Quote Quote This is all no great surprise. Why on earth should we expect that a theory drawn up 80 or so years ago will remain inviolable today? As I am sure Darwin expected, evolution is complex and doesn’t have a single operative principle, although obviously natural selection is a big part of it. (I need to be careful what I say here – one ticking off I got was from a biologist who was unhappy that I had over-stressed natural selection at the molecular level, which I freely confess was a slight failure of nerve – I have found that saying such things can induce apoplexy in folks who see the shadows of creationism everywhere.) My complaint is why this seemingly obvious truth gets so little airplay in popular accounts of genetics and evolution. I’m still puzzled by that.
Ball apparently doesn’t realize that Darwinism is the creation story of new atheism, and must therefore be held inviolate.
Yes, that's why such sentiments appear in prominent science journals, blogs, and in the responses we make the grotesque ignorance of UD posts.
No, wait, it's the IDiots who have to invent an inviolate "Darwinism" for "atheism," and are too stupid even to notice the difference between "Darwinism" and "Neodarwinism."
Better than dealing with what science actually says, the evidence, or anything like the truth, of course.
But there's one problem: Bruno's execution, troubling as it was, had virtually nothing to do with his Copernican views. He was condemned and burned in 1600, but it was not because he speculated that the Earth rotated around the sun along with the other planets. He was condemned because he denied the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and transubstantiation, claimed that all would be saved, and taught that there was an infinite swarm of eternal worlds of which ours was only one. The latter idea he got from the ancient (materialist) philosopher Lucretius. Is it any surprise, then, that, as a defrocked Dominican friar denying essential tenets of Catholic doctrine and drawing strength from the closest thing to an atheist in the Roman world, he might have gotten in trouble with the Inquisition? Yet a documentary series about science and our knowledge of the universe fritters away valuable airtime on this Dominican mystic and heretic, while scarcely mentioning Copernicus, the Polish guy who actually wrote the book proposing a sun-centered universe.
Neil deGrasse Tyson does include a few hedges. While wandering the streets of modern-day Rome, he admits that Bruno wasn't a scientist and that his view of a sun-centered solar system was a "lucky guess." And during the animated dramatization of Bruno's sentence, the dark and menacing judge finds the brave Dominican guilty not just of being a Copernican, but of various theological trivialities which are never otherwise mentioned or explained. Despite these hints at nuance, not one viewer in a thousand could miss the real message: Christianity has been the enemy of science, and its henchmen tried to kill off the first brave souls who ventured a scientific thought.
From the Cosmos narration by Tyson:
Giordano Bruno lived in a time when there was no such thing as the separation of church and state, or the notion that freedom of speech was a sacred right of every individual. Expressing an idea that didn't conform to traditional belief could land you in deep trouble. Recklessly, Bruno returned to Italy. Maybe he was homesick, but still he must have known that his homeland was one of the most dangerous places in Europe he could possibly go. The Roman Catholic Church maintained a system of courts known as the Inquisition, and its sole purpose was to investigate and torment anyone who dared voice views that differed from theirs. It wasn't long before Bruno fell into the clutches of the thought police.
The DI complains that Bruno wasn't killed for his views on cosmology alone. But the point that Tyson clearly laid out in Cosmos was that disagreeing with "traditional belief" could be, and sometimes was, fatal. I don't see any workaround for the lead-up that Cosmos *actually* used, rather than the one the DI would like people to think that they used. People could, and did, end up paying the ultimate penalty for expressing views that were not entirely compatible with "traditional belief". And the grounds upon which death could be served up were sometimes incredibly narrow. Regardless of whether the DI thinks Bruno was a negligible non-entity in the history of science or not, his death stands as a significant event in the annals of religious intolerance, just as Cosmos rightly pointed out.
Well, we've long known that the DI couldn't be troubled to read things for comprehension that they critique (see here for details), but now they can't even watch a TV show?
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2014,04:38) Quote (Quack @ Mar. 11 2014,03:27) Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 10 2014,22:48) Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 10 2014,14:28)Could Robert Byers aspire to be the Gary Gaulin of creationism? Is he that great?
I dunno about that. Would Byers be able to collect large numbers of details (each of which is more or less accurate if taken on its own), the way Gaulin does?
RB is funny in a weird sort of way, but he knows nothing, understands nothing - in short, he's immersed in ignorance to up over his head.
RB being Byers, not our beloved Reciprocating Bill.
Anyone confuses me with Robert Byers, I shoot mys... him.
Sal makes a prediction:
Quote Please do this for every topic point in the Opening Post since this is deep. Provide links to threads that elaborate pro or con, OK? Otherwise this discussion will have 40,000 replies!
Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 11 2014,16:18) Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 11 2014,16:03) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2014,11:13)The DI ENV is pushing an article by Stephen Webb that supposedly "schools" Stephen Meredith on IDC and "occasionalism".
Anybody else see the problem in Webb's thing that I do?
Quote They then test their hypothesis by calculating the probability that a specific set of causes can create new biological forms.
lulz, as if cID theoristsists have ever actually calculated anything, ever.
I'm sure some of them calculated how much money they could make off the rubes. That's kind of sciency, right?
Quote 'm sure some ALL of them calculated how much money they could make off the rubes. That's kind of sciency, right?
At ENV, there will be more to say about Seth MacFarlane's revival of the Carl Sagan vehicle for scientific materialism after we've seen it. In the meantime, you may wish to have access to the antidote handy before grappling with the ailment itself.
For that, you couldn't do better than Illustra Media's series of stunning video documentaries on the theme of intelligent design in cosmology and biology. Most of these are actually viewable immediately as Amazon instant videos. The single most relevant film is The Privileged Planet, but don't forget The Case for a Creator, Darwin's Dilemma, Unlocking the Mystery of Life, Flight and Metamorphosis. Find them on the Illustra website or, on Amazon.
In an Evolution News & Views...In case you had any uncertainty about the upcoming 13-part Cosmos series, a revival of the Carl Sagan franchise, executive producer Seth MacFarlane has Darwin skeptics and alternatives to Darwinian evolution very much in his crosshairs. This is a major and costly project, though Fox won't say how costly - so it's flattering in a way. In an interview in the Los Angeles Times, MacFarlane says:
We've had a resurgence of creationism and intelligent design quote-unquote theory. There's been a real vacuum when it comes to science education. The nice thing about this show is that I think that it does what the original "Cosmos" did and presents it in such a flashy, entertaining way that, as Carl Sagan put it in 1980, even people who have no interest in science will watch just because it's a spectacle. People who watched the original "Cosmos" will sit down and watch with their kids.
just spent another hectic day monitoring the viral Dr Torley thread. I just can't believe it, every time I check it's gone up by at least one. Bydand!
Headline at UD:
Quote Researchers: Dishonesty can mean greater creativity
Funny, the IDiots seem to be about as uncreative as anyone can be.
No tradeoffs, there, they just go for the worst possible fate, uncreative dishonesty.*
*Not saying that they're consciously lying, but at UD we've mostly got people who are deeply dishonest with evidence and with themselves.
An old photo, but always worth showing for the sake of the comedy potential of the name...
Just posted to draw attention to the amazing bit of research about these guys' evolutionary arms race with the pied flycatcher. Carl Zimmer has a summary here . Information Parasites? Who knew? (Except for IDC-ists, obviously....)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 09 2014,06:31) Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 08 2014,21:25) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 08 2014,01:26)I just gave a couple more examples of how I influence science, on a daily basis, by being where the science action is at.
See. With all the clown makeup, you can't even tell who or what they really are.
No one but you Gary would put clowns, burgers and science in the same sentance. If only it was funny. Sad lonely clown GiGo asks scientists if they want fries with his offal burnt offering & mistakes cream pie throwers for his friends.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 08 2014,22:31) Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 08 2014,21:25) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 08 2014,01:26)I just gave a couple more examples of how I influence science, on a daily basis, by being where the science action is at.
See. With all the clown makeup, you can't even tell who or what they really are.
Well, that's what happens when you smear makeup all over your eyes and start bragging about the improvement of your vision.
Oh, you weren't being self-referential?
KF! Fresh KF! Get yer KF 'ere!
Quote F/N, FYI — FTR: Any serious commenter intending to be fair would have checked out that NM falsely accused me of deceit in an earlier thread several weeks ago [at roughly Christmas time], as in: “Gish Gallop” . . . as Rational Wiki defines, a very serious accusation of public deceit (and as a rule a patently false accusation, starting with the late Mr Gish himself, who could not have won the vast majority of 3 – 400 debates if he had been doing what he was caricatured as doing by hard core evolutionary materialist ideologues in order to dismiss what he was saying and showing by smearing the messenger, i.e. accuse without good warrant of wholesale “quote mining,” which is itself an informal — and in our experience here at UD, usually false — accusation of deceitful out of context quotation . . . note the in extenso cites I had to give to correct that insinuation and later accusation, regarding especially Gould’s career-long position as a world class expert on what the fossil record actually substantiates and contains).
Pause for breath. That's Sentence 1 over. Aaaaand ...
Quote That is the context in which I informed him that absent amends for that, he was not welcome and would be removed as a slanderous heckler, cf. 299 above where I pointed this out to F, and 39 on here, where I summarised what happened to JG . . . with links to the scene of the crime. NM chose to double down, and I took disciplinary action for cause. F’s cleverly misleading half-truth on in the same thread, speaks volumes, sadly revealing volumes. Onlookers, THIS is the COMMON level of behaviour by too many objectors to design thought, and if these unscrupulous hecklers are allowed free reign in UD’s threads, there would be a fever swamp race to the gutter. I do this for the record, not to feed the troll who will predictably continue twisting the matter into pretzels. KF
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 08 2014,19:44) Quote (olegt @ Mar. 08 2014,08:53)Kairosfocus has a unique ability to complexify simple things. Here is [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-mac
roevolution/#comment-492278]a little GEM[/URL]:
Quote F/N: The best way to understand a coin is as a physical approximation to a two-sided die. KF
Actually, he's wrong about that too.
A coin is a THREE sided system with an uneven distribution when flipped. But most people don't get it.
Fixed link: a little GEM (I like to fix things.)
See the forest in the trees - patterns from Sydney's botanic gardens
Juvenile New Holland Honeyeater (Phylidonyris novaehollandiae) Tumut, New South Wales
Soapy Sam: Quote I prefer to think of a die as something you get when you glue 6 coins together and fill in the gaps with corners.
I prefer to think of "die" as something you get when you go whoring after Jesus and neglect the local Volcano God.
Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 08 2014,16:11)I put an comment into their moderation queue:
Quote Quote ‘PPS: The surge, of course, also documents that Sci News has credibly had significant impact.’
Call me skeptic: there are other articles here at Uncommon Descent which have been linked to by "Scientific News", like New Age medic Deepak Chopra responds to Darwin’s man Jerry Coyne in The New Republic. Warning: Messy and To recognize design is to recognize products of a like-minded process, identifying the real probability in question, Part I. They didn't go viral - at least they didn't make the list of most popular articles.
On the other hand, reddit is well known to be able to generate quite an impact.
From the "New Age medic..." thread above: Quote Actually, if you look into it, you will soon discover that people like Coyne and his wikitroll buddies simply insist, beyond the reach of evidence, that telepathy is false. Not so, it exists as a low level effect greater than chance but not nearly enough to justify the claims of typical psychics (seeThe Spiritual Brain). So now Dense is defending telepathy - at a suitably low level so it can't be detected without Jesus.