Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Powerline Blog : Evolutionary theory is an "obvious fraud."

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 05:14 AM
Original message
Powerline Blog : Evolutionary theory is an "obvious fraud."
Time named these extreme right-wingers "Blog of the year"

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2003_02.php#000098

<snip>

Professor Volokh seemed to assume that someone who doesn't believe in evolution is a harmless crank, who should not on that account be barred from pursuing a career in, say, medicine. My own view is different. I think that Darwin's theory of macroevolution is plainly wrong, on strictly scientific grounds. So to bar a student from progressing in his career because he refuses to sign on to what is, in my view, a rather obvious fraud, which cannot withstand the mildest scrutiny, is really an outrage. It is no different from the practice in Soviet Russia of promoting only biologists who believed (or pretended to believe) in the theories of Lamarck, who argued that acquired traits could be inherited. But Darwinism is the official religion of the biological (and more generally, the scientific) establishment, and as such is rigorously enforced.

One could argue (as Volokh did, if I remember the conversation correctly) that, apart from the merits of the issue, a professor is under no duty to write a recommendation for a student, and therefore should be able, legally and morally, to refrain from recommending any student on any non-discriminatory basis. But discrimination against Christians, observant Jews and conservatives is much more prevalent in our society than race or sex discrimination (putting aside, of course, affirmative action). The reality is that in the academic world, and to a lesser degree in the business world, being a liberal and subscribing to the liberal creed on subjects like abortion and affirmative action are qualities that, while not necessary, are certainly desirable for promotion. (It is the social and cultural issues that are key; tax policy is optional.)
As to the Texas Tech professor, I doubt that he is very atypical. Karl Popper argued long ago that Darwin's theory of evolution was never a matter of science; it was always about faith. As the empirical foundations of Darwinism have crumbled under attack by a new generation of biologists, especially microbiologists, its advocates have become increasingly shrill and sectarian. This particular professor's mistake was to announce publicly that he refused to write recommendations for some of his students. If he had kept quiet and simply written qualified, reserved recommendations for his skeptical students, while saving his enthusiastic endorsements for the true believers, there would have been no controversy. And his practice would, I suspect, have mirrored that of most of his peers.

The great fault line in our society is not economic. It is cultural, and specifically, religious. What motivates liberals to launch their increasingly wild and intemperate assaults on conservatives is, in most cases, their fear and hatred of the "religious right." (This is, I think, what principally motivates the Bush-haters, whose venom is so puzzling to those of us who see the President as--whether one agrees with his policies or not--an obviously good man.) It is an article of faith (and I mean the word "faith" very literally) that religious people are dumb, irrational, retrograde, and doomed to extinction.
<snip>

Damn those libruls and their science! Damn them all.

This is the same wingnut who called Jimmy Carter a traitor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 05:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. Was Time's nomination tongue-in-cheek?
Why do I suspect the answer is "No."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. That's one problem with Blogs
The criteria for being a successful blog isn't logical arguments or smart writing, its the number of hits you get, and the number of links others are willing to give you.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
punpirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 05:24 AM
Response to Original message
2. Scientists, like...
Edited on Mon Feb-21-05 05:26 AM by punpirate
... lawyers, businessmen and others can graduate with a 2.1, too.

On edit, the same goes for editors, as well. (Hearing cheers in the background from reporters....) :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. Most scientists are produced in grad schools where 2.1 is a failing grade
Maintaining a "B" average is typically a minimum requirement in grad schools. You can get kicked out if you can't maintain that GPA.

That isn't to say that there are not "average" grad students. Most of them certainly are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
punpirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. Exactly my point...
... there's a top of the scale, and then there's the minimum required....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theorist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 05:47 AM
Response to Original message
3. Don't forget this jewel from MinnPolitics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theorist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
4. Hmmmm....
I live with an evolutionary biologist, and I this part is news to me:

As the empirical foundations of Darwinism have crumbled under attack by a new generation of biologists, especially microbiologists, its advocates have become increasingly shrill and sectarian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. It's all about the parsing of "Darwinism"
Edited on Mon Feb-21-05 10:25 AM by HereSince1628
Darwin emphasized natural selection as the mechanism for the emergence of different kinds. If you define evolution as Darwinism, strictly on the basis of natural selection, even your house mate would say that natural selection is only part of the story.

The history of evolutionary theory has passed well beyond strict Darwinism.

Unfortunately, like other venues of conservative argumentation, anti-evolutionists prefer to define evolutionary arguments in a manner that makes them strawmen. They frame the argument so that it can only fail. In the previous framing I could be one of those scientists that doesn't believe in Darwinism. Not because I believe in creation or ID but because I don't think natural selection is sufficient.

You'll notice that the above cited text is an attack specifically on "macroevolution." Events of macroevolution involve changes in the "membership list" of types of life on the planet. The "List" changes when types go extinct or come into existence. (I am pretty sure that the antievolution people now accept extinction. Although they didn't always.) The problem anti-evolutionists have focused on is the origin of new "types" which they narrowly define types as _species_.

Evolutionary scientists are aware that term species is in part an artifact of taxonomy and systematics. It comes from a time when recognizing differences was more important than recognizing similarities.

Not to say that modern biologists are neoAdansonians, but evolutionary scientists recognize that "categories" are to some extent simply convenient semantic devices. Although the word _Species_ has some correspondence to things biologist perceive in nature, the definition has a history of fuzziness.

It has been notoriously difficult to get a universal definition of species that works for all the variant types of life in all the circumstances where application of the definition is needed. Consequently, it is equally difficult to frame an underlying universal meaning of "speciation" for every type and every circumstance wherein a scientist would like to employ that term.

Presently, "species" is a term whose criteria and "goodness of fit" to rhetorical use is biologically contextual.

Those of us who have studied evolution know that macroevolution is an aspect of evolutionary theory that remains vulnerable to rhetorical
attacks. These attacks are often less about the existence of empirical evidence of the history of life and more about the significance/interpretation of such evidence within a rigged game of semantic word play.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theorist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. I'm completely with you.
I guess I was too tired to notice the convenient use of the term "Darwinism". You're right, it is not a catch-all phrase for evolutionary theory, although it is one aspect.

I was mostly going for the "crumble" part. Doesn't that seem a tad bit hyperbolic?

Thanks for taking the time to write such an extensive response, btw. You must teach this stuff. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BBradley Donating Member (645 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
31. I've never understood the whole Micro and Macro evolution thing.
It's always been my understanding that terms like species and genus were matters of convenience used to classify animals. It seems to me that any change that would give the life-form an advantage it didn't have before would be evolution. I mean, what percentage of genetic material needs to change before it's considered "macro-evolution."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrWeird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. There's no real difference.
Since "micro" evolution is observable in nature and in a laboratory, Creationists have a hard time dealing with it. So they make up a phony difference between what is observed and the "macro" evolution that is required for humans to evolve from apes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. The creationists think that there are tiny little magic boxes called
"species" created by God/Jehovah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
delhurgo Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 06:22 AM
Response to Original message
5. Great catch.
These guys just outed themselves as a bunch of irrational kooks. At least one of the other seems to agree with him, and the other works at a religious conservative institute so Im sure he probably agrees as well. 'Powerline' just became alot smaller and alot less powerful in my eyes... certainly doesn't stand for brain'power' thats for sure, lol. Dumbasses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
6. Can you even study biology or genetics if you pretend there is no
evolution. I mean how does biology even hold together if you don't admit there is evolution. How can you study genetics if you don't allow for evolution. Both those sciences make no sense without evolution. It's like being an astronaut and believing the world is flat. I sure as heck don't want a doctor who thinks "poof man is here, thank you god" working on me or my family.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. There Are Various Theories On HOW Evolution Happens
what the method and mechanisms are.

It's really simple to grasp and yet so many can't get that.

The Darwinian model is weak and outdated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MHalblaub Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. I'm not so well informed.
Would you please enlighten us with your superior knowledge.
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrWeird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
23. See my link below.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrWeird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
22. Hmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MHalblaub Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-22-05 05:27 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. I ask for other scientific theories.
<<Intelligent Design Is ALSO A Valid Theory Which Is More Feasible than the "theory" of Materialsim which posits that the Universe, Life and Intelligence evolved out of Physical Matter.

Western Science has never proven that Physical Matter can create Life OR Intelligence.">>


You can't predict something with ID therefore it is not a scientific theory.

You want some predictions from Darwin's theory?
Just think, then ask yourself and after that ask me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
30. Holy cow, I agree with you!!!!
As you said here:

The Darwinian model is weak and outdated.

100% agree with you there, that's probably why it hasn't been used for, oh, I don't know, 50 years or so. I mean, really, he didn't even know about genetics or the mechanisms for it! Kinda like Newton, I mean, he was wrong too, he didn't know about the bending of space time, stuff like that. None of us knew until Einstien came along, good thing he did too, otherwise those apples would be hanging in mid air today!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nimrod Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
9. Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
I can't help but wonder if this wingnu... uh, crackpo... uh, individual would stand up against the so-called "oppression" of a vocal Satanist.

This reveals much more if you just insert the word "MY" before every instance of the word "religion".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GiovanniC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
11. Yes, To Hell With Using Science In Medicine
I want a doctor who will just slaughter a fucking chicken over my broken body and conjure the spirits to heal me.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
14. Powerline blog: Hitler's homosexual cadres (read in relation to Guckert)
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2003_03.php#002534

<snip>The preceding controversy prompted by Lindner derived from his refusal to pay tribute to homosexuals as victims of the Holocaust. Reading the comments relating to that remark -- comments coming from each of the state's seven Jewish state representatives -- one would think that Minnesota is a state with a significant Jewish population. In fact, Jews constitute approximately one percent of the state's population of five million. It is also difficult to follow the train of thought of the Jewish DFL representatives who purported to take offense at Lindner's failure to include homosexuals among the victims of the Holocaust.

One of the morals of this story is the advantage of knowing a little history. Lindner could have had a lot of fun in the contretemps if he had been only been even slightly knowledgeable of the sexual orientation of the prominent "175ers" among the Nazi leadership. Lothar Machtan's The Hidden Hitler makes the case that Hitler himself was probably homosexual and that the Nazi anti-homosexual legislation was implemented to protect Hitler from slander and blackmail.

In any event, the Strib story has incredible entertainment value: "Lawmaker condemned by Holocaust survivor now accused of racism." The Strib also includes a summary of Lindner's previously "controversial" remarks; they provide invaluable insight into the hokum involved here: "A history of controversy." (Courtesy of Dr. David Pence.)
<snip>

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/002546.php

<snip>For amusement purposes only, let us return to the point I suggested regarding Hitler's homosexual cadres. Anyone familiar with the history of the Nazi party knows that male homosexuals were prominent among both the perpetrators and the victims of Nazism. As head of the SA until his murder by other of Hitler's goons on the Night of the Long Knives, Ernst Roehm was one of the essential instruments of Hitler's rise to power. He was also a flagrant homosexual whose sexual depravity knew no bounds. His service to Hitler was so important that when he came under intraparty attack for his homosexuality, Hitler defended Roehm (and his homosexual cadres) in words that make Hitler sound like a good DFL liberal in the mold of Allan Spear or Phyllis Kahn.

As early as February 1931, Hitler issued a remarkable decree concerning "the attacks on the private lives" of "very senior and senior SA officers." These, as Hitler saw them, were based mainly on circumstances "wholly extraneous to the context of duties to the SA." He "vigorously and on principle" rejected all requests to "rule" on these. Hitler protested that the SA men's "private life cannot be an object of scrutiny unless it runs counter to vital principles of National Socialist ideology."

Do you suppose that any of the politicians weighing in on the historicity of Rep. Lindner's comments on homosexuals and the Holocaust will introduce this element of complexity into the discussion?<snip>

How DARE those libruls talk about Gannon's sexual orientation?!?!?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WMliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
16. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!
"But discrimination against Christians, observant Jews and conservatives is much more prevalent in our society than race or sex discrimination"

I can see the march of WASPS in the streets of America chanting "We shall overcome!"

All that darn discrimination. If only we ever got a Christian or a conservative to be President! Then those ::insert whoever they think is in charge here:: will get theirs!!!
Straight from the mouth of Bob Boudelang.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop_the_War Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
17. Why are you posting this right-wing B.S.?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. They are Time Magazine's Blog of the Year. Time to expose them
for the far-right extremist nutbags that they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gottaB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-22-05 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #18
28. Good for you
It's shocking to me that Time would hold this up as exemplary. Perhaps there's an ulterior motive. Regardless, it's a window on the rightwing state of mind. This is the kind of thinking that dominates the Republican Party. Every citizen needs to know just how far off the deep end they've gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrat Dragon Donating Member (699 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
20. Although I do not believe in "drastic" macroevolution
This guy's argument is poor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrWeird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
21. People who don't believe in evolution are frauds.
They'll twist logic and reason to ridiculous degrees to support their claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. They especially twist evolution in to meaning the origin of life or even..
the origin of the universe.

Abiogenesis/exobiology is a different field of study from evolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kodi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
25. the guy is an ignorant jerk-off with no comprehension of scientific method
On that blog he has lied, misrepresented, and misunderstood the data and the methodology employed by logic and rationalism.

His position is ir-rational.

This guy is nothing but an intellectual charlatan with a net server who has staked out a scientific position for the basest of motives, transient politics.

He is an avatar of Orwell's interrogator of Winston Smith in "1984" demanding that 1 and 1 equals whatever is expedient.

He makes a very good case by pronounced personal atributes for a Theory of Devolution.

The Athenians of Pericles' time were more advanced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-05 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
26. Gravity is just a theory. When all the people who remind us evolution is
only a theory jump off of cliffs, perhaps I will listen to them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
29. This story has legs!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BBradley Donating Member (645 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
33. Does Darwin ever use the term "Macro-evolution?"
Or did creationists make this term up after they realized that they'd already lost half the argument? Seriously, it's kind of pathetic that you have to make up a new term because real scientists are discrediting you.

I don't understand this obsession the creationists have with finding a life-form that has changed into a different species. Guess what guys? That species thing? We made it up! It's for biological convenience! It has no real meaning anymore. It's all about the genes nowadays, and any genetic change that would result in an advantage for a life-form would be <drumroll> EVOLUTION! Good job, you guys make yourself look more ignorant everyday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. And Assrocket claims to have science on his side!
He's a raving lunatic.

And he's catching a lot shit now because of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-05 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
36. What gets me about these critics of Darwinism is that
they claim evolutionary theory is full of holes, so therefore Creationism or "Intelligent Design" is the answer. How is saying a guy in the sky must have created everything from his giant blueprints more logical than even the most antique Darwinist theory?

I mean, why bother using logical arguments at all?

Now, if they want to be taken seriously, perhaps they can come up with a truly better scientific theory. I'm all ears!

But obviously that's not their game plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC