Monday, August 22, 2005

Pharyngula On Fire - Again!

Two posts over at Pharyngula really worth checking out. I was going to recommend this one first, because it applies to us here at the Middleman. Yeah, yeah... we're pretty dumb, PZ ("She's hit on a central reason why Intelligent Design creationism has acquired a popular following in the US—good old-fashioned home-grown ignorance")... But it still is clear to many of us that evolution has explanatory value for life, even if we don't know our meiosis from our mitosis! PZ Myers is the Triple A of Bloggers - Angry, Arrogant and Awesome. Gotta read him.

Then for a hilarious take on the recent comments of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Prez Bush on I.D. read "Dr Frist: or, how I learned to stop worrying and love Intelligent Design" and be sure to check out the linked story at the end of it from The New York Times. I like that they actually quoted a biologist named Dr. Doolittle from nearby San Diego. Also intriguing were the references at the bottom of the Times article to the work on E. coli by Dr. Richard Lenski, a professor of microbial ecology at Michigan State University, so read it all the way through.


john said...

Listening to Lou Dobbs on CNN, there was a short debate on the ID/Darwinism issue, with the homiletic injunction by the Darwin defender of the importance of peer review. This is the frequent demand in almost hushed tones of the NCSE spokesmen/women, and is also a staple of the ID crew, who seem to covet the mystique of the PhD who dissents from ol' Darwin. Noone seems able to explain how two opposite dialectic poles could both meaningfully pass peer review. Clearly all these well-trained logical people are able to focus narrowly on their widget specialties without being able to come to any conclusions on evolution.

Time to get one thing straight. Peer Review on the subject of evolution is a bunch of crap. Don't be taken in by this new form of censorship in disguise from the organizations of Big Science. Darwin's theory is one of the most vulgar pieces of bad theory ever proposed, and has killed a lot of people, so let's dispense with this idiocy about how the theory of natural selection has been proven, is a theory at all, or should be taken seriously because a bunch of Science Big Shots give it their peer review endorsement.

Peer review works well enough in physics and other hard sciences, but it clearly doesn't work on the subject of evolutionary theory. Period.

The reverse is nearly true. Any peer reviewed work on Darwinism is immediately suspect. The poor author was either brainwashed, or else, if he was half way intelligent, to make the cost of feeding his dog, he had to compromise, lie, dissemble or remain silent on evolution to get ahead and graduate. The result is a horde of technically trained specialists who can't deal with the flaws in Darwinism.

Remember, as a citizen, the burdern of understanding is up to you, not what experts try to fob off on you, and you must assess the advice of experts without being mesmerized. It is your responsibility to get it straight. Darwin's theory, even as we speak, is being used somewhere to kill someone, in the name of evolutionary advance.
The advice of specialists may be worth listening to, but if you suspect ideology, and Darwinism is rank with ideology, then the claims of authority are out the window. It is time the whole grimy crud of the Darwin deception was laughed out of the ball park.
So much for peer review. Don't be had by this nonsense.

In the words of Soren Lovtrup, a peer reviewed embryologist from the biology underground,
"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?" Soren Lovtrup, Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth, p. 422.

John Landon
History and Evolution

SocioScape said...

Like your approach to this issue. I'm a regular reader of, and I'm happy to add your "Middleman" blog to my reading list.

John's comments here are rather...strange. Peer review works well in physics but not in biology? What a load of horse poop. John clearly does not understand the peer review process. I would bet that if he were more interested in physics (rather than...what is it?..."eonic effects" observable via the dual lenses of history and biology?), peer review wouldn't work in physics either.

Just a thought. But what do I know...I'm just a social scientist. Peer review probably doesn't work for my field either, according to John, since our findings often contradict the claims of those whose power lies in controlling and limiting information about rational truths in our world.

Anyway, good job on the blog so far. best of luck.

John said...

Thanks to Socioscape for the kind comments. Life has taken a sudden turn for me and I may not be posting as much as I intended, for the time being. We'll see. As to "John"...

Let me quote:

"Darwin's theory is one of the most vulgar pieces of bad theory ever proposed"

A "vulgar" theory? I find it one of the most beautiful and simple things ever presented to me. I assume your "vulgar" reference has something to do with the following:

"and has killed a lot of people"

Now, John, YOU need to get something straight. Darwin's theory has killed no one. It doesn't in any way suggest any action. It is simply an explanation for how life has developed to where it is at today. What nuts, such as yourself, choose to do with this theory, or any other, is what insane folks always do with the wisdom of greater people - twist it to their own ends. On to more of your nonsense:

"so let's dispense with this idiocy about how the theory of natural selection has been proven"

It hasn't even been "proven" that you exist, John. Hopefully, you are a figment of my imagination. Science can demonstrate evidence. Further science may indeed overturn what was demonstrated previously. However, you need to do science, John, if you want to demonstrate that Darwin is wrong and 150 years of demonstration has only largely confirmed what he said. At least, the basis of the theory - that life is descended from other life, modified, primarily by natural selection.

"(So let's dispense with the idiocacy about how the theory of natural selection), is a theory at all, or should be taken seriously because a bunch of Science Big Shots give it their peer review endorsement".

Or, we could dispense with your rantings and trust that peer review holds a lot more promise than your philosophy.