PZ Myers: The Anti-Authoritarian Authoritarian

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 5, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Is there a religious influence and authoritarian tradition in science? Evolutionist PZ Myers rejects any such notion. Though Myers relies on the usual theological truth claims that are fundamental to evolution, he is sure that science is free of all such nonsense. When he is not busy shutting down scientific inquiry with religious dictates, he reassures his readers that science is a process that empowers questioning and change.

Certainly that is what science should be, but it is precisely the opposite in the hands of evolutionists such as Myers. They believe evolution is a fact, based on religious dogma that goes back centuries. Far from the empowering the asking of questions when the evidence contradicts their theory, they protect evolution from harm. You can see examples of Myers’ religious commitment here and here. Myers criticizes the religious ignorance and dogma he disagrees with, but he ignores the religious dogma that is foundational to evolution.

Comments

I'm stil waiting for someone to convincingly show us why plants are qualitatively different enough from animals to precude them from discussions of macroevolution. Some have claimed plants just don't possess the complex features animals have. I have to ask, then, what about plant immune systems? Are they not complex adaptations? Why are they not worthy of the discussion, especially under the ID definition of macroevolution as described by jerry?Dave Wisker_{June 11, 2009
June
06
Jun
11
11
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, Both YEC and mainstream definition contain the same word species. Since the word is ambiguous, if you want to discuss macro-evolution you can share your definition of species. There obviously is debate over macro-evoution even within the mainstream biology community, and there is the kind of discussion we are having here. Since both definitions of macro-evolution include speciation, I don't think you can arbitrarily exempt speciation from the discussion. An example of macro-evolution that does not refute the claim that macro-evolution does not exist? Because you've changed your definition of macro-evolution in mid-argument to a completely personal one? No. Keene sounds nice, but snowy. I've only been in NH twice.Nakashima_{June 11, 2009
June
06
Jun
11
11
2009
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

And if the YECs accept the mainstream definition how can it be meaningless?
1- it is meaningless because it includes the ambiguous word "species". 2- It is meaningless because no one debates it. So why even use a word that no one debates? And as I said speciation is NOT being debated. Also you can call that an example of macroevolution if you would like but it is an example that does NOT refute anything. And that is another reason why it is meaningless. Where in NE?- Keene, NH- home of the Owls (Keene State).Joseph_{June 11, 2009
June
06
Jun
11
11
2009
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, There are other, more productive discussions than definitional ones. And as you say, the two definitions overlap such that YECS are OK with the mainstream definition. So why defend this flawed definition? I don't see the need to invest so much into this position. And if the YECs accept the mainstream definition how can it be meaningless? I'm not sensing a coherent position, here. Where in New England? I would be interested in meeting you. On the issue of whether those changes in character would qualify for a new species definition, you might also want to write to a local professor of botany or systematics. As you say, the YECs would accept what he had to say about it.Nakashima_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

Nakashima-san, What good is it using a definition which no one debates? I say it is very deceptive to use the evolutionary definition as it is meaningless. Not only that if we go by that definition then there isn't any debate! And that is just plain nonsense. the Creation definition has been out for many years, perhaps even decades.
If you are not a YEC, why make such a personal commitment to their positions and definitions?
As I said to prevent strawman arguments. They are boring and demonstrate ignorance.
BTW, what kind of face to face meeting are you interested in?
Kellogg has his panties in a knot so I figured I could help him with that.
What area do you live in?
New England. Not too far from David. That said I am not so sure woody stems and becoming perennial or annual meet the qualifications. Perhaps you could write to Answers in Genesis and ask them. I did and I am waiting for their response- if they do respond- usually they do. They ARE the YEC experts.Joseph_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, If you are not a YEC, why make such a personal commitment to their positions and definitions? BTW, what kind of face to face meeting are you interested in? What area do you live in?Nakashima_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, I think gaining a woody stem would qualify as a "new structure", and becoming a perennial as a "new structural feature", so even under the private YEC definition of the term, these two mutations in concert cerate macro-evolutionary change. However, I would beware of relying on private definitions of terms in the first place. No one is going to be convinced by an argument that relies on a series of private definitions. This particular definition is highly suspect. Evolutionists could hardly have been using macro-evolution and Neo-Darwinism as synonymous for 150 years when the term "Neo-Darwinism" was coined in 1895. Similarly, "macroevolution" was invented in 1927. Whoever T. Wallace is, they are not doing you any favors with definitions like these.Nakashima_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, What part of: But anyways I am waiting for clarification from a YEC on plants. But if you cannot wait we can always meet and get it over with sooner… don't you understand? And again I will put my knowledge of things up against yours any and every day. Ya see I am neither a YEC nor a YEC expert. Nor am I a Bible guy. I only know enough about YEC to know when someone is slinging nonsense- ie erecting strawman after strawman. For example the micro v macro thingy.Joseph_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Joseph, just to be clear, you are saying that in YEC, plants do not reproduce "after their own kind"? That "after their own kind" refers only to animals? If so, the list of things you know nothing about can be augmented by one.David Kellogg_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

BTW what Art Hunt calls macroevolution is not what Creationists call macroevolution. Just so you know: Creation: evolution, biological:
1) “microevolution”—the name used by many evolutionists to describe genetic variation, the empirically observed phenomenon in which exisiting potential variations within the gene pool of a population of organisms are manifested or suppressed among members of that population over a series of generations. Often simplistically (and erroneously) invoked as “proof” of “macro evolution” 2) macroevolution—the theory/belief that biological population changes take (and have taken) place (typically via mutations and natural selection) on a large enough scale to produce entirely new structural features and organs, resulting in entirely new species, genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla within the biological world, by generating the requisite (new) genetic information. Many evolutionists have used “macro-evolution” and “Neo-Darwinism” as synonymous for the past 150 years.
evolutionists on macro/ micro
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.
And if you watch the video in comment 36 you will see that YECs are OK with macro as defined by evolutionists.Joseph_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Nakashima-san, I read Art's essay and the corresponding paper. I don't see how it violates the Creation variation within a kind. I don't see how it violates the Creation definition of macroevolution. It very well could have to do with epigenetics, but I may have more on that later...Joseph_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, Your preference for data sources cannot always be accomodated, but in this case it can. Fellow commenter Arthur Hunt has written about a study in which a mutation of two genes changes an annual plant into a woody perennial. This a good example of how the genotype-phenotype mapping is non-linear. A small change in genotype produces a large change in phenotype. Neither the woody perrenial habit nor the annual habit can be called a deleterious mutation, they just put the plant into two different ecological niches.Nakashima_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

David, How about you starting the debate with your claim that evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. Then you could move on to supporting other claims made by evolutionists. For example you can explain how to test the premise that a bacterial flagellum can evolve in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents. Then perhaps you can explain how 6% of a vision system is better than %5% even though the vision system doesn't work until it is 100%- nevermind that was Dawkin's ignorance... But anyways I am waiting for clarification from a YEC on plants. But if you cannot wait we can always meet and get it over with sooner...Joseph_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

David your ignorance is breathtaking. You haven't shown any knowledge of anything. YEC rapid speciation video $10,000- let's see who knows more than the other.Joseph_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Joseph, how about starting the debate with your earlier claim:
In a YEC scenario plants do not “reproduce after their own Kind”. That only pertains to animals.
The ignorance of that is breathtaking.David Kellogg_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

And as for pouding the table- that is ALL evolutionists do.Joseph_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
Now you say that YEC’s accept the evolutionary definition of “species.”
I said YECs accept speciation. I said that Linne once placed the Created Kinds at the level of "specvies" but then changed it to "Genus". I said that YECs do NOT accept evolutionary biologists definition of macroevolution. As for ignorance I will put up $10,000 in a debate against you on evolution, YEC and the Bible. Just tell me when and where.Joseph_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

Nakishima:
The Wiki page on the Evolutionary History of Plants shows the fossil evidence for leaves, seeds, flowers, etc, evolving.
Fossils show what the observer wants them to show. What is needed is GENETIC data which demonstrates the transformations are even possible. However there isn't any way to test the premise.Joseph_{June 10, 2009
June
06
Jun
10
10
2009
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

Joseph, alas, your earlier responses did nothing but pound the table. Recall that, earlier, you had said YEC's don't care about plant evolution and that in the Bible plants don't reproduce "after their own kind." Now you say that YEC's accept the evolutionary definition of "species." You have thus shown profound ignorance of both YEC and the Bible.David Kellogg_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, The Wiki page on the Evolutionary History of Plants shows the fossil evidence for leaves, seeds, flowers, etc, evolving. You may be interested in looking it over before claiming there is no evidence for macro-evolution of entirely new structures and organs in plants, which I believe is the opposite of your previous position that macro-evolution could occur in plants but that didn't count for some reason in a discussion of macro-evolution.Nakashima_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

As for ignorance well the theory of evolution DEPENDS on it. Evolutionary biologists act like experts but when the rubber meets the road they don't have a clue as to whether or not the transformations required are even possible. So if you want to get into ignorance and unsupported claims just start with your position.Joseph_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
Joseph [19], that’s a non-responsive response.
Both [17] and [19] answered your queries. Just because you don't like the responses doesn't mean anything to me.Joseph_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Joseph [19], that's a non-responsive response. I was referring to another thread where you wrote both authoritatively and wrongly about YEC and related issues. Is that the only area where you act like an expert but display ignorance?David Kellogg_{June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

Precisely! One example would be the hedging and back-peddling we see over in the “Species” thread right now. The Darwinistas can’t even make sense of this concept which is fundamental to their theory.
Indeed. Species concepts obviously don't make sense in biology. The evidence for this fact has been presented during an IDEA conference back in 2002 in San Francisco. IIRC, much of the argument was based on wolfs and thylacines.sparc_{June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

Hi Paul,
The term “baramin” is used in Young Earth Creationism - it is not used at all in orthodox intelligent design. See http://www.conservapedia.com/Baramin for a discussion.
But what is "orthodox" intelligent design? The ID movement has wisely avoided imposing orthodoxy on itself, and takes no position on the question of a young Earth vs. an old Earth. Moreover, Walt ReMine, who posts here periodically, is mentioned on the very Conservapaedia page you linked to. See this page for more information.herb_{June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

"herb" (#14) wrote: "...on the ID side you will find a wealth of rigorously defined concepts and associated theorems, such as...baramin..." You're mixing apples and kumquats here, herb. The term "baramin" is used in Young Earth Creationism - it is not used at all in orthodox intelligent design. See http://www.conservapedia.com/Baramin for a discussion.PaulBurnett_{June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

We have some vacant beds in our facility, but no padded cells. Keep me up on what's going on with him, and I'll see what I can come up with. :)CannuckianYankee_{June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

I predict that Paul Zachary Myers will convert to Christianity within the next five years or else he will be admitted to a psychiatric hospital and kept in a padded cell for his own safety and that of the other patients.Mapou_{June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

HBi herb, I was just making the very pedestrian observation that at least Darwin must have thought the concept of species was important, since the word appears in the title of his seminal work. Darwin developed his theory to explain life's diversity. Yet he came to realize, as I have quoted on another thread, that the terms "species" and "variety" were actually arbitrary constructs. And far from just making a "pedestrian observatoiopn, you went further to say we "Darwinistas" cannot make sense of a concept that is "fundamental to our theory". Naturally , as a card carrying Darwinista who fails to see how the concept is fundamental to the theory, I was curious. Regarding your other questions, I don’t know the answers. If there weren’t species or “kinds”, if you will, wouldn’t that mean that any two organisms could interbreed? No, why would it? Do genetic incompatibilities between organisms and how they arise rely on a definition of species? What about the simple observation that organisms which exchange genes will be more alike than those that do not. Does that depend on an arbitrary definition like species? What about the observation that local populations of genetically similar individuals will develop as long those individuals exchange genes? Or that assemblages of these local breeding populations (called 'metapopulations') can develop through gene exchange and migration? Or that if some become isolated enough they can diverge from the other local groups in the assemblage and form lineages and metapopulations of their own? Would it really matter if subgroups in one lineage might still be interfertile with subgroups in another lineage, if they were still reproductively isolated enough (through things like distance, or behavior, or ecological conditions)to prevent actual gene exchange? The answer is no. Divergence and increased diversity would still occur regardless. Mutations would still occur, recombination would still generate even more variation, and natural selection would still drive adaptation. Defining a category one particular way would add NOTHING to the process, and certainly would not prevent it from occurring.Dave Wisker_{June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

I love all the "you made this claim back in______" now admit it and I've ruined your reputation, and now UncommonDescent is proven to be full of fools. Come on people, stay on topic.PhilosophyFan_{June 6, 2009
June
06
Jun
6
06
2009
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply