by which a lucky science student at one of these high schools can report on, and means by which scientists could verify the occurence of such an event. If they truly thought such an event could occur, and that such an event could be documented, there would be a widely publicized program for this, and whoever was the lucky student who found such an event would have his photo on the front page of newspapers across the world. Instead, all of the mutations which occur are one the previously documented and categorized mutations for fruit flies. And the truth is the evolutionists aren’t looking to document it because they don’t actually believe it will happen.
Puritan

Good points, however I have been trying to maintain a distinction (maybe not always making that clear) between what people have termed micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is specifically what I was referring to being untestable, for the obvious reason that you can’t reproduce in a laboratory something that takes millions of years to occur.

As to “Micro-evolution”, or natural selection, I believe there may be some merits, though I had forgotten about that little fraudulent example you cite above. Good points all!
settingsun

Although I disagree on the macro-evolution aspect of the original post, David Hinz was correct in using peppered moths as his example.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html
settingsun

First off, tortured was a bad choice of words, I did not mean for it to sound personally derisive.

And where is the evidence for macro-evolution that comes as a result of the scientific method and not open to interpretation by competing paradigms?

What competing paradigms? As I?ve noted above, ID advocates admit they have no theory in which to argue for a paradigm shift.

?I find it amusing that evolutionists latch on to particular fossils and think they have found some kind of missing link. They overstate their case, then it gets debunked at some point down the road (often by other evolutionists!) and they move on to the next ?missing link?. Tiktaalik is just the latest fad amongst evolutionists in the long line of embarrassing ?missing links?.

Correct me if I?m wrong, but I interpret this to mean no fossil evidence would ever convince you of speciation. I ask this because I also find it amusing that creationists dismiss the growing body of fossil evidence even when there is scientific consensus for the form that fossil represents. You also haven?t addressed the molecular evidence for macro-evolution.

But again, the most important aspect is the total lack of evidence for or any explanation of a competing interpretation.

You started this conversation by offering the observation that paradigms can and do shift in science. I absolutely agree with you.

The pathway for supplanting macro-evolution is as open to (as of yet non-existent) rival interpretations as contesting Newtonian physics was to Einstein. With just the minor difference being that Einstein didn?t simply state that there were problems in Newtonian physics and therefore it shouldn?t be taught. He offered an alternative and superior explanation — part of which could be verified through astronomy. Of course, ID advocates have a more difficult task given that there criticisms were not born of scientific investigation, but were invented as part of a public relations campaign that evolution just happened to find itself in the crosshairs of.

Okay, I admit, it was a throwaway comment. I was referring specifically to ID, but in general I in fact agree with you, because it is impossible to leave one?s pre-commitments behind whether it be science, journalism or anything else. Objectivity in the way most people have conceived of it is a myth. We should instead be pursuing truth. That means being honest and forthcoming about our pre-commitments, particularly in the fields of science and journalism.

I respectfully observe that you and I clearly have a very different interpretation of what it means to have presuppositions. My personal position was arrived at through examining and accepting the best evidentiary and explanatory case for the diversity of life we see today. I have read many of the studies; I have heard the explanations from the scientists and have been lucky enough on occasion to see some of the actual evidence. I have simply found it overwhelmingly persuasive. And because I am persuaded by evidence, I could be persuaded to accept other conclusions. But only on the basis of evidence and only if the new explanation was superior to the current one. But since no evidence has been presented and no explanation has been offered you can probably understand why I don?t entertain philosophical notions that suggest I mistakenly arrived at my conclusion or furthermore that my position should be equated with another position that hasn?t even been offered let alone substantiated in anyway.
Puritan

“What competing paradigms? As I?ve noted above, ID advocates admit they have no theory in which to argue for a paradigm shift.”

And I have provided numerous quotes from evolutionists themselves who say that evolution is a metaphysical stance, a prior commitment to materialism, etc. It is questionable whether evolution itself is truly a scientific theory. It has been touted as such and dogmatically asserted as such, but the mechanisms seem much like magic and circular reasoning to me. It relies on simplistic understandings of biology without taking into account the amazing complexity of even the simplest organisms. “Survival of the fittest” is claimed to be the natural selector, but exactly how is this explained without descending into vicious circular reasoning? How do we know that it actually is the fittest that survive? Is this hypothesis even testable?

“Correct me if I?m wrong, but I interpret this to mean no fossil evidence would ever convince you of speciation.”

Well, I would say that there are some difficulties with relying solely on fossil evidence, but if it were really as overwhelming as you are claiming, I would obviously have to take it seriously. The problem is that every single fossil that has been claimed as transitional has these problems where the findings are debatable. The problem with fossil evidence is that you have a very incomplete picture of what these organisms actually looked like and what is relied upon is a lot of speculation. That’s how we get reconstructions of what ancient men supposedly looked like based on a pig’s tooth and such nonsense.

“I respectfully observe that you and I clearly have a very different interpretation of what it means to have presuppositions. My personal position was arrived at through examining and accepting the best evidentiary and explanatory case for the diversity of life we see today.”

I would respectfully submit that based on the evidence you have presented here so far, that you are overstating your case just a bit.

“My personal position was arrived at through examining and accepting the best evidentiary and explanatory case for the diversity of life we see today.”

If that is the case, why not bring out the big guns for this discussion? Stop using the debatable evidence and bring on the good stuff! There is no such thing as neutral facts, it is always interpreted in light of one’s worldview. A naturalist will interpret it to conform to his naturalistic outlook, while a theist will likewise do the same.

“But since no evidence has been presented and no explanation has been offered you can probably understand why I don?t entertain philosophical notions that suggest I mistakenly arrived at my conclusion or furthermore that my position should be equated with another position that hasn?t even been offered let alone substantiated in anyway.”

Look, if you prefer naturalistic explanations, that’s fine. I’m not asking you to change your position. I just want you to see it for what it is. I just don’t want naturalism dogmatically asserted as “science” in taxpayer funded schools. I like diversity of opinion, and that just is not what we have right now. To me the point of this whole exercise is to point out the philosophical assumptions that underpin the so-called theory. If you believe that science demands naturalistic explanations, we have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of science. I believe that science should avoid philosophical assumptions and speculation and just stick to the scientific method.
settingsun

I believe that science should avoid philosophical assumptions and speculation and just stick to the scientific method.

Science shouldn’t speculate?

So scientists shouldn’t form hypotheses based on their study of the evidence and should not then search for additional answers to questions about our world? Interesting.

So I assume your larger point to mean that we should not instruct students in anything we have not observed regardless of the evidence that points us to a conclusion. So we would not mention the following.

1) The geological evidence pointing to the age of the earth.

2) The geological and fossil evidence for the big and little ice ages.

3) The geological evidence of how hydrolic forces shaped the grand canyon

4) The geological and fossil evidence supporting a past supercontinent Pangea.

Basically we wouldn’t mention any theories we have about anything that happened in the natural world up until the time that humans could record it. After all, each one of these is also subject to a supernatural interpretation and therefore based on your premise is entirely speculative and does not reflect proper science.
Puritan

You must have missed the part were I stated that I liked diversity of opinion. Speculation is not what I object to. I object to naturalistic speculations being dogmatically asserted as facts.

“Basically we wouldn?t mention any theories we have about anything that happened in the natural world up until the time that humans could record it. After all, each one of these is also subject to a supernatural interpretation and therefore based on your premise is entirely speculative and does not reflect proper science.”

You still keep missing the point. I don’t care if individual scientists speculate and come up with their theories based on their philosophical commitments. However I don’t want those commitments dogmatically thrust upon students, nor do I want a theory imposed as fact via political power.
settingsun

I have completely lost track of whatever point you were trying to make.
Puritan

“How then would you label an effort created not from scientific observation but born from the mind of a USC lawyer Phillip Johnson and subsequently advanced through PR efforts culminating in legislative campaigns aimed at having public schools ?teach the controversy??”

God forbid we present opposing viewpoints and let students decide for themselves! Please explain how it “muddies” the debate. It actually shines light onto the fact that what has been passing as “science” has naturalistic presuppositions. It seems somewhat counter-productive to claim that it muddies a debate that would not exist were it not for the ID advocates in the first place. A sacred cow is being skewered, and evolutionists are crying foul. So what? Science is supposed to be open to opposing views, not dogmatically declaring a set of philosophical convictions as fact.
nyindy

Once you bring a supernatural element into the equation then it stops being science.

It is also a case of standards. Not all ideas have equal merit in the scientific sense. Science is a competitive sport, and the winning theories are the ones that explain the observable phenomena the best and make the best predictions.

Because of that, one of the requirements of a scientific ‘theory’ is that it has to be falsifiable. I haven’t seen any ID proponents put forwards a test that could falsify their ideas.

There is debase going on within the scientific community about specific details within evolution, but that evolution happens in not in doubt. The support for the theory is overwhelming. This doesn’t have to be and shouldn’t be an ideological issue.
Puritan

…says the dogmatist.

Just for fun, what are the criteria for the falsifiability of evolution?

I keep hearing that evolution is not in doubt, and that the support is overwhelming, but I have seen little to back up that claim.
settingsun

Just for fun, what are the criteria for the falsifiability of evolution?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

I keep hearing that evolution is not in doubt, and that the support is overwhelming, but I have seen little to back up that claim.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
Aaron Gardner

just wondering how much respect you want me to give your link…since it is clearly a talking point generator.
nyindy

The site does have an index of evolution evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
settingsun

Talk Origins is a compendium of evidence and arguments from the evolution/creation debate. Since most discussions/debates follow a usual pattern = evolutionists providing evidence and an explanation of evolution (or a specific aspect of evolution) and creationists contesting the evidence and/or the explanation or providing some example that they think disproves evolution, the site is generally setup to reflect that dynamic.

Most entries excerpt and provide links to reference material. That material may be online as well depending on where it is published but at least you know that the answers are sourced and you can investigate further yourself.

There are other archives of information on the site like the one nyindy referenced.
Aaron Gardner

argument in a can…..the funny part is that both you and nykid don’t see any problem with how they present their indexes….one is presented as evidence while one is presented as claims….you might as well just not link at all an just tell people their not as smart of you and their theories are just fairy tales….at least then you wouldn’t be ambiguous about your insults.

Sack up and just say what you want to say instead of beating around the bush.
nyindy

Puritan asked question about how evolution could be falsified.
Settingsun provided a link that listed some ways in which evolution can be falsified.
Rather than addressing the specific claims of examples of things that would falsify evolution, you decided to attack the credibility of the site.

If you disagree with the points that the site made, them explain your specific objections.

Saying that you don’t find the site credible isn’t enough. That’s like attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message.

The theory of evolution isn’t a political question or a value judgment. Its claims can be examined objectively.
Aaron Gardner

sorry but I find it insulting.

As far as evolution goes…I am not denying it…I just don’t feel the need to try and use it to disprove God…because that is a bastardization of evolution and science in general.

Sorry if you don’t like me questioning sources…but it seems rather logical to do so…I mean do you not check out sources you are given for any clear biases? You should.
nyindy

Evolution says nothing about God one way or another, and those who try to use evolution to disprove God (which is something impossible to do) don’t know what they’re talking about. Science can only speak of things that are observable and testable; claims about God’s existence are beyond the scope of science.

It’s good to always be mindful of sources and accept information with an appropriate amount of salt. I stated upthread that it’s good to be skeptical of any single source of information.
However, I don’t think that it’s wise to dismiss something out of hand just because of the source.

For example, one of the bullet points for how evolution could be falsified was: ‘static fossil record’

The way to nullify this point is to explain how a ‘static fossil record’ would not falsify evolution. Bringing into question the site’s credibility doesn’t do anything to address that point.

Remember, it was the NE that nailed John Edwards
Aaron Gardner

and i shouldn’t have really included you in that post I apologize….it just seems that these discussions always go the same way and now I understand why…people aren’t relying on logic to form their arguments…they are using talking points in a can.

That is what is troubling to me….and talk origins is specifically set up to be a set of talking points to be used in debate against those who believe that it is possible that God may have used the mechanisms of evolution and even the big bang ( think of God speaking the universe into existence) to create everything we now know of.

To use that site is antagonistic to say the least.

YMMV

John Edwards…NE…broken clok twice a day and all..
settingsun

That is what is troubling to me?.and talk origins is specifically set up to be a set of talking points to be used in debate against those who believe that it is possible that God may have used the mechanisms of evolution and even the big bang ( think of God speaking the universe into existence) to create everything we now know of.

This is not accurate. Read the sites entries on evolution and religion. I?ll spare you the link ? here?s an excerpt:

Q5. Does evolution deny the existence of God?

No. See question 1. There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution.

Furthermore, the country?s leading education group on evolution — The National Center for Science Education — has an entire project dedicated to finding common ground with religion.

http://ncseweb.org/religion

In public discussions of evolution and creationism, we are sometimes told that we must choose between belief in creation and acceptance of the theory of evolution, between religion and science. But is this a fair demand? Must I choose only one or the other, or can I both believe in God and accept evolution? Can I both accept what science teaches and engage in religious belief and practice? This is a complex issue, but theologians, clergy, and members of many religious traditions have concluded that the answer is, unequivocally, yes.

Listen, Richard Dawkins also frustrates me. But the irony is that the answers on this topic at Talk Origins contradict Dawkins? assertions that evolution and cosmology prove the non-existence of God. There is nothing in science that proves or disproves a supernatural creator.

To put a fine point on my own opinion here?s something I wrote on one of mailloux?s diaries:

It is really heartening to read such a well reasoned entry . Evolution is indeed no threat to anyone?s faith. Science has nothing to say on theological or metaphysical questions.

Our discourse on these issues has been driven to extremes by opponents of religion who try to extrapolate from science arguments for the non-existence of God and defenders of religion who want to claim scientific validation of their religious tenets without following the scientific method.

The Vatican was recently able to convene a global conference of scientists and theologians and have a wide ranging series of discussions without the rancor that typically pollutes these forums. When science and religion acknowledge their respective limitations it is indeed possible for civilized discussion to take place.

http://www.redstate.com/mailloux/2009/05/12/dear-kim-letter-2-science-in-conflict-with-religion-%e2%80%93-a-modern-fallacy/#comment-1222
Mike gamecock DeVine

the fact is that one that does not have faith in evolution is in no way inhibited in actual scientific competence.
nyindy

I think that this is a fair point to make. There are many people out there who accept evolution without really understanding it; accept it on faith at it were.

I think that it’s possible to be a good scientist without ‘believing’ in evolution, but I think that it would be difficult to be a good biologist/geneticist without having a solid understanding of evolutionary theory. Again, faith/belief is not required; understanding is.
Lord_Vegas

“faith” in ID is frowned upon…

but “faith” in evolution is perfectly acceptable…
nyindy

I blame our school system that focuses on teaching facts rather than explaining how we learned what we know and how to think critically about issues.
Lord_Vegas

the problem with the school system today is that they cannot discern fact from agenda…
Mike gamecock DeVine

to address the whole Darwinian and neo-darwinian differences of you can and ask if you have read Coulter’s book Godless and the chapters in it that refute the neo-darwinists, sometimes with Darwin’s own words.

Her books are quite well sourced and footnoted btw.
nyindy

I have read Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box

Next time that I’m in a bookstore I will read Ann’s chapter on evolution.

I can’t speak to her specific claims, but Darwin isn’t the final word on evolution anymore than Newton was the final word on gravity. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species about 100 years before the discovery of DNA. Some of his original ideas, like pangenesis, have been abandoned because they were not supported by the evidence.
Mike gamecock DeVine
Puritan

I don’t think your links are really serious rebuttals. Of the criteria specified in the first link, only two of the criteria are meant to be taken seriously. The second link seems to just be a restatement of evolutionary talking points, and it conflates macro-evolution with micro-evolution, which even most creationists don’t take issue with.

Now, to address the criteria that are proposed:

1) A static fossil record. I’m not even sure what this means. The fossil record is what it is. It’s the interpretation of the fossil record that is in dispute. Even when the fossil record does not appear to fit with the theory, it is re-interpreted by evolutionists to account for the fact (e.g. punctuated equilibrium). This is arguing from a lack of evidence.

2) A mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating. The ironic thing about this one is that there is in fact such a mechanism, and it is one of the best observed laws of physics. Evolutionists would have us believe that it applies to everything except biology. Evolutionists go through all kinds of contortions and cockamamie arguments to try to escape the implications of the second law of thermodynamics. Consider for example the explanation given on the very same site of the other links you gave:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

After wandering around on different tangents and trying to impress the reader with calculus — most humorous quote is:

“Upon integrating (a calculus procedure for summing up the individual values of dV/V)”

– the whole argument boils down to “the sun”. What drivel.
nyindy

1) a static fossil record would be one where the only fossils that we find are fossils of animals still around. If you look at the fossil finds in different strata, you see new species rising and others dying off.
Plenty of complete ‘transition sequences’ are available, for example the horse and the whale.

2) The second law of thermodynamics talks about the level of entropy in a closed system. Earth is not a closed system; the Sun keeps feeding loads of energy into it.

Think about what happens when you turn on the AC. The entropy in your house decreases, but the second law of thermodynamics isn’t violated because entropy increases by a greater amount in the whole system (power plant and the heat that’s pumped to the outside of the house).

The Sun acts as a power plant for the whole planet…

Puritan

“Macro-evolutionary theory allows us to form testable hypotheses.”

This statement is absurd on its face. Macro-evolutionary theory by definition is untestable. All that can be done is to interpret the fossil record in a way favorable to the theory. Evolutionists have a lot to say about the fossil record, but little if any of it involves scientific method.

http://crippy.me Crippy

on all points – EXACTLY! It takes more faith to believe the asinine liberal prattle than in The Son of Man!

Remember the liberal mantra from the 2000 election, “Is Algore too smart to be president?”. AGW answers that!

Awesome post!

God help us!
kweiss01

Chris also asked if Pence believed in science.

Believe in science? Science isn’t a religion or philosophy to “believe” in, it’s a method of inquiry. One either applies it or not — a key point that Matthews doesn’t seem to understand, because “general consensus” or PC thought is not scientific proof either.

Blind adherence to the cult of global warming (or whatever) is no more scientific than blind belief that the world is flat or the sun circles the earth because a religious leader says so. Matthews and others have fallen into the trap of projection; blindly believing what they’e been told and projecting this fatal flaw upon those who disagree with them, accusing people who probe the evidence and keep an open mind on a question still in its hypothesis stage, as being unscientific.

The pot calling the kettle black?
avgamerican

God gave man knowledge that man can use to survive and enhance our lives. But man takes knowledge and in his pride fills in the blanks of that he dosen’t understand. Ben Stein’s movie documentary, “Expelled” exposes the hypocrital silencing of Christians and those who bring real facts to this debate.

“Repeat the lie often enough and soon the people will begin to believe it.”
Joseph Goebbels, Hitlers Chief of Propoganda
http://www.myfda.org/ sammyanderson2009

Haha, what a freaking cop-out: “The debate is over ? we have scientific consensus.”

He couldn’t make me more frustrated, if he actually tried!
http://www.realityunwound.com realityunwound

from a different perspective, but your science is better than mine (I’m a literature guy). The conversation in the comments from Monday was interesting (http://www.redstate.com/realityunwound/2009/05/11/liberals-are-anti-science-reading-between-the-lines-of-intellectual-bullying/).

I wish I had thought of Chrissy’s assault on Mike Pence… What a slut!
Rod_Patrick

Mr. Hinz,

Don’t degrade my Crissy.

He’s not just a slut. He’s everyone’s favorite TV Interracial Whore.

Nonetheless, thank you for a very good coverage of my unAmerican mIDOL.

Cheers.

Sincerely,

Rod, a Crissy Fan
extirpates

When said properly, his name sounds like Crass Misuse.
farstar99

His name is Tinglebell.

You guys are mean.

settingsun

I’m hard pressed to think that can be topped.
Rod_Patrick

settingsun

I recommended this diary several days ago but accidentally clicked the unrecommend button tonight. Will the site allow me to recommend it again? The unrecommend button is the only option I am given even though my name is off the recommend list.

Any guidance is appreciated, thanks.

Lord_Vegas

and will be gone in a day or two — don’t sweat it

RS

MEMBER DIARY

“Chrissy Matthews — You Ignorant Slut!”

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL