Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous religion

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Ironclad, Onyx8

Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous religion

#1  Postby DoctorE » Oct 03, 2010 1:32 pm

:doh:

Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous religion in the world.

In the interest of full disclosure, I believe in the literal six-day creation of the universe as recorded in the first two chapters of Genesis. I freely admit that my acceptance of the Genesis account is purely by faith. I don't have to prove my beliefs nor do I have to defend them because I am not asking the taxpayer to fund the research of or the teaching of my beliefs in the public schools.

Evolution also is of faith. Sir Julian Huxley said, "I suppose the reason why we leapt at "The Origin of Species" was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores." Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote the forward to the 100th anniversary of Darwin's book, said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." George Wald, a Nobel Prize-winning evolutionist, said, "I will not accept creation philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible."

This country was founded on the basis of a creator who endowed mankind with certain unalienable rights, among which (but not limited to) are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution was drafted with the idea that government does not grant rights, but its greatest duty was to protect the rights of people. In contrast, evolution is the basis for humanism, the belief that I am my own final authority, and it removes the boundaries of governmental expansion and oppression.

Continues: http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/2 ... s-expense-
User avatar
DoctorE
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 9323
Age: 54
Male

Iceland (is)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous religion

#2  Postby DaveScriv » Oct 03, 2010 3:35 pm

The comments attached to this 'letter' seem to have already dealt with the misquotes and lies it contains.
DaveScriv
 
Posts: 1024
Age: 61
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous religion

#3  Postby GenesForLife » Oct 03, 2010 5:11 pm

Newark? An anagram of a very appropriate word to describe the charlatan who wrote this.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2834
Age: 24

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous religion

#4  Postby Sityl » Oct 03, 2010 5:52 pm

GenesForLife wrote:Newark? An anagram of a very appropriate word to describe the charlatan who wrote this.


waNker :coffee:
Stephen Colbert wrote:Now, like all great theologies, Bill [O'Reilly]'s can be boiled down to one sentence - 'There must be a god, because I don't know how things work.'


Image
User avatar
Sityl
 
Name: Ser Sityllan Payne
Posts: 5086
Age: 32
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous religion

#5  Postby Alan C » Oct 03, 2010 7:24 pm

Sityl wrote:
GenesForLife wrote:Newark? An anagram of a very appropriate word to describe the charlatan who wrote this.


waNker :coffee:


An idiotic one at that.
Lose it - it means go crazy, nuts, insane, bonzo, no longer in possession of one's faculties, three fries short of a happy meal, WACKO!! - Jack O'Neill
User avatar
Alan C
 
Posts: 887
Age: 37
Male

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous religion

#6  Postby Calilasseia » Oct 04, 2010 9:12 pm

I have to ask myself, am I really bored enough to spend the 5 hours or so it would take to compile a carpet bombing of this idiot's excremental garbage?
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 15159
Age: 52
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous religion

#7  Postby FRAP38 » Oct 05, 2010 2:25 am

Calilasseia wrote:I have to ask myself, am I really bored enough to spend the 5 hours or so it would take to compile a carpet bombing of this idiot's excremental garbage?

:popcorn: oh c'mon......your clear for take off
"Intolerance is the natural concomitant of strong faith; tolerance only grows when faith loses certainty; certainty is murderous" . . . "Inquiry is fatal to certainty." -Will Durant
User avatar
FRAP38
 
Posts: 359
Age: 39
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous religion

#8  Postby Agrippina » Oct 05, 2010 4:41 am

I agree, and then post it on his website for all his readers to see.
Nebogipfel wrote:
Where two or three gather together in Jesus' name, there'll usually be a bloody great fight.
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 31988
Age: 103
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous religion

#9  Postby Calilasseia » Oct 05, 2010 5:28 am

Ok, since I've been asked to do this ... let's take a look at this shall we?

Idiot Creationist wrote:Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous religion in the world.


And straight out of the gate, we have a blind assertion that is manifestly fatuous to anyone who has paid attention in a real science class.

First of all, let's deal with the fatuous canard and falsehood that evolution is a "religion". It isn't. The assertion that it is, is nothing more than a bare faced lie. I know this for a fact, because evolutionary biologists have been subjecting their postulates to empirical test for 150 years, something no religion has ever done, at least not willingly. Even a casual perusal of the relevant scientific papers turns up hundreds, if not thousands, of papers containing direct experimental tests and validation of evolutionary postulates. A small sample of such papers is as follows:

A Model For Divergent Allopatric Speciation Of Polyploid Pteridophytes Resulting From Silencing Of Duplicate-Gene Expression by Charles R.E. Werth and Michael D. Windham, American Naturalist, 137(4): 515-526 (April 1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL TO MATCH OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

A Molecular Reexamination Of Diploid Hybrid Speciation Of Solanum raphanifolium by David M. Spooner, Kenneth. J. Sytsma and James F. Smith, Evolution, 45(3): 757-764 - DOCUMENTATION OF AN OBSERVED SPECIATION EVENT

Cavefish As A Model System In Evolutionary Developmental Biology by William R. Jeffrey, Developmental Biology, 231:, 1-12 (1 Mar 2001) - contains experimental tests of hypotheses about eye evolution

Chromosome Evolution, Phylogeny, And Speciation Of Rock Wallabies, by G. B. Sharman, R. L. Close and G. M. Maynes, Australian Journal of Zoology, 37(2-4): 351-363 (1991) - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Crystal Structure Of An Ancient Protein: Evolution By Conformational Epistasis by Eric A. Ortlund, Jamie T. Bridgham, Matthew R. Redinbo and Joseph W. Thornton, Science, 317: 1544-1548 (14 September 2007) - refers to the reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals by back-tracking along the molecular phylogenetic trees and demonstrating that the proteins in question WORK

Evidence For Rapid Speciation Following A Founder Event In The Laboratory by James R. Weinberg Victoria R. Starczak and Danielle Jörg, Evolution 46: 1214-1220 (15th January 1992) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Evolutionary Theory And Process Of Active Speciation And Adaptive Radiation In Subterranean Mole Rats, Spalax ehrenbergi Superspecies, In Israel by E. Nevo, Evolutionary Biology, 25: 1-125 - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Experimentally Created Incipient Species Of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230: 289 - 292 (2nd April 1971) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Founder-Flush Speciation On Drosophila pseudoobscura: A Large Scale Experiment by Agustí Galiana, Andrés Moya and Francisco J. Alaya, Evolution 47: 432-444 (1993) EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Genetics Of Natural Populations XII. Experimental Reproduction Of Some Of the Changes Caused by Natural Selection by Sewall Wright & Theodosius Dobzkansky, Genetics, 31(2): 125-156 (1946) - direct experimental tests of natural selection mechanisms

Hedgehog Signalling Controls Eye Degeneration In Blind Cavefish by Yoshiyuki Yamamoto, David W. Stock and William R. Jeffery, Nature, 431: 844-847 (14 Oct 2004) - direct experimental test of theories about eye evolution and the elucidation of the controlling genes involved

Initial Sequencing Of The Chimpanzee Genome And Comparison With The Human Genome, The Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium (see paper for full list of 68 authors), Nature, 437: 69-87 (1 September 2005) - direct sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and direct comparison of this genome with the previously sequenced human genome, whereby the scientists discovered that fully twenty-nine percent of the orthologous proteins of humans and chimpanzees are IDENTICAL

Origin Of The Superflock Of Cichlid Fishes From Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, 300: 325-329 (11 April 2003) - direct experimental determination of the molecular phylogeny of the Lake Victoria Superflock, including IDENTIFYING THE COMMON ANCESTOR OF THE 350+ SPECIES IN QUESTION and NAMING THAT ANCESTOR as Haplochromis gracilior

Phagotrophy By A Flagellate Selects For Colonial Prey: A Possible Origin Of Multicellularity by Martin.E. Boraas, Dianne.B. Seale and Joseph .E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology 12(2): 153-164 (February 1998 ) - direct experimental test of hypotheses about the origins of multicellularity

Pollen-Mediated Introgression And Hybrid Speciation In Louisiana Irises by Michael L. Arnold, Cindy M. Buckner and Jonathan J. Robinson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 88(4): 1398-1402 (February 1991) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

Protein Engineering Of Hydrogenase 3 To Enhance Hydrogen Production by Toshinari. Maeda, Viviana. Sanchez-Torres and Thomas. K. Wood, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 79(1): 77-86 (May 2008) - DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION OF EVOLUTION IN THE LABORATORY TO PRODUCE A NEW BIOTECHNOLOGY PRODUCT

Resurrecting Ancient Genes: Experimental Analysis Of Extinct Molecules by Joseph W. Thornton, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 366-375 (5 May 2004) - direct experimental reconstruction in the laboratory of ancient proteins from extinct animals

Sexual Isolation Caused By Selection For Positive And Negative Phototaxis And Geotaxis In Drosophila pseudoobscura by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 56: 484-487 (1966) - direct experimental test of selection mechanisms and their implications for speciation

Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006) - DETERMINATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE, FOLLOWED BY LABOARTORY REPRODUCTION OF THAT SPECIATION EVENT, AND CONFIRMATION THAT THE LABORATORY INDIVIDUALS ARE INTERFERTILE WITH THE WILD TYPE INDIVIDUALS

Speciation By Hybridization In Phasmids And Other Insects By Luciano Bullini and Guiseppe Nascetti, Canadian Journal of Zoology 68(8): 1747-1760 (1990) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

The Gibbons Speciation Mechanism by S. Ramadevon and M. A. B. Deaken, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 145(4): 447-456 (1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL ACCOUNTING FOR OBSERVED INSTANCES OF SPECIATION

The Master Control Gene For Morphogenesis And Evolution Of The Eye by Walter J. Gehrig, Genes to Cells, 1: 11-15, 1996 - direct experimental test of hypotheses concerning eye evolution including the elucidation of the connection between the Pax6 gene and eye morphogenesis, and the experimental manipulation of that gene to control eye development

The Past As The Key To The Present: Resurrection Of Ancient Proteins From Eosinophils by Steven A. Benner, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA., 99(8): 4760-4761 (16 April 2002) - direct experimental reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals

This list is by no means complete, because over eighteen thousand critically robust peer reviewed papers were published in evolutionary biology in 2007 alone. The number of papers published in the subject since Darwin first published The Origin of Species probably exceeds a million or so, if someone were ever to perform the requisite accounting.

The idea that evolution is a "religion", in the light of this, is absurd. Evolution has been observed taking place in the real world, and has been documented doing so in thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers. This includes papers covering speciation events observed both in the wild and in the laboratory. A short and incomplete list of papers covering this one specialist area alone is as follows:

A Model For Divergent Allopatric Speciation Of Polyploid Pteridophytes Resulting From Silencing Of Duplicate-Gene Expression by Charles R.E. Werth and Michael D. Windham, American Naturalist, 137(4): 515-526 (April 1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL TO MATCH OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

A Molecular Reexamination Of Diploid Hybrid Speciation Of Solanum raphanifolium by David M. Spooner, Kenneth. J. Sytsma and James F. Smith, Evolution, 45(3): 757-764 - DOCUMENTATION OF AN OBSERVED SPECIATION EVENT

A Mouse Speciation Gene Encodes A Meiotic Histone H3 Methyltransferase by Ondrej mihola, Zdenek Trachtulec, Cestmir Vlcek, John C. Scimenti and Jiri Forejt, Science, 323: 350-351 (16th January 2009) - DETERMINING THE FUNCTION OF A GENE DIRECTLY IMPLICATED IN SPECIATION AND FAILURE OF INTERFERTILITY BETWEEN DIVERGING POPULATIONS

A Rapidly Evolving MYB-Related Protein Causes Species Isolation In Drosophila by Daniel A. Barbash, Dominic F. Siino, Arron M. Tarone and John Roote, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 110(9): 5302-5307 (29th April 2003) - DETERMINING THE BEHAVIOUR OF A GENE DIRECTLY IMPLICATED IN SPECIATION AND FAILURE OF INTERFERTILITY BETWEEN DIVERGING POPULATIONS

A Screen For Recessive Speciation Genes Expressed In The Gametes Of F1 Hybrid Yeast by Duncan Greig, Public Library of Science Genetics, 3(2): e21 (February 2007) - Determining the presence of speciation genes in a primitive eukaryote, and the roles of any genes thus located

Adaptive Divergence And The Evolution Of Reproductive Isolation In The Wild: An Empirical Demonstration Using Introduced Sockeye Salmon by Andrew P. Hendry, Genetics, 112-113: 515-534 (2001) - DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION AND ITS ROLE IN SPECIATION EVENTS

Adaptive Evolution And Explosive Speciation: The Cichlid Fish Model by Thomas D. Kocher, Nature Reviews Genetics, 5: 288-298 (April 2004) - DISCUSSION OF METHODS OF EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION OF SPECIATION INCLUDING MOLECULAR ANALYSES

Chromosomal Rearrangements And Speciation by Loren H. Rieseberg, TRENDS In Ecology & Evolution, 16(7): 351-358 (July 2001) - determination of the input that chromosomal rearrangements may have upon speciation evnets

Chromosome Evolution, Phylogeny, And Speciation Of Rock Wallabies by G. B. Sharman, R. L. Close and G. M. Maynes, Australian Journal of Zoology, 37(2-4): 351-363 (1991) - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Evidence For Rapid Speciation Following A Founder Event In The Laboratory by James R. Weinberg Victoria R. Starczak and Danielle Jörg, Evolution 46: 1214-1220 (15th January 1992) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Evolutionary Theory And Process Of Active Speciation And Adaptive Radiation In Subterranean Mole Rats, Spalax ehrenbergi Superspecies, In Israel by E. Nevo, Evolutionary Biology, 25: 1-125 - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Experimentally Created Incipient Species Of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230: 289 - 292 (2nd April 1971) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Founder-Flush Speciation On Drosophila pseudoobscura: A Large Scale Experiment by Agustí Galiana, Andrés Moya and Francisco J. Alaya, Evolution 47: 432-444 (1993) EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Gene Duplication And Speciation In Drosophila: Evidence From The Odysseus Locus by Chau-Ti Ting, Shun-Chern Tsaur, Sha Sun, William E. Browne, Yung-Chia Chen, Nipam H. Patel and Chung-I Wu, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 101(33): 12232-12235 (17th August 2004) - EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF A DEFINED SPECIATION GENE AND DUPLICATION THEREOF IN SPECIATION EVENTS

Gene Transfer, Speciation, And The Evolution Of Bacterial Genomes by Jeffrey G. Lawrence, Current Opinion in Microbiology, 2(5): 519-523 (October 1999) - determining the role of horizontal gene transfer in the development of new bacterial serotypes

Genes And Speciation by Chung-I Wu, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14: 889-891 (2001) - development of a rigorous theory of reproductive isolation taking into account incomplete interfertility failure events

Hybrid Lethal Systems In The Drosophila melanogaster Species Complex. II. The Zygotic Hybrid Rescue (Zhr) Gene Of Drosophila melanogaster by Kyoichi Sawamura, Masa-Toshi Yamamoto and Takao K. Watanabe, Genetics, 133: 307-313 (February 1993) - EMPIRICAL DETERMINATION OF THE ROLE OF A NAMED SPECIATION GENE IN SPECIFIC LIVING ORGANISMS

Hybridisation And Adaptive Radiation by Ole Seehausen, TRENDS In Ecology & Evolution, 19(4): 198-207 (April 2004) - development of a rigorous theory underpinning hybrid speciation and SPECIFICATION OF EMPIRICAL TESTS OF THAT THEORY

Incipient Speciation By Sexual Isolation in Drosophila: Concurrent Evolution At Multiple Loci by Chau-Ti Ting, Aya Takahashi and Chung-I Wu, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 98(12): 6709-6713 (5th June 2001) - EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF GENES GOVERNING MALE MATING SUCCESS AND FEMALE MATING PREFERENCE LEADING TO SEXUAL SELECTION AND SPECIATION

Laboratory Experiments On Speciation: What Have We Learned In 40 Years? by William R. Rice and Ellen E. Hostert, Evolution, 47(6):1637-1653 (December 1993) - review of speciation literature and determination of the validity of reproductive isolation as a speciation mechanism

Models Of Evolution Of Rperoductive Isolation by Masatoshi Nei, Takeo Maruyama and Chung-I Wu, Genetics, 103: 557-559 (March 1983) - DIRECT EMPIRICAL TEST OF MODELS OF REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION, AND ESTABLISHMENT OF CORRELATION WITH REAL WORLD DATA

Phylogenetics And Speciation by Timothy G. Barraclough and Sean Nee, TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution, 16(7): 391-399 (July 2001) - [b]Determination of rigorous methods for using phylogenetic analyses to establish speciation events

Pollen-Mediated Introgression And Hybrid Speciation In Louisiana Irises by Michael L. Arnold, Cindy M. Buckner and Jonathan J. Robinson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 88(4): 1398-1402 (February 1991) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

Premating Isolation Is Determined by Larval Rearing Substrates in Cactophilic Drosophila mojavensis. IV. Correlated Responses In Behavioral Isolation To Artificial Selection On A Life-History Trait by William J. Etges, The American Naturalist, 152(1): 129-144 (July 1998) - DIRECT EMPIRICAL TEST OF BEHAVIOURAL ISOLATION AS A MECHANISM DRIVING SPECIATION

Rapid Evolution Of Postzygotic Reproductive Isolation In Stalk-Eyed Flies by Sarah J. Christianson, John G. Swallow and Gerald S. Wilkinson, Evolution, 59(4): 849-857 (12th January 2005) - DIRECT EMPIRICAL TEST AND MOLECULAR ANALYSIS OF SEXUAL SELECTION AND HYBRID STERILITY AS MECHANISMS DRIVING SPECIATION

Reproductive Isolation As A Consequence Of Adaptive Divergence In Drosophila pseudoobscura by Diane M. B. Dodd, Evolution, 43(6): 1308-1311 (September 1989) - REPEATABLE GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Role Of Gene Interactions In Hybrid Speciation: Evidence From Ancient And Experimental Hybrids by Loren H. Rieseberg, Barry Sinervo, C. Randall Linder, Mark C. Ungerer and Dulce M. Arias, Science, 272: 741-745 (3rd May 1996) - DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL TESTS OF HYPOTHESES REGARDING HYBRID SPECIATION

Searching For Speciation Genes by Roger Butlin and Michael G. Ritchie, Nature, 412: 31-33 (5th July 2001) - DIRECT EMPIRICAL SEARCH FOR GENES IMPLICATED IN SPECIATION EVENTS

Selfish Operons And Speciation By Gene Transfer by Jeffrey G. Lawrence, Trends in Microbiology, 5(9): 355-359 (September 1997) - EMPIRICAL DETERMINATION OF MECHANISMS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NEW BACTERIAL SEROTYPES

Sex-Related Genes, Directional Sexual Selection, And Speciation by Alberto Civetta and Rama S. Singh, Molecular & Biological Evolution, 15(7): 901-909 (1998) - EMPIRICAL DETERMINATION OF THE SHAPING OF GENES IMPLICATED IN SPECIATION VIA SEXUAL SELECTION

Sexual Selection, Reproductive Isolation And The Genic View Of Speciation by J. J. M. Van Alphen and Ole Seehausen, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14: 874-875 (2001) - application of known speciation mechanisms to the Lake Victoria superflock of Cichlid fishes

Speciation Along Environmental Gradients by Michael Doebeli and Ulf Dieckmann, Nature, 421: 259-264 (16th January 2003) - determination of the effects of environmental pressures upon the outcome of speciation events

Speciation And The Evolution Of Gamete Recognition Genes: Pattern And Process by S. R. Palumbi, Heredity, 102: 66-76 (2009) - determination of the role of gamete recognition genes in speciation events, and their rapid evolution in segregated populations

Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006) - DETERMINATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE, FOLLOWED BY LABOARTORY REPRODUCTION OF THAT SPECIATION EVENT, AND CONFIRMATION THAT THE LABORATORY INDIVIDUALS ARE INTERFERTILE WITH THE WILD TYPE INDIVIDUALS

Speciation By Hybridization In Phasmids And Other Insects By Luciano Bullini and Guiseppe Nascetti, Canadian Journal of Zoology 68(8): 1747-1760 (1990) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

Speciation By Postzygotic Isolation: Forces, Genes And Molecules by H. Allen Orr and Daven C. Presgraves, Bioessays, 22(12): 1085-1094 (2000) - EMPIRICAL DETERMINATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF SPECIATION GENES AND THEIR ROLE IN INTERFERTILITY FAILURE BETWEEN SEGREGATED POPULATIONS

Speciation Genes by H. Allen Orr, John P. Masly and Daven C. Presgraves, Current Opinion in Genetics & Development, 14: 675-679 (2004) - DETERMINATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF SPECIATION GENES AND THEIR SUSCEPTIBILITY TO DARWINIAN SELECTION

Speciation, Hybrid Zones And Phylogeography - Or Seeing Genes In Space And Time by Godfrey M. Hewitt, Molecular Ecology, 10: 537-549 (2001) - review of origins of speciation theory, current developments, and application to past and present speciation events

Speciation By Habitat Specialisation: The Evolution Of Reproductive Isolation As A Correlated Character by William R. Rice, Evolutionary Ecology, 1: 301-314 (1987) - LINKING OF SPECIATION EVENTS TO NICHE MOBILITY AND ADAPTATION FOR NEW NICHES

The Evolution Of Asymmetry In Sexual Isolation: A Model And Test Case by Stevan J. Arnold, Paul A. Verrell and Stephen G. Tilley, Evolution, 50(3): 1024-1033 (June 1996) - DEVELOPMENT OF AN EXTENDED MODEL OF SEXUAL SELECTION FOLLOWED BY EMPIRICAL TEST OF THAT MODEL AND DETERMINATION OF CORRELATION WITH A REAL WORLD POPULATION DIVERGENCE EVENT

The Evolution Of Reproductive Isolation Through Sexual Conflict by Oliver Y. Martin and David J. Hosken, Nature,423: 979-982 (26th June 2003) - DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF SEXUAL CONFLICT AS A DRIVER OF SPECIATION

The Evolutionary Genetics Of Speciation by Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Part B, 353: 287-305 (1998) review of recent advances in speciation theory and empirical results

The Genetic Basis Of Reproductive Isolation: Insights From Drosophila by H. Allen Orr, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102 supplement 1: 6522-6526 (3rd May 2005) - review of work on speciation genes and the empirical determination of their roles

The Genic View Of The Process Of Speciation by Chung-I Wu, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14: 851-865 (2001) - review of theory of speciation including renewed insights into Darwin's own early view of the topic, and how this correlates to a hitherto unforeseen extent with modern genetic results

The Gibbons Speciation Mechanism by S. Ramadevon and M. A. B. Deaken, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 145(4): 447-456 (1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL ACCOUNTING FOR OBSERVED INSTANCES OF SPECIATION

The Phylogeny Of Closely Related Species As Revealed By The Genealogy Of A Speciation Gene, Odysseus by Chau-Ti Ting, Shun-Chern Tsaur and Chung-I Wu, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97(10): 5313-5316 (9th May 2000) - EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF A PREDICTION ABOUT SPECIATION MECHANISMS AT THE MOLECULAR LEVEL

The Population Genetics Of Speciation: The Evolution Of Hybrid Incompatibilities by H. Allen Orr, Genetics, 139: 1805-1813 (April 1995) - development of a gene-based model for speciation and the implications of the results obtained from that model for speciation research

The Theory Of Speciation Via The Founder Principle by Alan R. Templeton, Genetics, 94:1011-1038 (April 1980) - development of a model for founder speciation, and DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL TEST of that model by applying it to a real world organism

What Does Drosophila Genetics Tell Us About Speciation? by James Mallet, TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution, 21(7): 386-393 (July 2006) - Comparison of Drosophila data with data from other organisms to produce a more complete picture of speciation mechanics

Indeed, one of the papers in the above list documents an instance of speciation in the wild that was replicated in the laboratory. Another paper covers a repeatable generation of a speciation event that has been replicated on numerous occasions, and indeed, is now considered to be such a standard example thereof, that the relevant experiments can be transplanted to a high school laboratory. The idea that observed and experimentally verified phenomena, and the testable mechanisms erected to explain those observed and experimentally verified phenomena, constitute a "religion" is an absurdity only somone terminally ignorant of valid science could erect.

As for the assertion that the above body of scientific work is "dumb", this is manifestly a pathological case of intellectual penis envy and nothing more. As for "dangerous", well this again is laughable in the extreme. I suspect that the millions who died during the 1918 influenza pandemic would have been quite happy to see present-day evolutionary biology being brought into play to save them, a real world case that demonstrates how ignorance of valid evolutionary science is the real danger.

Moving on ...

Idiot Creationist wrote:In the interest of full disclosure, I believe in the literal six-day creation of the universe as recorded in the first two chapters of Genesis.


Physics says that this is hogwash. Heard of the cosmic microwave background, have you? And how that background provides some of the strongest evidence yet that the fantasy contained in your book of myths is precisely that - a fantasy? And that's before we consider the fact that your book of myths contains two contradictory "creation accounts".

Idiot Creationist wrote:I freely admit that my acceptance of the Genesis account is purely by faith.


In other words, you accept uncritically unsupported blind mythological assertions, and regard them as constituting "axioms" about the world. And as a corollary thereof, when reality disagress with this, you regard reality as being wrong. Further comment on the absurdity of this view is entirely superfluous.

Idiot Creationist wrote:I don't have to prove my beliefs


Excuse me, but this is hogwash. You are erecting assertions about the real world, and expecting others to accewpt your assertions. Therefore you are required to support those assertions. In the absence thereof, no one is obliged to regard your unsupported assertions as being anything other than unsupported assertions.

Idiot Creationist wrote:nor do I have to defend them


In other words, your position consists of "I am right, and if reality disagrees with me, reality is wrong". Once again, further comment upon the absurdity of this position is entirely superfluous.

Idiot Creationist wrote:because I am not asking the taxpayer to fund the research of


And the fact that you have just admitted that scientific research is being conducted into evolution, which involves direct experimental test and validation of the relevant postulates, flushes your initial assertion about evolution being a "religion" down the toilet. Congratulations upon displaying typical supernaturalist consistency.

Idiot Creationist wrote:or the teaching of my beliefs in the public schools.


Except that once again, when we have a large body of experimental evidence supporting the relevant postulates, we are NOT dealing with "belief".

Idiot Creationist wrote:Evolution also is of faith.


Poppycock. The above lists of scientific papers, containing direct experimental test and validation of evolutionary postulates, flushes this demonstrable and manifest lie down the toilet.

Idiot Creationist wrote:Sir Julian Huxley said, "I suppose the reason why we leapt at "The Origin of Species" was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."


Oh look, it's argument by suspicious quote. A favourite creationist tactic, and one which was the subject of a "how to" manual on lying for doctrine by arch-charlatan Henry Morris, the founder of modern American corporate creationism, who openly exhorted his followers to twist, distort and misrepresent valid science in pursuit of doctrine. The documentation available in the public domain with respect to creationist quote mining is voluminous. It won't take anyone who performs a Google search long to discover this.

Indeed, as this website reveals, the purported quote above is a complete fabrication, and indeed, is a fabrication frequently attributed to one Henry Morris. Quelle surprise. The text of that website is rather long for me to include here in full, but I shall invite readers to peruse this for themselves, and draw the appropriate conclusions.

Idiot Creationist wrote:Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote the forward to the 100th anniversary of Darwin's book, said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."


This is another complete fabrication. Sir Arthur Keith never wrote this, because he died four years before the book in which he is alleged to have penned this was published. He did, however, write a foreword for The Origin of Species back in 1928, and a perusal of his words written at that time illustrate that the above entirely fabricated quote is totally at variance with his actual writing. Indeed, when W. R. Thompson was invited to write a new foreword replacing Keith's original, he openly stated that he was hesitant to accept the invitation, presumably on the grounds that he did not feel he could match the grandeur of Keiths's 1928 foreword.

Idiot Creationist wrote:George Wald, a Nobel Prize-winning evolutionist, said, "I will not accept creation philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible."


This is another complete fabrication. First of all, Wald is allegedly supposed to have written this for Scientific American in 1954, but NO such article exists in any 1954 edition of Scientific American. However, if we wind the clock forward to 1958, we find that George Wald did write an article for Scientific American in that year. Let's compare the relevant text of that article with the above alleged "quote" by our creationist, shall we? I'll highlight parts of that article that are embarrasing for creationists to read as a bonus:

George Wald, Scientific American, September 1958 wrote:The great idea emerges originally in the consciousness of the race as a vague intuition; and this is the form it keeps, rude and imposing, in myth, tradition and poetry. This is its core, its enduring aspect. In this form science finds it, clothes it with fact, analyses its content, develops its detail, rejects it, and finds it ever again. In achieving the scientific view, we do not ever wholly lose the intuitive, the mythological. Both have meaning for us, and neither is complete without the other. The Book of Genesis contains still our poem of the Creation; and when God questions Job out of the whirlwind, He questions us.

Let me cite an example. Throughout our history we have entertained two kinds of views of the origin of life: one that life was created supernaturally, the other that it arose "spontaneously" from nonliving material. In the 17th to 19th centuries those opinions provided the ground of a great and bitter controversy. There came a curious point, toward the end of the 18th century, when each side of the controversy was represented by a Roman Catholic priest. The principle opponent of the theory of the spontaneous generation was then the Abbe Lazzaro Spallanzani, an Italian priest; and its principal champion was John Turberville Needham, an English Jesuit.

Since the only alternative to some form of spontaneous generation is a belief in supernatural creation, and since the latter view seems firmly implanted in the Judeo-Christian theology, I wondered for a time how a priest could support the theory of spontaneous generation. Needham tells one plainly. The opening paragraphs of the Book of Genesis can in fact be reconciled with either view. In its first account of Creation, it says not quite that God made living things, but He commanded the earth and waters to produce them. The language used is: "let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life.... Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind." In the second version of creation the language is different and suggests a direct creative act: "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air...." In both accounts man himself--and woman--are made by God's direct intervention. The myth itself therefore offers justification for either view. Needham took the position that the earth and waters, having once been ordered to bring forth life, remained ever after free to do so; and this is what we mean by spontaneous generation.

This great controversy ended in the mid-19th century with the experiments of Louis Pasteur, which seemed to dispose finally of the possibility of spontaneous generation. For almost a century afterward biologists proudly taught their students this history and the firm conclusion that spontaneous generation had been scientifically refuted and could not possibly occur. Does this mean that they accepted the alternative view, a supernatural creation of life? Not at all. They had no theory of the origin of life, and if pressed were likely to explain that questions involving such unique events as origins and endings have no place in science.

A few years ago, however, this question re-emerged in a new form. Conceding that spontaneous generation doe not occur on earth under present circumstances, it asks how, under circumstances that prevailed earlier upon this planet, spontaneous generation did occur and was the source of the earliest living organisms. Within the past 10 years this has gone from a remote and patchwork argument spun by a few venturesome persons--A. I. Oparin in Russia, J. B. S. Haldane in England--to a favored position, proclaimed with enthusiasm by many biologists.

Have I cited here a good instance of my thesis? I had said that in these great questions one finds two opposed views, each of which is periodically espoused by science. In my example I seem to have presented a supernatural and a naturalistic view, which were indeed opposed to each other, but only one of which was ever defended scientifically. In this case it would seem that science has vacillated, not between two theories, but between one theory and no theory.

That, however, is not the end of the matter. Our present concept of the origin of life leads to the position that, in a universe composed as ours is, life inevitably arises wherever conditions permit. We look upon life as part of the order of nature. It does not emerge immediately with the establishment of that order; long ages must pass before it appears. Yet given enough time, it is an inevitable consequence of that order. When speaking for myself, I do not tend to make sentences containing the word God; but what do those persons mean who make such sentences? They mean a great many different things; indeed I would be happy to know what they mean much better than I have yet been able to discover. I have asked as opportunity offered, and intend to go on asking. What I have learned is that many educated persons now tend to equate their concept of God with their concept of the order of nature. This is not a new idea; I think it is firmly grounded in the philosophy of Spinoza. When we as scientists say then that life originated inevitably as part of the order of our universe, we are using different words but do not necessary mean a different thing from what some others mean who say that God created life. It is not only in science that great ideas come to encompass their own negation. That is true in religion also; and man's concept of God changes as he changes.


And lo and behold, nowhere in the above article can be found the words allegedly penned by Wald according to the above creationist "quote". Oh look, quelle surprise, another creationist fabrication.

Moving on ...

Idiot Creationist wrote:This country was founded on the basis of a creator


Wrong. This is another myth peddled by ideological stormtroopers for doctrine. The very existence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refutes this nonsense wholesale.

Idiot Creationist wrote:who endowed mankind with certain unalienable rights


Actually, those rights were asserted to exist regardless of the existence of any invisible magic man.

Idiot Creationist wrote:among which (but not limited to) are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution was drafted with the idea that government does not grant rights, but its greatest duty was to protect the rights of people.


And nowhere in the US Constitution does it mention that an invisible magic man is needed for this.

Idiot Creationist wrote:In contrast, evolution is the basis for humanism, the belief that I am my own final authority, and it removes the boundaries of governmental expansion and oppression.


This is complete poppycock. Humanism sensu lato is simply an approach in philosophy that focuses upon human concerns and values. As for secular humanism, which consists of the position that human concerns and values are best approached in an environment free from religious dogma, and apart from assertions about supernatural entities, this does not erect any assertion of the sort presented above. Indeed, secular humanism emphasises that we, as humans, possess a unique responsibility, to ourselves and each other, to examine ethical questions in detail and determine the consequences of our decisions, and postulates furthermore that any ideology purporting to possess answers with respect to this, be that ideology religious or political, should be examined in depth to determine whether or not the claims of that ideology withstand critical scrutiny. In other words, it consists of the position that any constraints to be erected upon human affairs should be based upon evidentially supported postulates instead of mere blind assertions.

But then who is in the least surprised, that someone who has already been determined to have erected complete fabrications to propagandise for his doctrine, should be found to have erected another caricature fabrication here?

Idiot Creationist wrote:Creationism is a religion of life


A laughable assertion, given that the Old Testament is replete with instances of genocide purportedly ordered by your magic man.

Idiot Creationist wrote:while evolution is a religion of death.


Farcical apologetic excrement. I've already dispensed with the fatuous canard that evolution is a "religion" above. As for being "a religion of death", this is again precisely the sort of caricature and blatant falsehood that a creationist needs to erect to propagandise for his doctrine, because as those scientific papers I have listed above demonstrate, along with thousands of others, that reality sticks the middle finger to creationist assertions on a grand scale. Evolutionary theory simply accepts that the death of organisms in biospheres is an observed fact, and postulates that there are testable mechanisms governing whether or not a given organism has an increased or decreased probability of survival to reproductive maturity.

Idiot Creationist wrote:Evolution necessarily requires the death of the less evolved species.


Poppycock. It doesn' "require" anything of the sort, it merely accepts that organisms die in natural ecosystems, and sets about providing explanations for why some organisms are more likely to die than others.

Idiot Creationist wrote:This is known as "survival of the fittest."


Actually, anyone who actually reads Darwin properly will know that his actual concept is better encapsulated as "survival of the sufficiently competent". Nowhere does evolutionary theory require that every organism has to be the acme of perfection, indeed, this is an impossibility. It merely accepts that when organisms are good enough to survive and reproduce, they will do so, and sets about determining testable mechanisms shaping the long term heredity of the relevant populations.

Idiot Creationist wrote:With Darwin's book came the excuse for one "race" of people to eliminate another.


Bullshit. The duplicitous quote mines creationists peddle with respect to this are well known and well documented as quote mines. Indeed, back in the 19th century, Darwin frequently used the word 'race' as a synonym for 'species'. The modern usage of the word 'race' did not exist in his day, and only arose after his death.

Idiot Creationist wrote:Sir Arthur Keith wrote of Hitler, "The German Fuhrer ... has consistently sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."


Manifest nonsense. And in this case, a duplicitous quote mine. The full quote, from Essays on Evolution, is as follows (the part omitted in the creationist quote mine highlighted in blue below):

Sir Arthur Keith wrote:The German Fuehrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. He has failed, not because the theory of evolution is false, but because he has made three fatal blunders in its application.


The fatuous nature of this duplicitous quote mine is further exposed, courtesy of the fact that Hitler's ideas about biology were far closer to creationist ideas than evolution, and indeed, he authorised the burning of books devoted to evolutionary theory. The relevant quote from Mein Kampf that illustrates neatly how Hitler's views on biology were closer to creationism than evolution is this:

Mein Kampf, pages 245-246 wrote:Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law - one may call it an iron law of Nature - which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind. Each animal mates only with one of its own species. The titmouse cohabits only with the titmouse, the finch with the finch, the stork with the stork, the field-mouse with the field-mouse, the house-mouse with the house-mouse, the wolf with the she-wolf, etc.

Deviations from this law take place only in exceptional circumstances. This happens especially under the compulsion of captivity, or when some other obstacle makes procreative intercourse impossible between individuals of the same species. But then Nature abhors such intercourse with all her might; and her protest is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that the hybrid is either sterile or the fecundity of its descendants is limited. In most cases hybrids and their progeny are denied the ordinary powers of resistance to disease or the natural means of defence against outer attack.


So Hitler erected the very same "kinds" argument as creationists? Now who would have thought it?

As for the Nazis burning books devoted to evolutionary biology, I refer everyone to this website, which contains information about lists of books that were banned by the Nazis, labelled as "seditious" and subject to numerous book burnings, which led Arthur Koestler to utter the chillingly prophetic remark in 1938 that "Now they are burning books, soon they will be burning people". Let's see what books were on the "seditious" list and publicly destroyed, shall we? Here's what the Nazis' own documents say on the subject:

Die Bücherei, 2:6 (1935) wrote:6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).


This translates into English as:

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).


This rather flushes down the toilet ANY notion that Darwin was somehow responsible for Hitler's extermination policy, because the Nazis explicitly listed as seditious and fit only for destruction books that contained so-called "Darwinist" content.

Idiot Creationist wrote:Karl Marx tried to dedicate his book "The Communist Manifesto" to Darwin (although he declined).


This is another bare faced lie, and one of the most fatuous of creationist fabrications. Why do I know this to be the case? Because, wait for it, The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848, eleven years before Darwin published anything on the subject of evolution. Indeed, I dealt with lies of this sort peddled by Jerry Bergman on the Arsewater in Genesis site some time ago, when I was posting on the old Richard Dawkins Forums. Oh, and by the way, The Communist Manifesto was a joint work, by Karl Mark and Friedrich Engels. When The Communist Manifesto was published, Darwin had yet to publish the work on Cirripedia that was to elevate him in scientific circles, let alone provide him with any public prominence outside the sphere of science.

Idiot Creationist wrote:Joseph Stalin went to a Christian school until he read Darwin's book and became an atheist.


Poppycock. There is NO evidence whatsoever that Stalin once read any of Darwin's work. Indeed, the fact that he sponsored the charlatan Trofim Lysenko, and committed evolutionary biologists to the Gulags (Nikolai Vavilov died of stavation in a Gulag in 1941), suggests once more that this is yet another creationist fabrication and manifest lie. Indeed, checking the actual facts, as opposed to creationist fabrications, tells us that Stalin was expelled from the seminary after missing his final exams, and surviving records from that seminary suggest that he was unable to pay his tuition fees (courtesy of Young Stalin by Simon Sebag-Montefiore, p. 61).

Idiot Creationist wrote:He went on to kill between 60 and 100 million of his own people.


Which he killed in pursuit of a political ideology that had nothing to do with evolution. What part of "Marxism is an economic ideology" is difficult to understand here? As anyone who has read Das Kapital knows only too well?

Idiot Creationist wrote:Dr. Leo Alexander, a holocaust survivor, said, "There is a difference between those who look upon their fellow human beings as common creatures of a common creator and those who look upon them as a conglomerate of biological chemicals."


Why do I smell yet another creationist fabrication here? Oh, that might have something to do with the previous precedents set above. Indeed, checking this websiite, which contains the full text of Dr Leo Alexander's seminal paper Medical Science Under Dictatorship, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1949, Alexander describes the progression toward the Nazi euthanasia programme as being of Hegelian origin. Viz:

Dr Leo Alexander, 1949 wrote:Preparatory Propaganda

Even before the Nazis took open charge in Germany, a propaganda barrage was directed against the traditional compassionate nineteenth-century attitudes toward the chronically ill, and for the adoption of a utilitarian, Hegelian point of view. Sterilization and euthanasia of persons with chronic mental illnesses was discussed at a meeting of Bavarian psychiatrists in 1931.[1] By 1936 extermination of the physically or socially unfit was so openly accepted that its practice was mentioned incidentally in an article published in an official German medical journal.[2]


Indeed, later on in the same document, Alexander has this to say about the motivations of the people involved:

Dr Leo Alexander, 1949 wrote:Motivation

An important feature of the experiments performed in concentration camps is the fact that they not only represented a ruthless and callous pursuit of legitimate scientific goals but also were motivated by rather sinister practical ulterior political and personal purposes, arising out of the requirements and problems of the administration of totalitarian rule.

Why did men like Professor Gebhardt lend themselves to such experiments? The reasons are fairly simple and practical, no surprise to anyone familiar with the evidence of fear, hostility, suspicion, rivalry and intrigue, the fratricidal struggle euphemistically termed the "self-selection of leaders," that went on within the ranks of the ruling Nazi party and the SS. The answer was fairly simple and logical. Dr. Gebhardt performed these experiments to clear himself of the suspicion that he had been contributing to the death of SS General Reinhard ("The Hangman") Heydrich, either negligently or deliberately, by failing to treat his wound infection with sulfonamides. After Heydrich died from gas gangrene, Himmler himself told Dr. Gebhardt that the only way in which he could prove that Heydrich's death was "fate-determined" was by carrying out a "large-scale experiment" in prisoners, which would prove or disprove that people died from gas gangrene irrespective of whether they were treated sulfonamides or not.

Dr. Sigmund Rascher did not become the notorious vivisectionist of Dachau concentration camp and the willing tool of Himmler's research interests until he had been forbidden to use the facilities of the Pathological Institute of the University of Munich because he was suspected of having Communist sympathies. Then he was ready to go all out and to do anything merely to regain acceptance by the Nazi party and the SS.

These cases illustrate a method consciously and methodically used in the SS, an age-old method used by criminal gangs everywhere: that of making suspects of disloyalty clear themselves by participation in a crime that would definitely and irrevocably tie them to the organization. In the SS this process of reinforcement of group cohesion was called "Blukitt" (blood-cement), a term that Hitler himself is said to have obtained from a book on Genghis Khan in which this technique was emphasized.

The important lesson here is that this motivation, with which one is familiar in ordinary crimes, applies also to war crimes and to ideologically conditioned crimes against humanity—namely, that fear and cowardice, especially fear of punishment or of ostracism by the group, are often more important motives than simple ferocity or aggressiveness.


Once again, no mention of evolution. Quelle surprise.

Later on, again, Alexander refers to the underlying philosophy being Hegelian, viz:

Leo Alexander, 1949 wrote:Under all forms of dictatorship the dictating bodies or individuals claim that all that is done is being done for the best of the people as a whole, and that for that reason they look at health merely in terms of utility, efficiency and productivity. It is natural in such a setting that eventually Hegel's principle that "what is useful is good" wins out completely.


Once again, I smell a creationist fabrication with respect to the alleged Alexander "quote" about "a conglomerate of chemicals", a phrase that never appears in his seminal paper on the Nazi euthanasia programme, as anyone who visits the website I have linked to can check for themselves.

Moving on ...

Idiot Creationist wrote:While I have only begun to indict the theory of evolution


Poppycock. All that has happened here is that a range of complete fabrications has been erected, and presented duplicitously as a critique of a valid scientific theory.

Idiot Creationist wrote:which has made no positive contribution to science


Tell that to anyone who has received an influenza vaccination.

Idiot Creationist wrote:I hope you will begin to question what we are teaching our children.


And given that it has been demonstrated above beyond any shadow of a doubt, that creationism is based upon lies and fabrications, we can safely keep it out of the classroom, except for the purpose of teaching our children how to spot liars and charlatans.

Idiot Creationist wrote:Do we even need to teach theories of the origin of the universe in public schools?


This is nothing more than a blatant appeal to ignorance, and a whinge that effectively bleats "how dare you teach something that fails to conform to my petty little bigotries".

Oh, and theories of the origin of the universe are the province of physics, not biology. But then those of us who are used to dealing with creationist lies are familiar with specious conflations such as this.

Idiot Creationist wrote:Can we not just teach science


Theories of the origin of the universe are valid science. As any physicist will happily tell you. Heard of Stephen Hawking, perchance?

Idiot Creationist wrote:and let each parent and each child decide what to believe?


Except that scientific fact is not a matter of "belief". Which you yourself admitted earlier, when you admitted that scientists engage in research.

Idiot Creationist wrote:In closing, I would like to ask those who believe in evolution


Yawn. Once again, since evolution is an observed fact, as those numerous scientific papers I have cited above demonstrate all too readily, belief is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.

Idiot Creationist wrote:this simple question, "If evolution is true, how do we determine right from wrong?"


We rely upon ethics to do this, which is a different intellectual discipline from biology. Furthermore, we determine what ethical principles are valid on the basis of supporting evidence for the relevant postulates. But then I don't expect a creationist to understand elementary principles such as this.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 15159
Age: 52
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous religion

#10  Postby Calilasseia » Oct 05, 2010 5:48 am

Agrippina wrote:I agree, and then post it on his website for all his readers to see.


Trouble is, I can't sign up to that newspaper website. When I fill in the form details, and click on "Sign up", fuck all happens. Wonder if they've deliberately set it up to block people on a known blacklist circulated by creationists? Forgive my paranoia here, but having dealt with these people for 3 years or more, I wouldn't trust them any further than I could spit them.

Correction ... I had to fire up Internet Exploder to do it, because it doesn't work on Firefox. Fucking typical.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 15159
Age: 52
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous religion

#11  Postby Calilasseia » Oct 05, 2010 5:58 am

Posted the link to my post on that site. And what a rigmarole it was too ... looks like someone else has been hypnotised by the music of the spheres of the verbal diarrhoea that is Web 2.0 ...
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 15159
Age: 52
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous religion

#12  Postby Agrippina » Oct 05, 2010 6:11 am

Calilasseia wrote:
Agrippina wrote:I agree, and then post it on his website for all his readers to see.


Trouble is, I can't sign up to that newspaper website. When I fill in the form details, and click on "Sign up", fuck all happens. Wonder if they've deliberately set it up to block people on a known blacklist circulated by creationists? Forgive my paranoia here, but having dealt with these people for 3 years or more, I wouldn't trust them any further than I could spit them.

Correction ... I had to fire up Internet Exploder to do it, because it doesn't work on Firefox. Fucking typical.


First I have to say that I love the way you use the word "Poppycock" :lol:I strongly suspect that you are are right about being on the creationists' blacklist.

Then the having to use some retarded web browser also says something about the retardation of the intellectual development of the person who wrote the original, if I may use your word, "poppycock."
Nebogipfel wrote:
Where two or three gather together in Jesus' name, there'll usually be a bloody great fight.
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 31988
Age: 103
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous religion

#13  Postby Alan C » Oct 05, 2010 7:52 am

Having to use Internet Exploiter? Ugh.
The more such examples are observed the harder it is to view creationism as anything other than encouraging rampant dishonesty and wilful ignorance.
:nono:

When I think of the scientific progress the USA has made [as a whole] it boggles me that there are so many of these fuckwits about. Lots of them quite vocal and in positions of power which, hypocritically, is probably due to the very sciences they pillory.
Lose it - it means go crazy, nuts, insane, bonzo, no longer in possession of one's faculties, three fries short of a happy meal, WACKO!! - Jack O'Neill
User avatar
Alan C
 
Posts: 887
Age: 37
Male

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous religion

#14  Postby trubble76 » Oct 05, 2010 12:55 pm

I was pleased to see a long list of intelligent comments on the page linked to in the OP. The creationist posts were easy to spot as they were the ones with no (at least not in the correct places) punctuation or capitilisation, or even any content beyond that of a young child with learning disabilities.

More and more, I'm getting the impression that these creationist types actually want to be ignorant, rather than being unfortunately and accidentally ignorant.

Here's my favorite part:

some creationist moron wrote:If the earth is millions of years old, why aren't the oceans full of salt?
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 10638
Age: 37
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous religion

#15  Postby Bolero » Oct 06, 2010 1:31 am

trubble76 wrote:I was pleased to see a long list of intelligent comments on the page linked to in the OP. The creationist posts were easy to spot as they were the ones with no (at least not in the correct places) punctuation or capitilisation, or even any content beyond that of a young child with learning disabilities.

More and more, I'm getting the impression that these creationist types actually want to be ignorant, rather than being unfortunately and accidentally ignorant.

Here's my favorite part:

some creationist moron wrote:If the earth is millions of years old, why aren't the oceans full of salt?


:lol: :lol: :lol:

(Oh, and would it be inappropriate to say that reading Cali's posts gives me a wet-on? Probably. Fuck it, I'll say it anyway.)
"You live with apes, man: it's hard to be clean." Marilyn Manson
User avatar
Bolero
 
Posts: 1534
Age: 35
Female

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous religion

#16  Postby Dogmatic Pyrrhonist » Oct 06, 2010 1:45 am

Bolero wrote:
(Oh, and would it be inappropriate to say that reading Cali's posts gives me a wet-on? Probably. Fuck it, I'll say it anyway.)


I always thought "highly inappropriate" were minimum requirements for posting things on the internet. Not the other way around.

:naughty2:
Dogmatic Pyrrhonist
AKA https://plus.google.com/u/0/105518842266362138077/about (google has decided my name isn't a 'real' name)

Image
User avatar
Dogmatic Pyrrhonist
 
Posts: 712
Age: 42
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous religion

#17  Postby Agrippina » Oct 06, 2010 5:03 am

trubble76 wrote:I was pleased to see a long list of intelligent comments on the page linked to in the OP. The creationist posts were easy to spot as they were the ones with no (at least not in the correct places) punctuation or capitilisation, or even any content beyond that of a young child with learning disabilities.

More and more, I'm getting the impression that these creationist types actually want to be ignorant, rather than being unfortunately and accidentally ignorant.

Here's my favorite part:

some creationist moron wrote:If the earth is millions of years old, why aren't the oceans full of salt?


Their religious teaching actively encourages ignorance:

1 Corinthians 2:2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.
1 Timothy 6:4:...he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
1 Timothy 6:20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge


This is why the children of believers are not encouraged to study anything other than theology, or possibly medicine, law and so on, i.e. nothing that will allow them to find fault with the religion. That's why there are few religious historians, psychologists (especially psychology), philosophers and when they do study science, they won't support any science that argues against the religious belief.
Nebogipfel wrote:
Where two or three gather together in Jesus' name, there'll usually be a bloody great fight.
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 31988
Age: 103
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post


Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest