"The Republican War on Science"
IMO the book "The Republican War on Science" by Chris Mooney makes some good points but also has some serious flaws.
The book's chapter on the opposition to Darwinism was a very poor choice as the sample chapter for the book's official website. This chapter does not even attempt to show that this opposition has any significant harmful or potentially harmful effects. In fact, this opposition benefits science by forcing scientists to confront the weaknesses of Darwinism.
This chapter overemphasizes the religious motivations of some Darwinism Doubters and repeats the shopworn "wedge document" conspiracy theory.
This chapter admits,
Darwinists have deliberately created tremendous confusion by conflating the terms "intelligent design," "creationism," "creation science" (also called "scientific creationism"), and "critical analysis of evolution." That's intellectual dishonesty -- these terms have different meanings and connotations. Darwinists have even coined the term "intelligent design creationism" -- that's like "evolution theory atheism."
Also, creation science does not necessarily try to show that the earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old -- there is also old-earth creationism.
One webpage of the book's official website says,
Abstinence education is not a scientific issue but is a political and social issue.
John Horgan of the New York Times summed up the book this way --
The book's chapter on the opposition to Darwinism was a very poor choice as the sample chapter for the book's official website. This chapter does not even attempt to show that this opposition has any significant harmful or potentially harmful effects. In fact, this opposition benefits science by forcing scientists to confront the weaknesses of Darwinism.
This chapter overemphasizes the religious motivations of some Darwinism Doubters and repeats the shopworn "wedge document" conspiracy theory.
This chapter admits,
Granted, ID diverges in some respects from earlier forms of American antievolutionism. It certainly isn’t synonymous with “creation science,” which provided an allegedly scientific veneer for the biblically based belief that the earth is only between six thousand and ten thousand years old.
Darwinists have deliberately created tremendous confusion by conflating the terms "intelligent design," "creationism," "creation science" (also called "scientific creationism"), and "critical analysis of evolution." That's intellectual dishonesty -- these terms have different meanings and connotations. Darwinists have even coined the term "intelligent design creationism" -- that's like "evolution theory atheism."
Also, creation science does not necessarily try to show that the earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old -- there is also old-earth creationism.
One webpage of the book's official website says,
In the White House and Congress today, findings are reported in a politicized manner; spun or distorted to fit the speaker’s agenda; or, when they’re too inconvenient, ignored entirely. On a broad array of issues—stem cell research, climate change, abstinence education , mercury pollution, and many others—the Bush administration’s positions fly in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus.(emphasis added)
Abstinence education is not a scientific issue but is a political and social issue.
John Horgan of the New York Times summed up the book this way --
As the title indicates, Mooney's book is a diatribe, from start to finish. The prose is often clunky and clichéd, and it suffers from smug, preaching-to-the-choir self-righteousness. But Mooney deserves a hearing in spite of these flaws, because he addresses a vitally important topic and gets it basically right.
Labels: Evolution controversy (2 of 4)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 11/14/2006 05:02:00 PM
30 Comments:
Fake Dave said --
>>>>>> This chapter does not even attempt to show that this opposition has any significant harmful or potentially harmful effects. <
Oh? What about this (emphasis added)? -- <<<<<<<<
Well, Darwinism has the same effect -- many of the gaps in Darwinism can be explained only by supernatural causes.
>>>Well, Darwinism has the same effect -- many of the gaps in Darwinism can be explained only by supernatural causes.<<<
More evidence that whatever this "Darwinism" is that Larry keeps babbling about, it certainly has nothing to do with actual evolutionary theory.
The Troll blithered...
> many of the gaps in Darwinism can be explained only by supernatural causes. <
Yet you can't tell us any of these gaps (and then stick around to defend your absurd and baseless pronouncements).
The Idiot has given a resounding silence about his belief that The Los Angeles Times and The World Almanac are written and distributed with supernatural aid.
If you still believe this, why not explain why? If you no longer believe this, why not explain what changed your mind and what type of creatures you believe are now publishing them?
Maybe the supernatural comes in when it comes time to classify amphibians? Maybe the supernatural explains deuterostomes and protostomes? Maybe the supernatural explains jellyfish/starfish relationships?
It looks like the Troll has gone back into his cave until he can find another irrelevant article to post.
Voice in the Wilderness said,
> many of the gaps in Darwinism can be explained only by supernatural causes. <
Yet you can't tell us any of these gaps <<<<<<
Darwinists still haven't explained co-evolution, for one.
I don't know what these mythical "Darwinists" have or have not done, but biologists have explained co-evolution. Just because Larry is deliberately ignorant and is too stupid to understand the explanation doesn't mean it hasn't been explained. There are even books for the general populace that explain co-evolution.
Instead of informing himself of the actual science behind co-evolution, Larry chooses to spout off time-worn creationist garbage that even the creationists largely abandoned before the internet became popular. Heck, my grandmother tried those same arguments on me when I was 7.
Kevin Vicklund babbles --
>>>>> I don't know what these mythical "Darwinists" have or have not done, but biologists have explained co-evolution. . . . . . . There are even books for the general populace that explain co-evolution. <<<<<<
That's baloney. Name one. You are just a bag of hot air.
And "Darwinists" are not mythical -- they are unfortunately very much alive.
The Troll grunted...
> Darwinists still haven't explained co-evolution, for one. <
As Kevin says, you can't say that something hasn't been explained because you have covered your ears and bleated "I can't hear you."
>And "Darwinists" are not mythical<
Darwinists are a creation of creationists such as yourself.
I see that you are still ducking questions about the Los Angeles Times.
Come on. You know that little green men don't publish the Los Angeles Times. Ed Brayton publishes the Los Angeles Times.
>>>>>>There are even books for the general populace that explain co-evolution. <<<<<<
>>>That's baloney. Name one. You are just a bag of hot air.<<<
How about Co-Evolution, edited by Futuyma et al?
In fact, I just went to Amazon and searched for "Coevolution" in the books section of the website, and three of the first four books that came up were on biological coevolution (although the first focuses more on cultural analogs to coevolution - I helped my wife understand the sections on biology). Futuyma's book was listed third. Since Larry is too lazy to do a search on his own, here is a link to the search results. 9 of the first 12 (I didn't bother looking past the first page) are on biological coevolution. Note: do not hyphenate ("co-evolution") in the search, otherwise most of the early hits are for computing and information theory.
Name one? How about 9:
Coevolution: Genes, Culture, and Human Diversity by William H. Durham
Coevolution by Douglas J. Futuyma and Montgomery Slatkin
The Geographic Mosaic of Coevolution (Interspecific Interactions) by John N. Thompson
Beauty and the beast: The coevolution of plants and animals by Susan Grant
Yellow Fever, Black Goddess: The Coevolution of People and Plagues (Helix Book) by Christopher Wills
The Coevolution of Climate and Life by Stephen H. Schneider
Tangled Trees: Phylogeny, Cospeciation, and Coevolution by Roderic D. M. Page
Environmentalism for a New Millennium: The Challenge of Coevolution by Leslie Paul Thiele
Coevolution of Fungi With Plants and Animals by K. A. Pirozynski and D. L. Hawksworth
An argument from personal ignorance is an ignorant argument. Larry is an ignorant fool.
Sorry, I misspelled Futuyma's book the first time because I was citing the title from memory, and forgot to correct myself after looking up the link on Amazon.
Kevin babbles,
>>>>How about Co-Evolution, <<<<<
You stupid fathead, I have been asking for months for references about co-evolution -- why did you wait until now to mention that some can be found on Amazon.com?
And the above book starts at $46 for a used paperback! Obviously never a very popular book.
Just because these books have "co-evolution" in their titles does not necessarily mean that they discuss the mechanisms of co-evolution -- and any such discussions are not necessarily plausible. The books could be mainly about co-dependence. Some of the titles do not even concern the co-evolution of species.
I found almost nothing about co-evolution by using Google for searching. And the Talk.Origins website, which presents a lot of arguments against criticisms of evolution, has almost nothing about co-evolution.
Co-evolution is not even on the radar screens of most people involved in the evolution controversy. Many people believe or pretend to believe that intelligent design is the only challenge to Darwinism.
Anyway, with all that literature, you should have no trouble coming up with arguments against my challenge to co-evolution.
You Darwinists have this strange idea that you automatically win debates just by entering them.
Fake Larry(?) brayed...
> You stupid fathead, I have been asking for months for references about co-evolution -- why did you wait until now to mention that some can be found on Amazon.com? <
Perhaps he felt that even a pea-brain such as yourself knew how to use search engines. He gave you too much credit.
> And the above book starts at $46 for a used paperback! Obviously never a very popular book. <
As an unemployed and unemployable person I imagine that you will have to find them in public libraries, or you could ask the same charitable people who are paying your living expenses to kick in a little more.
> Just because these books have "co-evolution" in their titles does not necessarily mean that they discuss the mechanisms of co-evolution <
You would have to read them to find out. Otherwise you will remain ignorant. I would expect the latter.
> I found almost nothing about co-evolution by using Google for searching. <
Your computer has to be connected to the Internet when you try to search.
> Many people believe or pretend to believe that intelligent design is the only challenge to Darwinism. <
It is. Co-evolution is not a challenge to evolution. As for the straw man you call "Darwinism", you would have to define it.
> You Darwinists have this strange idea that you automatically win debates just by entering them. <
We win them by shooting your pathetic arguments down. We win them by issuing unanswered challenges. Sometimes we just win them because you shoot yourself in the foot, as you commonly do.
Voice said...
> We win them by issuing unanswered challenges. <
Fake Larry(?) believes that he is above answering questions that would disclose or highlight his ignorance and hypocrisy.
>>>You stupid fathead, I have been asking for months for references about co-evolution -- why did you wait until now to mention that some can be found on Amazon.com?<<<
No, you ignorant jackass, you've been claiming for months that you couldn't find online creationist sources on co-evolution - more precisely, the type of co-evolution known as mutualism. I gave you a bunch of creationist resources, online and print, at the beginning of October. And it's not as if you'd actually read the books, anyway. Besides, back when you were on Panda's Thumb, you were told the best place to look up info on mutualism was in PubMed, and you rejected that.
>>>And the above book starts at $46 for a used paperback! Obviously never a very popular book.<<<
Does it matter? You refuse to read books.
>>>Just because these books have "co-evolution" in their titles does not necessarily mean that they discuss the mechanisms of co-evolution -- and any such discussions are not necessarily plausible. The books could be mainly about co-dependence. Some of the titles do not even concern the co-evolution of species.<<<
And yet some of them do discuss the mechanics. You exposing your ignorance again, Larry. Some of them quite clearly indicate in the editorial review that they deal with mechanisms, but you'll have to read to find out. And again, searching PubMed is the best place for the scientific research that has been done. Though you're too stupid and deliberately ignorant to understand or even attempt to try.
>>>I found almost nothing about co-evolution by using Google for searching. And the Talk.Origins website, which presents a lot of arguments against criticisms of evolution, has almost nothing about co-evolution.<<<
That's because you are too lazy to perform a proper search. Besides, you're better off searching for "mutualism" + (example of mutualism). For example, try "mutualism pollination"
>>>Co-evolution is not even on the radar screens of most people involved in the evolution controversy. Many people believe or pretend to believe that intelligent design is the only challenge to Darwinism.<<<
No, you moron, most people have correctly identified that Intelligent Design is a form of creationism, and that almost all "challenges" to evolutionary theory are a form of creationism. There are rare idiots (Larry claims to be one of these) that attack science simply because they feel threatened by anything they are too stupid to understand. Yet even they use creationist arguments. Co-evolution is not on most people's radars because the creationists abandoned that effort long ago because the argument was too sophisticated for the pea-brained masses and too weak to survive an encounter with science. Even Duane Gish started dropping it (he used the example of the fig wasp).
>>Anyway, with all that literature, you should have no trouble coming up with arguments against my challenge to co-evolution.<<<
Nor do I. I just haven't done so to date.
>>>You Darwinists have this strange idea that you automatically win debates just by entering them.<<<
I have no fucking idea who these "Darwinists" you keep referring to are, as the traits you attribute to them do not appear to exist in any actual human being. But we proponents of science have this strange idea that we win arguments by actually being informed about the subjects we are talking about, and don't claim victory based on being bloody ignorant.
Kevin babbles,
>>>>>you've been claiming for months that you couldn't find online creationist sources on co-evolution - more precisely, the type of co-evolution known as mutualism. <<<<<<
Co-evolution is sometimes defined as applying just to mutualism and not to parasitism, commensalism, amensalism, etc.. For example, one reference says,
Coevolution is the the mutual evolutionary influence between two species (the evolution of two species totally dependent on each other). Each of the species involved exerts selective pressure on the other, so they evolve together. Coevolution is an extreme example of mutualism.
>>>>> And it's not as if you'd actually read the books, anyway. Besides, back when you were on Panda's Thumb, you were told the best place to look up info on mutualism was in PubMed, and you rejected that. <<<<<
You stupid fathead, you can't debate just by making vague references to books, search engines, etc..
>>>>>That's because you are too lazy to perform a proper search. <<<<<<
Why should I do your searching for you?
>>>>> Besides, you're better off searching for "mutualism" + (example of mutualism). <<<<<
I am interested in co-evolution, not mutualism. Mutualism is just supposed to be an end result of co-evolution.
>>>>>Co-evolution is not on most people's radars because the creationists abandoned that effort long ago because the argument was too sophisticated for the pea-brained masses and too weak to survive an encounter with science. <<<<<<
Wrong -- co-evolution is very easy to understand. Understanding something like the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction is difficult and requires a good knowledge of genetics.
>>>>>Anyway, with all that literature, you should have no trouble coming up with arguments against my challenge to co-evolution. <<<
Nor do I. I just haven't done so to date. <<<<<
There are a lot of things that you said you were going to do but haven't done -- like rebutting my criticisms of Judge Jones.
>>>Co-evolution is sometimes defined as applying just to mutualism and not to parasitism, commensalism, amensalism, etc.. For example, one reference says,
Coevolution is the the mutual evolutionary influence between two species (the evolution of two species totally dependent on each other). Each of the species involved exerts selective pressure on the other, so they evolve together. Coevolution is an extreme example of mutualism.<<< (emphasis mine)
Yet more often than not, mutualism is defined as one of several forms of coevolution. In fact, the source you cite is defining coevolution as what is commonly known as obligate mutualism, which is not the generally accepted definition of coevolution.
>>>You stupid fathead, you can't debate just by making vague references to books, search engines, etc..<<<
You imbecilic moron, the debate was whether there existed books on coevolution. By pointing out that they do exist, I win the debate.
>>>>>>That's because you are too lazy to perform a proper search. <<<<<<
>>>Why should I do your searching for you?<<<
My own search? This was your search, you idiot. I performed it for you. You were the one too incompetent to perform a search that I didn't even know you were trying to perform! And again, PubMed is the best source.
>>>>>> Besides, you're better off searching for "mutualism" + (example of mutualism). <<<<<<
>>>I am interested in co-evolution, not mutualism. Mutualism is just supposed to be an end result of co-evolution.<<<
It's called "narrowing the search parameters," you fucking moron. If you are interested in finding out about the type of coevolution that results in mutualism, it is more helpful to search for the more narrowly defined "mutualism" than the more broadly defined "coevolution."
>>>>>>Co-evolution is not on most people's radars because the creationists abandoned that effort long ago because the argument was too sophisticated for the pea-brained masses and too weak to survive an encounter with science. <<<<<<
>>>Wrong -- co-evolution is very easy to understand. Understanding something like the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction is difficult and requires a good knowledge of genetics.<<<
You don't understand coevolution, Larry. You certainly haven't learned a damn thing about it. The masses simply don't follow the "co-evolution disproves evolution" in part because it appears to them to be a circular argument (they end up hearing "evolution disproves evolution"). So you have to use different words, which is why searching for creationist arguments using the word "co-evolution" is of needle-in-haystack futility.
>>>There are a lot of things that you said you were going to do but haven't done -- like rebutting my criticisms of Judge Jones.<<<
I've got three more up in the original thread. I have not committed to the co-evoluition argument. I may or may not do it. It's not high on my list of priorities.
Oh, I agree, Dave. Properly understood, co-evolution is a very strong argument in favor of evolution. What we're discussing is the creationist attempts at using co-evolution to argue against evolution. By and large, they drop the word "co-evolution" because it confuses the rubes. But just because they use a different word, or no word at all, doesn't mean it's not the same argument being made. Duane Gish used the example of the fig and fig wasp, but as near as I can tell didn't use any particular name for the relationship.
Fake Dave said,
>>>>> If you ask me, coevolution is one of the most persuasive pieces of evidence for evolution. <<<<<
W. Kevin Vicklund chimed in,
>>>>> Oh, I agree, Dave. Properly understood, co-evolution is a very strong argument in favor of evolution. <<<<<
As usual, the Darwinists just make broad dogmatic generalizations that are not backed up with any arguments.
Co-evolution is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it can be a spur to evolution, as in the so-called "arms races" in parasitism, but it can also be a major barrier to evolution, as discussed in my article Co-evolution Redux.
Interspecies relationships generally fit into the following categories:
mutualism -- both species benefit (+ +)
commensalism -- one species benefits, the other is not affected ( + 0 )
amensalism -- one species harmed, the other not affected ( - 0 )
parasitism -- one species benefits, other species harmed ( + - ) (predator-prey relationships may be considered to fall into this category)
I don't know if a ( - - ) relationship has a name.
In symbiosis, the two species live in constant close proximity to each other.
Parasitism and commensalism should not present any particular evolutionary difficulty because an evolutionary response from the other species is generally not necessary. However, the creation or improvement of a mutualistic relationship often does require evolution of both organisms, and here is where the problems that I describe in my article Co-evolution Redux would kick in. And natural selection should not operate on the unaffected species in the case of amensalism.
Because the prefix "co" means "mutual" and because mutualism often presents barriers to evolution that are not presented by the other kinds of species interrelationships described above, the term co-evolution should IMO be applied only to mutualism, but that is often not the case.
>>>>>> You don't understand coevolution, Larry. You certainly haven't learned a damn thing about it. <<<<<<
You are the one who doesn't understand co-evolution -- you have done very little here except present lists of references.
Fake Larry(?), the pathetic troll said...
> As usual, the Darwinists just make broad dogmatic generalizations that are not backed up with any arguments. <
This laughable statment follows several persuasive arguments. How blind can the idiot be? We have not yet seen the depths.
Fake Dave said,
>>>> I don't know if a ( - - ) relationship has a name. <
No, they don't. They don't exist. That is because they are heavily selected against. <<<<<<
Well, there are some situations where there could be a ( - - ) relationship --
(1) Both species are in the process of going extinct.
(2) One of the species can survive without the other.
(3) The negative effects are not great enough to affect the survival of the two species. Maybe the negative effects are not fatal or are overcome by high reproductive rates.
Dutch elm disease and chestnut tree blight have negatively affected the disease organisms as well as the trees because the decimation of elms and chestnuts has greatly reduced the opportunities for these diseases. These are cases of parasitism adversely affecting the parasites because of the harmful effects on the hosts.
Maybe ( - - ) could be called "negative mutualism" or something like that.
Anyway, I decided to mention the ( - - ) relationship because it was the only combination of +, 0, and - that had not already been covered, except for the trivial one of ( 0 0 ).
Kevin Vicklund said --
>>>There are a lot of things that you said you were going to do but haven't done -- like rebutting my criticisms of Judge Jones.<<<
I've got three more up in the original thread. <<<<<
And I have posted one reply so far -- the last comment here. My comment should eventually appear on the tan page also.
>>>>> I have not committed to the co-evoluition argument. I may or may not do it. It's not high on my list of priorities. <<<<<<
That figures -- it is not high on your list of priorities because you have no good counterarguments.
The pathetically ignorant troll belched...
>>There are a lot of things that you said you were going to do but haven't done -- like rebutting my criticisms of Judge Jones.<<
To which Kevin gave specific examples of where he had.
In response the troll grunted...
> And I have posted one reply so far <
So the dumbshit first says that there have been no rebuttals and then he points out one of his replies to these "non-existant" rebuttals. As usual his reply is drivel.
Fake Larry(?) gets his ass kicked again.
Fake Larry(?), don't you tire of being made a fool of?
I am now convinced. Larry knows he is making a fool of himself and is doing it intentionally just to get attention. He can't be stupid enough to believe many of the things that he is saying.
I see a lot of this in my third grade classes. It is probably related to his personal failures.
In defense of Larry, I did not post the three latest rebuttals until after he whinged about me not posting any rebuttals. In fact, I had been waiting for about a month for him to moan about my lack of posting.
Good news. My van, which had been stolen, has finally been repaired - I picked it up tonight. One of the many non-Larry items on my priority list is now checked off.
> In defense of Larry, I did not post the three latest rebuttals until after he whinged about me not posting any rebuttals. <
There have been a large mass of rebuttals of Larry(?)'s position. Perhaps they did not include your latest three at this time, but his response has been to pretend that they have not been posted. In the cases that he does make some sort of reply, he believes that he has won a logical debate even if the limit of his logic is to insult the person posting.
I often wonder what color the sky is on Larry(?)'s planet?
Larry and I are referring specifically to his 20 Brethtakingly Inane Criticisms of Judge Jones, found in the second post Larry made (go to the April Archives and scroll to the bottom). My progress on this has been greatly slowed due to my wife's return from her doctoral research. My priorities are (I should hope) understandably going to place time spent with her above any other activities - especially considering she was gone for 13 months, with a couple of brief, whirlwind visits over the summer. My work patterns have also shifted so that I am not waiting for simulations to run, so I have less idle time at the office (when I'm not in the field).
I have recently posted responses to Kevin Vicklund on old threads --
Here on the "Fraudulent election results for "Jail 4 judges" proposition?" thread.
Three responses starting here on the "Traipsing into breathtaking inanity -- absurd rulings in Dover Intelligent Design case" thread.
Post a Comment
<< Home