While not a scientiscian... I had a serious thought in this debate

Creationism is no more biblically justifiable then normal science

just think about if some one told you about evolution at 3, at 13, and at 23 and you wrote down what they said ment to you

you'd end up with three different answers

so, the ultra-literalist view of the old hebraic ( the legend is older then judaism) view of creation cannot be reasonably based on the fact based on knowledge levels folks living out in the Arabian Pennensula would take the visions of god and put them into their words and understandings of it

I followed the post you're referring to. I was appalled (again) at the anger that accompanies this debate. The "scientists" were beyond het-up, rather than calm purveyors of fact. But tell them they know only a tiny fraction of the truth, as Paul did, and they go bonkers. I came to the conclusion that they can't be rational about it - gotta weed out all the knuckle-draggers who don't confess evolution - and that there is something behind Paul's stamina to take on the argument with people so eerily invested. Why attack Paul personally or "intellectually" if you can simply demonstrate the known? Maybe it's a guy thing - why discuss when you can fight? But then I don't know anything because I'm not a scientist. So carry on.

*disclaimer: Paul, nor anyone at Wizbang, know me from Adam. Pun intended.

PS Since I didn't say, "Yeah, those pro-evo science brains sure showed that idiot," does this mean I can expect a rain of fire on my empty head?

Paul is the reason I have stopped reading Wizbang.

Which is a pity, because Jay and Kevin were generally pretty good.

tee bee -

Why attack Paul personally or "intellectually" if you can simply demonstrate the known?

If you notice, I said that Stephen is hard to piss off, so the answer would probably be that when Paul - who is typically even more insulting to commenters than me - starts deleting honest comments to shut out debate, he deserves the horns.

That would infuriate me, and I'd call him dishonest (among other things) as well.

I generally avoid arguments about evolution/creationism, "intelligent design," et cetera ad nauseam, having no desire to wrestle with those particular tar babies. So I'll confine myself to two points. First, this whole argument at Whizbang over evolution has gone a long way towards wrecking what had been a pretty good blog. Second, Paul's agenda is transparently obvious, but he seems to think his argument is stronger if he doesn't acknowledge his own position--i.e., creationism. IMHO, that's intellectually dishonest.

I noticed what you said about Stephen; I also read his comments at Wizbang, and can't say anything about the deleted material... Stephen's comments are part of what prompted me to say anything here, since he is the topic of your post. You might also notice that I said that there is something behind Paul's stamina to take on the argument.

For example, I am happy to discuss things with people and am pretty interested in origins science, but I have no interest in the firestorm Paul has returned to repeatedly. To continue discourse, the person would have to understand my limitations in the field of science, but also respect the conclusions I have come to, biases and all (as well as being honest about their own biases); they would also have to be reasonable enough to have no investment in changing my mind - after all, what does it matter what I think? And that respect is completely lacking in most of these strings.

What did you think about it, with regard to reasoned discourse other than siding with Stephen? Did you think Paul was alone in being antagonistic and switching topic? Do you think he got so little support because he was off base?

And I agree with Utron about it being a tarbaby. But I don't think it's impossible for Paul to believe neither in a big bang theory nor in creation. And I don't know why people think that's dishonest. Can't there be another answer? Well, that's what you get from a Liberal Arts major. But I think that people like Stephen will be better served if they look outside the box from time to time, and don't deride people who don't take their word and research for it.

the big bang isn't part of a single theory any more

it is part of a much larger cosmological theory as scientists have worked and worked towards the theory of everything.

and as they add to this theory new conjectures they test if a new conjecture proves true with all the other theories put into what is now "M theory" from a mathematical standpoing

and each thing they add the equation of everything comes out the same way

the odds on something like that happening and being bogus are mind boggling

Glad to see others notice and find this as strange as I do.

Wizbang's a good site, nice blend of politics and the whimisical. Also think it's got the best layout in the biz. Smooth, pleasing to the eye, wide, easy to read, distinct from each other posts. And that comments thing they have, 'show comments right here', not sure why every single site doesn't employ that. Makes comment reading, response like riding on air.

And then the Paul post. Screeching noises, smoke flying. If you look out the side windows, you can actually see the wheels disattach and fly off into the ditch.

I guess I could handle a pro-creationsit post now and then. Just lump it. But the way he uses those posts to shout down, name-call and constantly claim he is being misinterpreted is almost embarrasing to read. He settles small name-calling scores with posts like some blog schoolyard bully. I wonder what Jay Tea and Kevin think once they see those things go up.

I like to recommend a few sights on the right to lefty friends who've grown a little tired wondering if civility and non-moonbattery can exist in the political blogosphere. Sort of tease them saying 'See, we make hard points over here, but we're also able to remain grown ups. You should try it.' Can't recommend Wizbang cause of Paul. They'd just laugh at me.

I still think people are being hard on Paul - it's the sight of purportedly serious scientists acting like chickens with their heads cut off (or academics in danger of having their funding cut off, more likely) that's the real takeaway.

I also enjoy the strawman that anyone who doesn't believe 100% that the current model of evolution is the exact total truth is a creationist. That's way at odds with how I learned science in school in the 80s.

I also enjoy the strawman that anyone who doesn't believe 100% that the current model of evolution is the exact total truth is a creationist. That's way at odds with how I learned science in school in the 80s.

But that's the strawman; there IS proof of certain major concepts involved in evolution, mixed in with the gaps. You are right that true science doesn't claim universal, unalterable truth, especially regarding an incredibly complex theory, but who exactly is he arguing against? And what exactly is he arguing for?

Ian,

Only Paul (and Creationists) represent the position of scientists as "we know 100%" of everything. Of course there's more to learn. Yes, Paul's silly graphic is accurate.

The problem is a little more subtle. Evolutionary theory is a scientific framework whose structure isnot in doubt, but whose details are being filled in. There are many analogies: the continent has been mapped, no we're filling in the coastline; the building has been designed, the foundation laid, the frame is up, and the walls have been roughed in. In both analogies, there's more work to be done, more knowledge to be gained.

But there are some folks, Paul and Creationists among them, who claim. "No, that continent does not exist. Or, the building will fall down."

The difference between the reality (filling in details) versus the propaganda ("major holes!!!") is not hard to see.

It get worse. When you say, "Major holes, Paul? Like what?" He responds with a long-discredited argument about lack of transitional fossils. "Not true; here are hundreds of them."

He then mis-characterizes that as '30 or 40 "questionable" fossils.'

And, in response to "which ones are questionable, please be specific," he ignores and deletes.

All of these tactics which he employs are tried-and-true, and worn-out devices of Creationists, which he stoutly denies believing.

"but we're filling in the coastline"

Now that's the most reasonable thing I've seen on the subject yet.

Honestly, I'm not convinced Paul deeply believes any particular side, but he's clearly loving the attention. If there weren't 50 outraged comments an hour and 10 insulting trackbacks every time he posted he'd eventually stop doing it. I haven't seen such low-quality trolling since USENET in the early 90s, and it's depressing that people are falling for it.

Anyway, I tend to think there are far more credible threats to modern science than Paul. The anti-technology PoMos have way more influence in universities than he does, for instance. And that's lead to blatently stupid public policy like the EU's ban on GM grains.

Love when he says something stupid, gets attacked angrily for it, then uses that anger as evidence that evolutionists aren't rational and therefore aren't really scientists.

At some point in his comments Paul claims that evolutionists are obviously more biased and emotional because they're attacking him while Creationists are being civil. Gee, maybe that's because you never say anything a Creationist would disagree with?

I actually tend to think the response to Paul's posts to some extent has proven Paul right, I think the problem is nobody wants to admit it.

Also, this analogy:

"the continent has been mapped, no we're filling in the coastline; "

Sort of makes me think of Columbus, when he thought he had the map drawn, and discovered there was a whole continent between where he was and where he thought he was going.

Sometimes I think people so wedded to the theory, are like Columbus and think they are heading to China, and they may end up hitting that continent in the middle.

And I will be honest, one thing that bothers me about evolution, is that often science films etc have the nice little narration score, and start telling the story from billions of years ago, and how X evolved into this etc, as if all those holes were already filled in.

There are things we know, but there is a whole lot more we don't know-and maybe what we don't know will turn out to be the continent in the middle of that map you think you are drawing.

The anti-technology PoMos have way more influence in universities

Yes the PoMos are worse.
PoMo Evolution:

The semi-religious belief that everything happened by accident, there is no higher power, genetics and behavior are completely separate, IQ can't be inherited, didn't evolve, and doesn't exist.

Most creationists just want their kids to learn Santa Clause science, but the PoMos go after real scientists. They shouted down sociobiology and the Bell Curve and denounce separated twin studies as nazi propaganda.

Just Me,

Interesting comment on the smooth little school films. Of course, the real story isn't like that.

A guy just challenged me on the "ape-human" connection. There are many hominid fossils, and pre-hominids "apes." But there's a gap between dryopithecus and australopithecus. A big one.

See the Comments here:
http://acepilots.com/mt/archives/001905.html
... which has more links to other sites.

I think it's an interesting discussion.

My point? Of course there are questions and gaps in our knowledge. On this point, look at the whole record of primate & hominid fossils. Think about how rarely fossils occur in nature, etc.. Look at all the transitional relationships that HAVE been established. And at the gaps; I think there are others. And look at other groups, not just primates.

Scientists don't hide or cover up or lie about the uncertainties. They glory in them. Some day, some paleontologist might find a fossil that from within that gap period. Does that guy have any interest in (today) pretending there IS NO gap? Of course not. He wants to do the research to help bridge or explain it.

No one on the 'science side' of this has to shout people down, ignore their questions, delete their questions, etc.

Read the 2-3 questions that my Commenters have asked, and the answers. Does that dialog bear ANY resemblance to how Paul responds?

Sometimes I think people so wedded to the theory, are like Columbus and think they are heading to China, and they may end up hitting that continent in the middle.

Fortunately, a legitimate scientific theory suggests new tests, just as Columbus's discovery rather quickly inspired more people to explore the western hemisphere, quickly dispelling the notion that he had made landfall in Asia.

One of the most absurd mischaracterizations made about science is that scientists are dogmatically vested in conventional wisdom. I encounter this all the time, when crackpots who don't know the first thing about my field (physics) send me their treatises purporting to "disprove Einstein".

If any physicist knew of a way to "disprove Einstein", they would leap at the chance. You do not win the Nobel Prize, an endowed chair, or $10K speaking honoraria by *confirming* Einstein for the umpteenth time. The problem with these would-be geniuses is that they do not understand or try to address the staggering amount of evidence which is consistent with Einstein (or evolution, as the case may be) and easily rules out 99.99...% of the conceivable alternatives.

When people have come up with credible ideas that contradict Einstein (without requiring us to ignore everything else we know) I and others have done our best to test them. Who wouldn't want to be the one who made that discovery?

On the other hand, who has the time to knock-down every hare-brained idea which would require that hundreds of past, reproducible observations be wrong? You also don't win the Nobel Prize, etc. for shooting down Joe Sixpack's Grand Unified Theory of Zen Metaphysics, no matter how unfair that seems to Joe...

"One of the most absurd mischaracterizations made about science is that scientists are dogmatically vested in conventional wisdom. "

Except that some of them are, but in a lot of ways it probably isn't the scientist that is dogmatic, but the non scientist who is convinced that there arent holes.

I have engaged in a lot of evolution/creation oriented debates, generally they are with people like me-college educated with the basic intro college courses for science. Their main science exposure to evolution is the very basics (and I can say that my college biology course was short on explaining the holes/problems with the theory, and long on showing all the evidence some of which is now debunked and not used by scientists themselves as examples of evolution). Then of course all those films/textbooks you see in science, sociology, anthropology etc classes, where evolution is described in a way that you assume all those holes are filled in. Those classes don't go into the fact that there are some answers that aren't there, and it is mostly conjecture as far as what fills them.

My college anthropology class was like this-it taught the history of the world according to science as if every aspect of evolution was known fact.

So you take people like me-with some basic understanding of evolution, with a little bit of misinformation thrown in (and frankly a film in a science/anthroplogy/sociology/etc class that acts as if the holes aren't there and they are all filled in is in fact misinformation-at the very least they should present it as the debate that it is), and put them in a debate on evolution-there are a lot of people who are wedded and dogmatic about evolution to the point that it is a religion for them. Just because evolution is secular, that doesn't mean at this point there isn't an aspect of faith to it-especially when it comes to some of the biggest holes (the whole abiogensis thing is one monstrously huge hole, and anyone who says it isn't is being overly dogmatic about it).

Also, back to those films-I have noticed on debatess that scientists want to seperate abiogenisis from evolution, but in those films and textbooks I am referring to, the two are not seperated, they are merged right together, so that in the mind of especially a lay person (lay as being non scientist) they are very much the same thing.

Forget for a moment the scientist aspect, because most people in the United States are not scientists, most of us have had only the basics in science, and most people who engage in these debates are not scientists. And there are a lot of dogmatic people in regards to evolution-I have had many a debate online with them. So maybe if you have these dogmatic people out there, we should rethink how evolution is taught and presented, so that people better understand that all the answers aren't there, and there may be a whole other continent we aren't seeing in the picture.

Having taught intro college science courses, I think it's understandable that such courses concentrate on explaining the basic outline of a subject, while leaving out the caveats and question marks that are open subjects of modern-day, cutting edge research. After all, to appreciate why something is a challenge to the theory, one must first understand what the theory itself is, and what the context of the problem is. Intro courses are to bring you up to speed on what we think we know. Advanced courses are for exploring what we're not sure of.

I can sympathize a bit with your critique of popular science media. On the other hand, the bandwidth for communicating science to the public is so low in our society that once again, there is scant opportunity to discuss the details (much like in an intro course, if you can outline the basic evidence for and structure of the theory, you are doing well).

I do think that we should do a better job of explaining what science is though. In particular, all scientific knowledge is tentative. On the other hand, there are many different degrees of confidence in one's explanations. It is expected (and desirable) that a theory fail near its edges, since this is how we gain new information to refine the theory and make it better. The fact that many people (like Paul, apparently) don't understand this leads to all sorts of misunderstandings.

I saw Paul's hilarious graph yesterday. It's like an SNL skit of some obtuse rube trying to refute science. I like that he doesn't care that he's a laughing stock.

Wow... his post on global warming made me cry... he tried to connect the ozone to global warming, (one does not affect the other), and tried to dispute CFC's to counter global warming... I mean, I don't think global warming is correct either, but at least get the facts straight.