Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Reverend Barry Lynn Blasts Infidels Who Refuse to Venerate Darwinius

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

On May 26, 2009 Reverend Barry Lynn offered his characterization of infidels who refuse to venerate Darwinius. His tirade (supported by Eugenie Scott) can be found here: Show #1415 Eugenie Scott, Susan Russell.

Some excerpts:

Reverend Barry Lynn :
The more new evidence that develops the more some people dig in to their erroneous earlier beliefs
…..
I am still flabbergasted by the notion that no matter what you show some people and say…”this why I believe what I believe” some people say, “nope not enough”….

….the religious right is already saying….”it [Ida (Darwinius)] could be a fake”

What’s wrong with people that they can’t look at evidence and say, “Ok, I didn’t see it before I’m going to re-evaluate based on what I do see.”

But then, less than a month later, reporter Denyse O’Leary pointed us to a Scientific American article:

And in an elaborate public-relations campaign, in which the release of a Web site, a book and a documentary on the History Channel were timed to coincide with the publication of the scientific paper describing her in PLoS ONE, Ida’s significance was described in no uncertain terms as the missing link between us humans and our primate kin. In news reports, team members called her “the eighth wonder of the world,” “the Holy Grail,” and “a Rosetta Stone.”

The orchestration paid off, as Ida graced the front page of countless newspapers and made appearances on the morning (and evening) news programs. Gossip outlets, such as People and Gawker, took note of her, too. And Google incorporated her image into its logo on the main search page for a day.
And in an elaborate public-relations campaign, in which the release of a Web site, a book and a documentary on the History Channel were timed to coincide with the publication of the scientific paper describing her in PLoS ONE, Ida’s significance was described in no uncertain terms as the missing link between us humans and our primate kin. In news reports, team members called her “the eighth wonder of the world,” “the Holy Grail,” and “a Rosetta Stone.”

But a number of outside experts have criticized these claims. Not only is Ida too old to reveal anything about the evolution of humans in particular (the earliest putative human ancestors are a mere seven million years old), but she may not even be particularly closely related to the so-called anthropoid branch of the primate family tree that includes monkeys, apes and us.

So Reverend Lynn was criticizing the skepticism of those who refused to venerate Ida. He insinuated that those who were skeptical of Darwinism were closed minded and had no basis for skepticism of Ida. What does Lynn have to say now? Is anyone aware of a retraction or apology for his smear on those skeptical of Ida?

Let me remind Reverend Lynn of his own words:

What’s wrong with people that they can’t look at evidence and say, “Ok, I didn’t see it before I’m going to re-evaluate based on what I do see.”

Reverend Lynn’s guest on this show was Eugenie Scott. Genie speculated on the large financial interest that certain organizations have in perpetuating the myths and untruths of Darwinius.

Eugenie Scott:

This is a wonderful wonderful fossil….it [Ida (Darwinius)] is a wonderful transitional fossil ……

My hypothesis about the secrecy…had to do with the payment…the asking price was a lot of money…I suspect that it was the company that ended up making the book, making the movie, selling the showing rights to ABC and the history channel…I suspect that the money came from the media…..

Reverend Barry Lynn:
We’re gonna explore…this persistent fear by people from people don’t like evolution. They don’t believe in anything. They don’t include…like Ida.

…we’re talking this first half of the program about the new discovery of a 47-million-year-old skeleton….kind of a branch of the chain that breaks out into lemurs and other varmints and then that branch in the evolutionary ladder, tree or whatever you want to call, that branches out to humans….

Eugenie Scott:
I am looking much more Neanderthal since I had this job…
A real problem that anybody has is when you let your ideologies override the evidence….

Did your irony meter explode like mine did?

NOTE:

To set the record straight, I probably think more highly of Genie and the NCSE than most. She seems like a nice person for the most part (except for her treatment of Sternberg). I think she is mistaken on many issues, but I certainly would not go so far as to say what one teacher in Minnesota said of her organization:

“The NCSE is lying.”

–PZ Myers

Comments
Excellent ID video just came out: Journey Inside The Cell - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiJupfbSpgbornagain77
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Mr BA^77, I'm not familiar with the failure of evolutionary predictions vis-a-vis the Cambrian Explosion. What do you feel was a prediction, and what was a failure? I'm sorry to hear you are dissatisfied with the current moderation policy. I appreciate any pointers where my logic has lapsed, though there is a clear distinction with regard to assumptions, not logic.Nakashima
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
I bet.Charlie
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Mr Joseph, How was Shubin's prediction of Tiktaalik a 'telic process' prediction? I've watched his presentation on the process used and I saw no assumption of a telic process depositing that fossil in that place.Nakashima
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Mr Charlie, Thank you! I think any progress is due to feeling more comfortable with the venue.Nakashima
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Shubin finding Tiki had nothing to do with non-telic processes. As for the standard of evidence it appears that evos will acecpt anything besides the design inference, whereas to reach the design inference specific criteria must be met. Thenthere is the fact that you can't produce a testable hypothesis pertaining to non-telic processes...Joseph
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Nakashima @15: I prefer to avoid the material/immaterial debate. That's where the science gets left behind and personal religious beliefs come into play. ID is an examination of the the thing which may or may or not be designed. In other words, the subject of ID is always material.ScottAndrews
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Wow, congratulations, Nak-san. Your conversational English has improved light years since I first read your postings (was it only last year?) on this blog. It should be recommended reading for ESL students.Charlie
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
Nak, that you cling to such a dubious prediction of Tikaalek, as controversial a transitional as ever, which was based as much on known geography of the time as to anything else, yet you would ignore the failed predictions of evolution such as the cambrian, and the sudden appearance of life on earth 3.89bya, big bang, as well as numerous others once again reveals your bias to twist any evidence no matter how trivial to your atheistic bias,,,that the new moderator would allow such is amazing, maybe he feels that allowing people to see how pathetic the materialistic philosophy is will show people how ludicrous the whole evolutionary framework is. Myself, I long for the old days when such comments as you are making would have got you a few warnings and then a boot for violating standards of logic.bornagain77
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Mr ScottAndrews, That intelligent agents create such complexities is well established. We know enough to take it seriously. Since all the intelligent agents I'm familiar with are solidly materialistic, I take it you are voting for a visit by littering space aliens 4 billion years ago.Nakashima
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Mr Joseph, So far the discussion has been (tried to be) about standards of evidence, not evidence itself. What is your opinion on this? IOW what is the evidence that demonstrates mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery and new body plans? Can you even present a testable hypothesis pertaining to non-telic processes? By the Power of Greyskull - I commanded Neil Shubin to predict and find Tiktaalik, and it worked! Bwahahaha! OK, so maybe the whole Greyskull and commanding part is fake, but I'm pretty sure I didn't imagine the Shubin predicting/finding Tiktaalik part.Nakashima
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
Sal: Please edit your post and put the word 'Reverand' in quotes (" ") in front of Lynn's name. There is nothing "reverand" about the guy and, frankly, I don't think he deserves the title!DonaldM
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Nakashima @6: The idea that natural forces acting randomly can produce anything as complex as the simplest living thing is so outrageous, so fantastic, so unbelievable, that no one can be faulted for rejecting it outright without reams of documentation or a time-lapse video. Something so preposterous cannot be accepted based on threads of evidence woven together by speculation and hope. That intelligent agents create such complexities is well established. We know enough to take it seriously.ScottAndrews
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Nakashima, What do you have for evidence? IOW what is the evidence that demonstrates mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery and new body plans? Can you even present a testable hypothesis pertaining to non-telic processes?Joseph
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
Mr Gingoro, You haven't addressed my question. Is this your personal level of scepticism and evidence or do you think other people (such as myself) should only change their beliefs when provided with this amount of evidence? I apologise for not welcoming you as well. There are so many people who post here, and often people change handles. What is your background?Nakashima
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT
Nakashima That is not a pathetic level of detail let me explain. What I call evolution of complex biological features is what is often called macro evolution and includes as a subset what in ID terms is called evolution of irreducibly complex features. Right now they do not have any such descriptions see Coyne's book and his chapter on evolution of complex biological features. The chapter is essentially vacuous and consists of him mainly waiving his hands and complaining about having to provide such details. If the flagellum were the chosen example then I'd want enough evidence to convince Behe that it evolved without the kind of intelligent input that he currently thinks is necessary. I do not think that is a trivial request. Also note that I said that I would think about changing my mind, probably I would think that evolution of complex biological features was a little less unlikely. Certainly if they had a large number of such descriptions I probably would change my mind. Dave W Others Thanks for the welcome.gingoro
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT
I take great exception to Reverend Lynn tarring people who do not accept Darwinain evolution as "anti-science". That is a smear. Even if a minority of scientists, medical doctors, and engineers do not accept evolution, the minority status hardly justifies labeling these individuals anti-science. It hardly justifies tarring aspiring science students as "anti-science". This is a prejudicial smear campaign that does no good, and demostratably ruins careers and lives. The only people it benefits are people like Lynn. And Lynn was demonstratably wrong this last round.scordova
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_Abornagain77
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
Mr Gingoro, Fair enough but I am awaiting the 500 page book that describes one complex biological transition where we know for sure the genetic path followed, can infer the external characteristics of the organism, the survival advantage and have fossil evidence for appropriate steps? is this your private standard, or do you think that everyone should only switch views when confronted with this pathetic level of detail? Which ID researcher is most likely to write such a volume for the doubters among us?Nakashima
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
O'Leary , Scordova This following song reminds me of the state of most debates on ID-Evolution sites,,,God has given us a veritable banquet of evidence verifying His glory,,,yet the banquet prepared, apparently with such care for us to enjoy, more often than not turns into a juvenile food fight. Travis - Sing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1f2M5G9KG8 Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.bornagain77
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
The really interesting thing about "Ida Darwinius" is that the usual pop science media simply rejected it, which doubtless explains our good Reverend's anger. Folks, that has almost never happened before in the history of Darwin nonsense inflicted on the public. I used to ask myself - is there any "defend Darwin" story so obviously unbelievable that the pop science media won't just swallow it and spout the usual lines, as expected? Guess what, there was! Ida Darwinius tipped the barrel.O'Leary
August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
gingoro, I don't believe we've met at UD before. Welcome to UD. beancan5000, Likewise. Welcome to UD. Salscordova
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
What’s wrong with people that they can’t look at evidence and say, “Ok, I didn’t see it before I’m going to re-evaluate based on what I do see"? When people like the "reverend" Barry Lynn like a shell game uncover evidence that is presented such that 1+1=3, i.e., man evolved from an apelike ancestor, then there is no need to re-evaluate. 1+1 does not = 3 and it won't = 3 no matter how many peer-reviewed papers and flaky bones are put out and no matter how much air is blown out the mouth claiming all calculations based on the 1+1=3 formula is true. It does not compute. The evidence presented doesn't flush, it doesn't fly. Mindless unliving matter does not pop into existence from nowhere and move itself to form purposeful entities like suns and molecules and living things. It just doesn't. beancan5000
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
First let me say that I accept common descent and evolution of small scale biological features as put forward by the modern evolutionary synthesis. However when it comes to the development of complex biological features by an evolutionary pathway my verdict is not proven.
I am still flabbergasted by the notion that no matter what you show some people and say…”this why I believe what I believe” some people say, “nope not enough”
Fair enough but I am awaiting the 500 page book that describes one complex biological transition where we know for sure the genetic path followed, can infer the external characteristics of the organism, the survival advantage and have fossil evidence for appropriate steps? And yes I realize that not all genetic changes are immediately expressed and am willing to consider a reasonable argument as to why in some cases there is no external change to the organism. When I have read such a book by say Coyne or Dawkins, then there is a good chance that I will change my mind. Dave Wgingoro
August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply