Blind Guides

_{Cornelius Hunter

July 27, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Biology textbook authors George Johnson and Jonathan Losos are leaders in the life sciences. They are accomplished researchers and professors from leading universities—they are also blind guides. In their otherwise well written and highly produced textbook The Living World ((Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008), Johnson and Losos badly misrepresent science and make fallacious arguments when they present evolution to the student. It is yet another example of smart people spreading lies and foolishness. Read more

Comments

Oh, I get it. Glue enough level parking lots together and you get magicoevolution. Anyone who has written software knows that you cannot build intelligent systems in that manner. Very soon, everything get so complex that you end up with Microsoft's transition from XP to Vista.NZer_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

Absolutely. Place enough level parking lots side-by-side and you can't help but get a flat earth.Mung_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

The relationship between macroevolution and microevolution is actually quite easy to explicate via analogy: macroevolution is to microevolution as a flat earth is to a level parking lot The extrapolations are equally sound.Matteo_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

Off topic but I ran across this article and don't see a good place to post it: http://www.infowars.com/left-wing-env-scientist-bails-out-of-global-warming-movement-declares-it-a-%E2%80%98corrupt-social-phenomenon%E2%80%A6strictly-an-imaginary-problem-of-the-1st-world-middleclass%E2%80%99/ Could it be that UD is helping to embolden scientists to speak their minds? Maybe so. In the article Rancourt takes a flamethrower to the brave new (well, not really new) academia: "But it is his fellow University professors that Rancourt has the least amount of patience with. “They are all virtually all service intellectuals. They will not truly critique, in a way that could threaten the power interests that keep them in their jobs. The tenure track is just a process to make docile and obedient intellectuals that will then train other intellectuals,” Rancourt said. “You have this army of university scientists and they have to pretend like they are doing important research without ever criticizing the powerful interests in a real way. So what do they look for, they look for elusive sanitized things like acid rain, global warming,” he added. This entire process “helps to neutralize any kind of dissent,” according to Rancourt. “When you do find something bad, you quickly learn and are told you better toe the line on this — your career depends on it,” Rancourt said.lamarck_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

DonaldM, You criticize Nick's style and then use something very similar yourself. "Evolutionist" is as much an ad hominem put down as "Creationist". Posts from pro ID people are often full of condescension, virtual eye rolling and sarcasm, which all gets a bit tiresome. And why should "Darwinists" be completely homogenous? Why should they agree word for word on definitions and the significance of various experimental results? No other scientists are in other branches of science. Physicists have a range of opinions and interpretations of experimental results in quantum mechanics, likewise with gravitational theories, likewise with why particular drugs produce particular effects in the body etc etc. The real world (and here I am going to get condescending) is not like it is depicted by biblical literalists. It is full of confounding discoveries, changing perceptions, dynamically changing models, and unanswered (and unanswerable) questions. Besides which, despite your scoffing, there are many of your friends here who do accept that evolution is fact.zeroseven_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

Dr. Hunter. Thanks for all your good work. If you're interested in examining other modern textbooks for similar blatant fallacies and misrepresentations of the scientific method I'd be willing to assist with funding.Mung_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

I see our old friend Nick Matzke weighed in on over on Dr. Hunter's blog on this one. Nick writes:
Nick M writes: "Macroevolution" means something much different to creationists than what it means in real life science, the distinction in usage goes back to at least the 1970s in the creation science literature. For creos it means "evolution between created kinds, which is impossible" or "whatever parts of evolution we don't believe in/which the Bible precludes."
Ah, yes, the old "creationists simply don't understand evolution" retort! And here we see Nick at his best, beginning his response right off with an ad hominem - (ie using the tried and true "creationist" label) Well, sorry to disappoint you Nick ol' buddy, but very few of us silly "creationists" (whatever the definition du jour of that term is supposed to be - among Darwnists its pretty elastic) have any confusion whatsoever about what "macroevolution" means. It means exactly what the Darwinist say it means...oh, wait, they aren't all in agreement on that one...oops, my bad. Let's see is that evolutionary change above the species level, or is it below that level, above..no below...well, depends on which glossary in which textbook you read. Hmmm...I guess its the Darwinists that are confused on the term. I guess whichever definition suits the circumstance will do. Its amazing that even though the definitions of some of the most basic of their terms is elusive to them, somehow the Darwinists all "know" (wink wink) that evolution is a "fact, fact, fact". Nick misses that little point entirely. But then, Nick is notorious for missing inconvenient facts staring him the face. So, Nick, if you read this, maybe you could provide a precise definition of "macroevolution" and tell us why that definition is the definition accepted amongst all Darwinists. Then, when you've picked one, I'd also like to see a detailed explanation as to why [I'll fill in the blank here with a well known, much revered name in evolution once I know what definition you come up with] who gives a much different definition is wrong and yours correct. Its easy to pull out a word for its pejorative and emotive content (ie 'creationist'); much harder to lay out a logical and rational (read: non-fallacious) argument to support your own position. Sorry, SChessman if I, too, come across a bit strident, but the constant repetition of ad hominems coupled with the complete ignoring of actual facts coming from the likes of Matzke et.al, has just gotten old and threadbare. I agree with Dr. Hunter: its time to just tell it like it is.DonaldM_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Thank you SCheesman for your comment. I agree there is a difference between, say, evolution affecting science in negative ways that we see so often, and prominent evolutionists making blatantly false claims. And even in the latter case, I'd like to think these are merely innocent mistakes. But at some point that explanation runs dry. Indeed, when these "mistakes" are pointed out, evolutionists never seem to own them, but instead push back with more obfuscation. It seems to me that at some point you need to call a spade a spade.Cornelius Hunter_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Cornelius: I have for some time looked foward to reading your posts, but am concerned that your tone seems to be becoming more strident. It is a serious thing to accuse someone of spreading lies. I would have been more charitable and simply pointed out, as you have done many times previously, the underlying assumptions that the authors are using in constructing such diagrams. Unfortunately, you seem to have tired of doing so any more, and instead are now (for instance) inviting readers to fill in the blanks on their own, or engaging in simple put-downs. Sometimes the blanks need to be filled in every time. Your critics (and don't count me as one, because I see and nearly always agree with the points you make), have noticed this, and are starting to sound more calm, rationale and reasonable than you.SCheesman_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply