Berlinski stirring the pot
by BradfordIntroducing David Berlinski:
Having with indignation rejected the assumption that the creation of life required an intelligent design, Mr Fletcher has persuaded himself that it has proceeded instead by means of various chemical scenarios.
These scenarios all require intelligent intervention. In his animadversions, Mr Fletcher suggests nothing so much as a man disposed to denounce alcohol while sipping sherry.
Heh, heh. Vintage Berlinski.
If experiments conducted in the here and now are to shed light on the there and then, they must meet two conditions: They must demonstrate in the first place the existence of a detailed chemical pathway between RNA precursors and a form of self-replicating RNA; and they must provide in the second place a demonstration that the spontaneous appearance of this pathway is plausible under pre-biotic conditions.
There's a third condition bearing on the plausibility of RNA world scenarios. There is a need to show that self-replication evolves into systems of interacting components which replicate as systems. System replication characterizes life.
The existence of a synthetic pathway has now been established. (Matthew W. Powner et al, “The Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions," Nature 459, 239–242, 2009).
Questions of pre-biotic plausibility remain. Can the results of Powner et al be reproduced without Powner et al?
It is a question that Powner raises himself: "My ultimate goal," he has remarked, "is to get a living system (RNA) emerging from a one-pot experiment."
The ultimate goal- a living system from a single pot of soup. But, getting to the heart of the matter:
If the steps leading to the appearance of the pyridimines in a pre-biotic environment are not yet plausible, then neither is the appearance of a self-replicating form of RNA. Experiments conducted by Tracey Lincoln and Gerald Joyce at the Scripps Institute have demonstrated the existence of self-replicating RNA by a process of in vitro evolution. They began with what they needed and purified what they got until they got what they wanted.
Although an invigorating piece of chemistry, what is missing from their demonstration is what is missing from Powner's and that is any clear indication of pre-biotic plausibility.
And closing with Berlinski's trademark wit:
Mr Nagel is correct in remarking that Mr Fletcher is insufferable. Mr Walton is correct in observing that the RNA world is imaginary. And Mr Fletcher is correct in finding the hypothesis of intelligent design unacceptable.
He should give it up himself and see what happens.
January 28th, 2010 at 8:13 am
An eloquent crackpot is still a crackpot.
Comment by olegt — January 28, 2010 @ 8:13 am
January 28th, 2010 at 8:42 am
Olegt's concluding comment at the link:
Ignore his pronouncements about physics and cosmology. OK. You speak with some authority on these matters. Ignore his metaphysics? You can do that too if they do not align with your own. Ignore his comments about RNA in a prebiotic environment? Why should we do that when he makes some telling points?
Comment by Bradford — January 28, 2010 @ 8:42 am
January 28th, 2010 at 9:03 am
Bradford,
Ask a biologist.
Comment by olegt — January 28, 2010 @ 9:03 am
January 28th, 2010 at 9:20 am
They are invited to point out the errors of Berlinski's ways.
Comment by Bradford — January 28, 2010 @ 9:20 am
January 28th, 2010 at 9:26 am
Olegt-bot reponse:
BZZZT BEEP The biologists are too busy POP WHIZZZZZZZZZZ to answer some crackpot WOOP WOOP WOOP who lies for Jesus BLEEP BEEP BZOORRRT.
Comment by angryoldfatman — January 28, 2010 @ 9:26 am
January 28th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Typical olegt- attack the messenger not the message.
BTW oleg, have you ever taken up your "disagreements" with Mr Berlinski?
I ask because given your track-record it is a safe bet that you are not understanding what he is saying about cosmology.
Also why should we ask a biologist about the pre-biological world?
That is just asinine- or in your case assinine…
Comment by ID guy — January 28, 2010 @ 12:33 pm
January 28th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Refrain from this type of stuff.
Comment by Bradford — January 28, 2010 @ 12:37 pm
January 28th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Olegt,
Regarding this matter of pre-biological world I'd rather ask chemists: they know much more about this stuff than biologists. As a matter of fact, regarding life, I prefer to rely on chemists not biologists.
Cheers from Brazil!
Comment by neddy — January 28, 2010 @ 2:58 pm
January 28th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Hi neddy, with respect I think you are both hollering down the wrong rabbit hole. With regards to creation of life from non-life I'd look to engineers rather than chemists or biologists.
Comment by chunkdz — January 28, 2010 @ 4:12 pm
January 28th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Let’s take olegt’s logic and apply it someone else. Someone like, Lynn Margulis, a distinguished member of the National Academy of Science and one of the early developers of the endosymbiotic theory for the evolution of eukaryotic cells. Margulis also holds several other views that some people consider to be "crackpot" views. For example, she is a skeptic of neo-Darwinism, a skeptic that HIV is the cause of AIDs, a 9/11 “truther” and supports the Gaia hypothesis (the idea that the earth is essentially one big organism.)
Should we dismiss her work on the endosymbiotic theory because of her other views? I think not. Indeed, according to the rules of logic, it would be logically fallacious to do so.
I suggest we give due consideration of Berlinski’s critique based on its own merits, not because olegt thinks he is some kind of crackpot.
BTW what is olegt's area of expertise? Is he biochemist? I can't remember. Someone give me a reminder.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 28, 2010 @ 5:20 pm
January 28th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Olegt is a physics professor.
Comment by Bradford — January 28, 2010 @ 5:55 pm
January 28th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
My apologies Bradford-
It was enough to point out olegt's crackpottedness or is that crackpotheadedness…
Comment by ID guy — January 28, 2010 @ 8:40 pm
January 28th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
John,
There is a great quote from Carl Sagan:
I think it applies in this case.
Comment by olegt — January 28, 2010 @ 10:23 pm
January 28th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
The Bozos are identifiable by their inability engage in rational discussion. Ad homs, linked to hackneyed cliches, would be comical were it not for the mirthless minds which produce them.
Comment by Bradford — January 28, 2010 @ 11:07 pm
January 29th, 2010 at 8:24 am
The problem in this case is that you don't seem to think at all.
Comment by Jean — January 29, 2010 @ 8:24 am
January 29th, 2010 at 9:43 am
It did seem like an auto-bot response did it not?
Comment by Bradford — January 29, 2010 @ 9:43 am
January 29th, 2010 at 9:50 am
I explained why I think that Berlinski's opinion does not amount to much on a previous occasion. If anyone wants details they are welcome to click on the link.
Comment by olegt — January 29, 2010 @ 9:50 am
January 29th, 2010 at 10:20 am
This is a comment about Robert Hooke:
It depends who you ask. He had a difficult temperament. Would not have won the Mr. Congeniality award but if we could play back the comments he made during his life then we would likely see at least some jerky ones with respect to what used to be called natural philosophy. Newton had some weird ideas too and is anyone familiar with the strange ideas of contemporary scientist Lynn Margulis? Don't pay any attention to anything they say? Of course- Not.
Comment by Bradford — January 29, 2010 @ 10:20 am
January 29th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Sure, Bradford. That brings us back to Carl Sagan's point: not every crank is worth listening to.
Lynn Margulis is an eccentric who has made a positive contribution to science. Fred Hoyle had cranky ideas but also made first-class contributions to science. But David Berlinski? He is just a crank.
Comment by olegt — January 29, 2010 @ 11:35 am
January 29th, 2010 at 11:48 am
You mean his views about origins evidence do not please you. The man is smart, and well versed in mathematics and molecular biology. If his views are not worth listening to then neither are those of virtually everyone else about both science and non-science topics.
Comment by Bradford — January 29, 2010 @ 11:48 am
January 29th, 2010 at 11:53 am
If we measure opinions by contributions within a relevant field then some prominent individuals must both keep their mouths shut and resign.
BTW, if contributions are the key then why is it that successful businessmen defer to politicians and cranks where economic policies are concerned?
Comment by Bradford — January 29, 2010 @ 11:53 am
January 29th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Your advice was to ignore him. If you can't even follow your own advice then why should anybody else?
I actually was going to ignore this post until I noticed that a brilliant young Theoretical Physicist from John's Hopkins University actually took time out of his busy schedule to comment on Berlinski's work. In fact, I probably never would have ordered Berlinski's "A Tour of the Calculus" from Amazon.com if it hadn't been for Olegt's undying interest in Berlinski. Thanks!
Comment by chunkdz — January 29, 2010 @ 2:49 pm
January 29th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Even if Berlinski is a crank and Meyer is unqualified, as olegt and Falk respectively claim, it doesn’t change the fact that there are devastating criticisms of the so-called “RNA world” or “RNA first” hypothesis. Indeed, if neither Berlinski or Meyer had said anything on the subject you would still have the criticisms to seriously challenge the viability of the hypothesis.
For example, NYU biochemist and OoL researcher Robert Shapiro recently opined:
Shapiro goes on to then expose what is the major problem with the theory.
Paul Davies is another authority who highlights the many difficulties that an RNA first scenario presents. He writes:
The summarize the point that Davies is trying to make: from what we presently know it is virtually impossible to extrapolate what we have learned in the lab to some hypothetical process that may have occurred, out there someplace, a long, long time ago “in the wild.”
But wait a minute, are these two men really qualified to write critiques about the origin of life? Well, I am sure that we can find something that can use to disqualify each of them. Let’s see… Shapiro is called a professor emeritus which means he is getting old. Okay that’s it… He is old and senile and hasn’t been able to keep up with the latest research… But what about Davies? Well Davies is a physicist not a biologist or biochemist. So, he doesn’t really have the training required for an OoL researcher. Therefore, we can dismiss him as just another educated amateur.
There you go, olegt. I did your dirty work for you.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 29, 2010 @ 8:18 pm
January 29th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Let me ask you this Oleg, even if it can be shown that life could arise naturally, what does that mean in light of the fact that nature itself appears to be ordered towards function on every level?
Comment by Daniel Smith — January 29, 2010 @ 8:21 pm
January 29th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Because he presumably has made no contribution to science? That's the sole measure of individual worth or reliability? What a crock.
Comment by Mung — January 29, 2010 @ 8:42 pm
January 30th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Bradford wrote:
There plenty of people whose views do not line up with mine. Some of them are worth listening to, others aren't. Berlinsk—a crank by his own admission—falls into the latter category.
As to Berlinski's being versed in mathematics and molecular biology, there is plenty of evidence of the former (books and teaching engagements) but none whatsoever of the latter. His biography page at Discovery Institute says that he was "a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University", but it's hard to believe this claim: his Ph.D. is said to be in philosophy and I can't imagine anyone in math and especially molecular biology hiring a philosophy hack for a postdoc. That's just a waste of money. The jacket of The Incorrigible Dr. Berlisnki says that he was a Faculty Fellow in math at Columbia. That fancy title translates as "graduate student" (been there, done that). In any event, Berlinski's publications include no research papers in either math or molecular biology, so I suspect that the postdoc claims are a little bit overblown.
In view of all that, I see no reason why Berlinski's opinions should be given any more weight than, say, those of Joe Gallien. We can consider them all, but there is only so much spare time.
Comment by olegt — January 30, 2010 @ 12:03 pm
January 30th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Olegt:
Or any of dozens of anti-telicians whose science knowledge is next to zero but who know how to repeat hackneyed internet cliches in forums like this. None of them are ever on the receiving end of crank or incompetent charges because they have faith that cells arose. In the end that is all that matters to most critics. The integrity of science mantra is baloney and its exposure was an unintended effect of the spate of recent scandals.
Comment by Bradford — January 30, 2010 @ 12:35 pm
January 30th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Bradford,
If I ever suggested that my opinion in biology counts, go ahead and point it out. On that I'm just one of the guys shooting the breeze.
But I think that you should chill down and rethink your characterization of my comments in you latest post. You have had to retract similarly wrong-headed characterizations in the past.
Comment by olegt — January 30, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
January 30th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Here's the thing: If cells did 'arise', it's because it's in the nature of their parts to do so. Atheists suppose that by showing a natural origin for life they would somehow disprove God, yet their arguments do nothing of the sort. And Christians act as if a demonstrably natural cause for life would somehow devastate the case for God. This is not true either. The fact that (what should be) indeterminate matter can be shown to be determined to live is just as much an argument for God as any ID argument (if not more so).
Comment by Daniel Smith — January 30, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
January 30th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
I've googled the names of prominent IDists or IDist sympathizers including Berlinski and read commentaries about them, mostly personal attacks of one form or another. I've also googled the names of scientists implicated in recent scandals. Compare the reaction of ID critics to the two groups. There is no question in my mind that fudging data and following questionable practices is a graver threat to society than a thousand wedge documents.
You're entitled to your view of Berlinski and it is not an uncommon one among ID critics although I think it tactically backfires on you for reasons specified by chunkdz. I find it hard to believe though that if Berlinski were cheerleading for mainstream views the crank word would surface.
Comment by Bradford — January 30, 2010 @ 1:23 pm
January 30th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Daniel Smith:
No argument but if the nature of building block biochemicals and natural laws indicate that a process culminating in a cell is implausible- what then?
Comment by Bradford — January 30, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
January 30th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Then we can infer A) that there was intervention or B) that a series of implausible events occurred.
Either way it can be shown that it's in the nature of life's building blocks, when arranged properly and ordered correctly, to form life. That is evidence of divine direction. So either way, God is required.
OOL is not the "be all – end all" that atheists think it is.
Comment by Daniel Smith — January 30, 2010 @ 9:45 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 1:31 am
It’s the old classic double standard.
Notice there is an elitism here. These self-appointed defenders of science think they are the only ones who can possibly understand science correctly. However, I think even that is phony. If the critics who regularly show up at Telic Thoughts were really part of some elite intellectual cadre, they wouldn’t being showing up here, they’d be hanging out with their important friends. Sad to say this, but I think most of our critics here are gullible “wanabes” who need a life. They need to find a belief, other than the belief that anyone interested in ID is secretly plotting to create a theocracy.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 31, 2010 @ 1:31 am
January 31st, 2010 at 10:58 am
John, please make up your mind. Am I an elite intellectual cadre or just a wannabe? Who are my important friends and when is the next meeting?
Back to my caffèlatte.
Comment by olegt — January 31, 2010 @ 10:58 am
January 31st, 2010 at 11:21 am
Bradford wrote:
Amazing discoveries await you, Bradford. Here is cosmologist Martin Rees comparing Fred Hoyle to a crank. Or here is Orac doing the same to Peter Duesberg.
Comment by olegt — January 31, 2010 @ 11:21 am
January 31st, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Olegt:
I'm not impressed by the label wars. It seems petty and small minded.
Comment by Bradford — January 31, 2010 @ 12:08 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Both. You have an elitist niche within the progressive movement and would want to be a more prominent part of it. The last part is my subjective analysis based on your commentaries at TT.
Comment by Bradford — January 31, 2010 @ 12:11 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 12:20 pm
And here is joedeathtoflasemetal comparing riley23 to a dumb f**k. So what's your point?
Comment by Daniel Smith — January 31, 2010 @ 12:20 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 12:34 pm
olegt,
I can’t imagine someone who was an elite scientist hanging out at a third rate site like Telic Thoughts. But then again, as you yourself concede, there are eccentrics like Hoyle, Margulis etc. so maybe it possible that someone like that would show up here. But I think his or her colleagues would consider that person to be a crackpot or a crank. Don’t you agree?
Well, olegt you have succeeded in taking this thread off topic. You have made the topic about Berlinski rather than what Berlinski was trying to talk about. I still don’t see what the point is. Do you want to do away with all public interest in the origin of life? It’s only something that the experts are qualified to discuss? It would be one thing if you rebutted what he has written, but your line of argumentation is nothing more than a fallacious personal attack.
Do you know the man personally? What did he do to you?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 31, 2010 @ 12:34 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 12:34 pm
True enough but it is even worse than it seems at first glance. Elitists are really focused on issues which extend beyond their area of expertise and use their technical knowledge as a springboard from which to promulgate their values. I feel a blog entry forming.
Comment by Bradford — January 31, 2010 @ 12:34 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Comment by Bradford — January 31, 2010 @ 12:38 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Well, guys, if you think that a mere fact of watching you makes one a crank, I shudder to ask how you would characterize yourselves? Reality TV of some sort?
Comment by olegt — January 31, 2010 @ 12:40 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 12:44 pm
I like Olegt. He has a sense of humor which contrasts with his more dour swamp mates. If I ever meet you Olegt, I'll buy you a drink. Being the plebian that I am I'll sip a beer while you may down something more appropriate for your standing- a Stoli perhaps?
Comment by Bradford — January 31, 2010 @ 12:44 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Bradford: I feel a blog entry forming.
Go for it!
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 31, 2010 @ 12:46 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Bradford: You're not calling Olegt a crank are you?
Was I insinuating that?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 31, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Speaking of crackpots:
http://theaggie.org/article/20...
Dr. Myers dimisses this criticism by calling this person a "faitheist."
Does anyone think olegt will publicly acknowledge that Myers is a crackpot?
Comment by MikeGene — January 31, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 2:16 pm
MikeGene,
You're right: I won't call PZ a crackpot. I see no good reason to equate militant atheism with crackpottery.
And in case you had any doubts, I don't approve of militant atheism.
Comment by olegt — January 31, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Olegt,
LOL. Only a fellow crackpot would refuse to acknowledge that Myers is a crackpot. Let’s consider the following crackpot claim:
Please provide the scientific evidence to back up his truth claim.
BTW, do you also disapprove of Myers publicly “joking” about committing acts of violence against his own students?
Comment by MikeGene — January 31, 2010 @ 2:50 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 2:57 pm
BTW, let's pull out the dictionary and actually define 'crackpot':
That's Myers.
So how do you distinguish between a militant atheist and a fanatical atheist?
Comment by MikeGene — January 31, 2010 @ 2:57 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Mike,
There's nothing crackpottish about PZ's claim. Evangelical Christians have attempted to suppress the teaching of evolution in American schools in the past.
And if you're into dictionaries, Merriam-Webster defines a crackpot as one given to eccentric or lunatic notions. That fits Berlinski, but it doesn't fit Myers.
Good luck next time.
Comment by olegt — January 31, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 3:06 pm
olegt:
I'd call him a wannabe mind-tyrant [authoritarian, but not sufficiently powerful enough to be more than bitter about his helplessness to impose his beliefs on others]. Whether that equates to "crackpot" is debatable. I've always thought of crackpots as eccentric, but likable in their own odd way. Myers isn't very likable.
Comment by Joy — January 31, 2010 @ 3:06 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 3:14 pm
olegt:
Somebody's always trying to impose their beliefs on everybody else. It's not just Evangelical Christians. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. To ensure that such wannabe mind-tyrants don't succeed. The fact that ECs haven't managed to suppress the teaching of evolution is good evidence that many people are being vigilant.
Obviously this depends upon one's point of view, n'est ce pas? Though one might wonder why you'd wish to lower yourself to the level of calling Berlinski's notions "lunatic." Given that his objections to the imaginative RNA world hypothesis aren't exactly out of line given the (lack of) evidence and all.
Comment by Joy — January 31, 2010 @ 3:14 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Olegt,
Thank you for helping demonstrate that whether or not someone is a crackpot boils down to nothing more than subjective perception. You see “nothing crackpottish about PZ's claim,” when it is clear to me that is crackpottish. There is no need for a “next time,” as later tonight (gotta run now) I'll easily show this.
In the meantime, do you think you can try answering my questions?
PS: Hi Joy!! Long time, no see. How have you been?
Comment by MikeGene — January 31, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Joy nails Olegt with this:
Comment by Bradford — January 31, 2010 @ 3:57 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Not so fast, Bradford! The Merriam-Webster definition says eccentric or lunatic. I wouldn't go as far as to say that Berlinski is a lunatic, but his views are certainly eccentric. That still satisfies the definition.
Comment by olegt — January 31, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Mike,
Of course crackpottery is subjective! However, when you are working on your easy rebuttal later tonight, keep in mind that it is subjective in a collective, rather than personal, sense.
Eccentricity is defined relative to the average and the average depends on the ensemble in which it is measured. Berlinski's view are clearly eccentric among scientists and even among the broader academic population. They aren't eccentric at the Discovery Institute.
Comment by olegt — January 31, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 4:23 pm
You are ommitting context, which in this thread is poorly supported RNA pathways to life, as Joy alluded to. Within that context Berlinski's views are not at all eccentric.
Comment by Bradford — January 31, 2010 @ 4:23 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Mike initiated this with a reference to PZ Myers. Most of the time Myers discusses religion and social issues. Science takes a back seat. The ensemble is religion and social issues. Myer's views are clearly eccentric when viewed against the backdrop of broader communities having input in these areas. Bingo. He qualifies as eccentric. Now among the elite… well it's a different kettle of fish.
Comment by Bradford — January 31, 2010 @ 4:27 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Bradford,
Eccentricity is a vector with multiple components. You don't need to be eccentric in every imaginable aspect to qualify as one.
Comment by olegt — January 31, 2010 @ 4:30 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Mike:
Hi, Mike! Hope things are well and good for you too. I've been busy busy, enjoying an entirely weird fall and winter. But you know what they say…
"Some are born to weirdness, some attain weirdness and others have weirdness thrust upon them."
- OPOL
§;o)
Comment by Joy — January 31, 2010 @ 5:01 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Hi Olegt,
Yes, we all remember high school and cliques. So yes, I understand how you value group-think and the need to “fit in.”
But let’s get to PZ’s crackpot notion. According to the blog author I linked to:
I then asked, “Please provide the scientific evidence to back up his truth claim.”
Your reply?
Er, I asked for scientific evidence. Since when does a flippant talking point count as scientific evidence?
What’s worse, is that your talking point is completely irrelevant. Pay attention and read PZ’s crackpot claim. He is accusing scientists, who accept evolution, yet are Christians, as “hindering science education.” He is not making any specific claim about evangelical Christians who have attempted to suppress the teaching of evolution in American schools in the past (“he turned his attack”). He is attacking people who are both scientists and Christians. After all, this is the crackpot position of many militant New Atheists, who not only attack scientists like Francis Collins and Ken Miller, but attack other atheists for not agreeing that scientists who are Christians are hindering science education (remember, according to these crackpots, science is supposed to make you an atheist).
Dictionary.com defines crackpot as “a person who is eccentric, unrealistic, or fanatical.” It clearly fits Myers and you know it. As for the M-W definition, of course, his notion that scientists who are Christians are hindering science education is a lunatic notion. And furthermore, don’t you think it a sign of lunacy to publicly joke about committing acts of violence against your own students?
The question that remains is why you so stubbornly defend the militant Myers and his crackpot claims.
Comment by MikeGene — January 31, 2010 @ 8:26 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Olegt:
All the more reason to acknowledge the correctness of Mike's depiction of Myers don't you think?
Comment by Bradford — January 31, 2010 @ 8:55 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Mike,
Since you're asking for "scientific evidence," I'll play the same game.
Let's start with this. The California Aggie article makes this claim:
I do not know Myers personally, but I have followed his "random ejaculations" to a degree and I am surprised to see this. He is a mild-mannered guy who does not advocate violence and even his disrespect is directed towards ideas, not people (see his interview with The New Scientist). I have searched the web to confirm the authenticity of this quote. The first two links were the article in question and this TT thread. Nothing of substance.
So that leaves me a bit suspicious about the claims in the article, but perhaps I am wrong and you can point me in the right direction.
On a larger point, you are entirely wrong to say that I "stubbornly defend" Myers and his claims. I said quite unequivocally that I do not approve of military atheism. Denying that Myers fits the definition of a crackpot does not amount to a defense of his views. Sorry about being nuanced.
Comment by olegt — January 31, 2010 @ 9:52 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Olegt, I really don't understand your points about Myers. You simultaneously label him a mild mannered guy and an advocate of militant atheism. Doesn't seem like a consistent juxtaposition.
Comment by Bradford — January 31, 2010 @ 10:12 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Notice Mike asks for scientific evidence and Olegt does the twos step!!!
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — January 31, 2010 @ 10:28 pm
January 31st, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Hi Olegt,
I asked for scientific evidence since Myers is running around promoting himself as a “pro-science” scientist while smearing other scientists because they happen to be religious. I guess it is asking too much to expect Myers to consistently behave as a scientist.
Sounded like vintage PZ to me. After all, the man’s claim to fame is a very public act of symbolic violence – iconoclasm.
Many of us are aware of his Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde issues. As Gordy Slack (just one example) once wrote, “I like to watch PZ turn red and stomp around like Rumpelstiltskin as much as most of you probably do. (Otherwise, what would we be doing here? We're not really learning very much here, are we?) So go ahead PZ, rant and rave about the idiocy of those who don't see the world as you do or don't write about it in a way that pleases you. It's fun to watch, even when you're ranting and raving at me. But I don't want the point of my piece to be smothered by your performance art.”
Did it ever occur to you that no one else felt motivated to report on a talk attended by 23 people? Madeline McCurry-Schmidt was probably the closest thing to a journalist who was present.
Anyway, are you implying that Madeline McCurry-Schmidt invented this quote and put it into Myers mouth when writing an article for “Your news source for the UC Davis campus and Davis community?” Myers linked to the article itself (while lashing out at her as a “faitheist”), yet offered no reason to think her report of his words was inaccurate. You would think if there was any substance to your suspicion, Myer might take offense at having those words put in his mouth. Anyway, if you are having doubts, you can always email her (although she is probably getting a good bit of hate mail for her article – why do you think Myers linked to it?).
It’s just another hilarious crackpot episode of the long-running PZ Myers Hate Show, olegt. Okay, so you don’t want to acknowledge the militant/fanatical atheist is a crackpot. I understand, as he does have the ability to make things a little rough for you with all his zealous acolytes. But if you or Myers ever come up with any scientific evidence to support the crackpot notion that scientists who are Christians are hindering science education, be sure to let me know, okay?
Better luck next time around, as I’m outta time.
Comment by MikeGene — January 31, 2010 @ 11:45 pm
February 1st, 2010 at 1:12 am
So, Mike, you don't like the taste of your own medicine? Too bad.
Yeah, I happen to think that she made it up, perhaps unintentionally. Student newspaper, not even minimal standards for fact checking. See, in a reddit.com interview PZ did prescribe "a good punch to the balls," but it wasn't directed to his creationist students. Watch the interview to learn who was the intended recipient. McCurry-Schmidt could have mixed it up and you took it on faith. Why? Because the picture of PZ MYers the Monster fits your prejudices.
From what little I know about PZ, he does not mistreat his students. In fact, he is well-liked as a teacher. To be sure, there are some things in his pedagogy with which I disagree. For instance, at one point he required that his class wrote entries on his blog. On the subject of the class, mind you, not on politics or religion. But still, students who do not share his political views might find his other blog entries objectionable. That would still not make him a crackpot.
Comment by olegt — February 1, 2010 @ 1:12 am
February 1st, 2010 at 8:25 am
olegt,
That's enough right there, I think. Myers is known as the Internet's "bad guy" of atheism. Coyne is trying to give him a run for his money, but he's not even in the same league, because Myers has a special theatrical gift for using shock techniques. The quote attributed to him is more violent than what we have heard from him before but otherwise it is perfectly in line with everything he stands for, and is only a slight extension beyond his already well-known shock methods.
I want to echo MikeGene's call for some actual science to back up your claim about Christians hindering science. The relevant science in this case would be sociology. I'm guessing you've had some statistics and research methods in your vast educational background, and that you've heard it's important not to bias your sample. Cherry-picking your data is both dishonest and unscientific.
So could you demonstrate your point with genuine research?
Tell you what, I'll even give you a break. The sociological research may be hard to find. Can you provide just some theoretical reason to suppose that Christians would oppose the progress of science? Please be sure, as you develop your theory, that it is not inadequate to explain Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Pasteur, von Braun, Collins, Miller, Maxwell, Faraday, Mendel, Bacon, and etc.
Comment by TomG — February 1, 2010 @ 8:25 am
February 1st, 2010 at 9:17 am
TomG wrote:
Tom,
I hope that, unlike Holopupenko, you did read beyond the first sentence of my comment. In case my hopes are false, let me state unequivocally that the sentence you quoted was slightly self-deprecating. I know quite a bit about PZ, so the supposed quotation by the student just didn't make sense. So I am afraid taht the burden is on Mike. If he wants to prove that PZ is a crackpot he'll have to do better than cite invented quotes.
My work has actually been done by one Phillip Johnson. He has an entire chapter in Intelligent Design 101 explaining the Christian case against Darwin's theory of evolution. Here is a key paragraph from p. 30:
Johnson proceeds to explain that young-earth creationism is not an effective weapon against evolutionary biology and then tells the reader about his Wedge strategy:
If that's not an attack on science I don't know what is.
There is no point in bringing up Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and others. I am not arguing that all Christians oppose science. The vast majority of Christian scientists don't, as Johnson himself points out:
Johnson's words leave no doubt that his goal is to fight theory of evolution. Q.E.D.
And note that Johnson is not just making a theoretical case, he surveys the practical aspects, listing the inroads made by creationists in Kansas and Ohio.
So there is no doubt that there are some conservative Christians who would like to hinder science, in particular the science of evolution. It's not even controversial.
Comment by olegt — February 1, 2010 @ 9:17 am
February 1st, 2010 at 9:41 am
So why should anyone listen to trollegt's opinions?
Do they carry any weight at all?
From what I can tell olegt is a clsssic case of a strawman erector.
He sure as hell cannot support his position but he can attack people as well as anyone.
As for PZ he flat out stated that his ilk should put on the brass knuckles and steel-toed boots and come after the people who are not like him.
Comment by ID guy — February 1, 2010 @ 9:41 am
February 1st, 2010 at 9:45 am
Anyone who thinks that living organisms are reducible to matter and energy is a crackpot.
PZ Meyers is a crackpot.
olegt is a crackpot- anyone who thinks that Common Descent prtedicts a nested hierarchy is a crackpot- olegt fits that bill.
And their arrogance- they both must be libertards- that would explain quite a bit…
Comment by ID guy — February 1, 2010 @ 9:45 am
February 1st, 2010 at 11:16 am
olegt,
You must be a lot better physicist than sociologist or social theorist. Remember what I said about cherry-picking your data? And even if you're going to do that, does disagreement with Darwinian evolution really function as a campaign against all science everywhere?
And can you show from Johnson's words that he is campaigning against science? Is philosophical materialism necessary to/synonymous with science? Can you distinguish two concepts in your mind? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way.
Comment by TomG — February 1, 2010 @ 11:16 am
February 1st, 2010 at 11:23 am
Don’t be shocked, but I think I agree with olegt. Myers is not a crackpot he is an anti-religious bigot. Boy, that really improves his image.
But that got me thinking about a couple of things: (1) Is anti-religious bigotry justified? And, (2) how did it get started?
Let’s start with #2, and go back and see what Darwin’s attitude was toward religion. I don’t think that anyone doubts that Darwin personally rejected Christianity. However, Darwin was never hostile towards religion, indeed his wife was a profoundly religious person and he continued to support Christian causes, and furthermore, he even had a number of Christian friends, including some who we would describe as evangelicals. Consider the following:
And historian of science, David Livingston, writes:
So how are bigots like Dawkins, Dennett and Myers justified in their attacks, not only on religious scientists, but even on atheists like Michael Shermer and Michael Ruse who treat, not only religious scientists, but even ID’ists in a civil manner?
Clearly Darwin treated religious scientists with nothing but respect; what happened historically to change all this?
The bottom line: Skepticism is something that can be justified in a civil society; but what practical value is there for hostile bigotry? I can’t see of any?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 1, 2010 @ 11:23 am
February 1st, 2010 at 11:36 am
olegt:
So, what it comes down to at the end is, the only way you're able to avoid being forced to admit that PZ Myers is a crackpot is by outright denying that he said the quote attributed to him, even though he himself didn't deny it when reacting to the article.
And in addition to that, you've had to ignore how his many other violent quotes (especially those directed at creationists) mesh cleanly with this one. You even dug up another quote in which he expressed a desire to hit someone "in the balls", and somehow interpret that as evidence that he wouldn't say something similar about someone else.
Also, you've repeatedly dissembled when challenged to address the crackpottery of his claim that Christian scientists who accept evolution are harming science education. You've neither defended the claim nor admitted that it's insane, but have repeatedly misconstrued it or changed the subject instead. Anyone watching this thread can see that you've been challenged to deal with that claim over and over, but have punted each time.
When hard reality that you find unpleasant stares you right in the face, you flatly deny it or ignore it and try to talk about something else. I sure hope that's not how you do physics too.
Comment by Deuce — February 1, 2010 @ 11:36 am
February 1st, 2010 at 11:41 am
Perhaps what you consider to be "science" is just plain ole nonsense.
Cranks usually have a warped perception of science so that is most likely your problem.
Comment by ID guy — February 1, 2010 @ 11:41 am
February 1st, 2010 at 11:43 am
Deuce,
Worry not about my physics. (It's none of your damn business.)
As to the gal's story, if she can't tell it straight there's nothing to discuss I'm afraid.
Best regards.
Comment by olegt — February 1, 2010 @ 11:43 am
February 1st, 2010 at 11:44 am
Yes, he's famous for both being mild-mannered in person, and for being a raging fanatic with violent fantasies on the net. It's a result of being a small man with big issues.
Also, in light of the reddit interview you linked to yourself, are you trying to tell us that what Myers really means is that he only wishes to punch ideas in the balls, and not people?
Comment by Deuce — February 1, 2010 @ 11:44 am
February 1st, 2010 at 11:55 am
TomG,
The excerpts I provided implicate Johnson pretty strongly. He wants to fight against materialism and in the process he choses to fight a wider war in which evolutionary biology is the enemy. This paragraph from Intelligent Design 101 says it all:
Evolutionary biology is not the main target, but is nonetheless a target.
Comment by olegt — February 1, 2010 @ 11:55 am
February 1st, 2010 at 11:58 am
And before someone else repeats that Myers wishes to punch people in the balls, he or she is well advised to listen to the interview first.
Comment by olegt — February 1, 2010 @ 11:58 am
February 1st, 2010 at 11:59 am
olegt:
I'm simply challenging you to deal with reality here as seriously as you would in physics. This isn't how you deal with truths you wish weren't there in physics, correct? And where's your basis for claiming that she's not telling it straight? If I were to take the standards of reasoning you're applying to the article (which I'm not), I could imagine any darned thing about your physics with equal justification.
In any event, I think it's telling that you respond to a post cataloging the reality of your non-responses to realities you don't want to face… with another non-response.
Comment by Deuce — February 1, 2010 @ 11:59 am
February 1st, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Oh, I see. He wasn't saying he'd like to punch people in the balls. He was just saying he'd like to punch people who say that evangelical atheism is as bad as evangelical Christianity in the balls (3:05). And then he sort of chuckled and said "no", so he didn't really say it.
And McCurry-Schmidt must have watched that same video, and then gotten confused and thought that he said it during the event she attended rather than in the video, and that he'd said it about creationist students, because her memory must be really bad.
Now that I think about it, that's way more plausible than the theory that he just said what was reported, and didn't deny it when reacting to the article because it was true.
Comment by Deuce — February 1, 2010 @ 12:09 pm
February 1st, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Fighting against materialism is not a fight against science.
Only a crackpot would conflate the two.
Comment by ID guy — February 1, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
February 1st, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Deuce,
I don't know where the gal got that. That interview was just one suggestion. But I know PZ Myers well enough to tell you that he does not advocate violence against creationists and that he treats his students well. If you have documented suggesting otherwise, please go ahead and present them.
Comment by olegt — February 1, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
February 1st, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Here is something on Myers that olegt cannot spin out of.
And from an earlier quote that Myers said that he was pleased to see:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn...
And in case the link doesn’t work here is where to find it:
Pharyngula: “Get meaner, angrier, louder, fiercer”
Posted on: March 1, 2007 11:45 PM
Yes, he sounds like a really nice guy. (At least I better say that, if I know what is good for me.)
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 1, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
February 1st, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Oh, it's a matter of context…
Why didn't you say so!
It seems your knowledge of PZ grows exponentially as your position is challenged. Hmm…
Comment by Daniel Smith — February 1, 2010 @ 8:39 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:33 am
PZ Myers is eccentric and thus fits the meaning of the term crackpot.
Comment by Bradford — February 2, 2010 @ 8:33 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:48 am
Someone is lying…
Comment by ID guy — February 2, 2010 @ 8:48 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:59 am
Bradford,
We can split hairs over dictionary definitions, but at the end of the day PZ Myers is not even a minor player in evolutionary biology, he is just a teacher at the University of Minnesota, Morris, a third-tier liberal arts college. With a presence on the web, to be sure. But take him away and what happens to evolutionary biology? Nothing.
Berlinski, on the other hand, has a substantial role in the ID movement. Even though he personally does not think much of ID, his anti-Darwin rhetoric is a big part of ID.
And it's important to note that it is not the eccentricity of people in the ID movement that should be most worrisome to you, it's the marginality of their ideas. Berlinski's criticisms are not even wrong: more often than not they reflect his poor understanding of biology, rather than drawbacks of evolutionary biology. And universally, the same is true of Meyer (who is not a biologist) and even Michael One Instead of Zero Behe (who is). Ponder that.
Comment by olegt — February 2, 2010 @ 8:59 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:14 am
Olegt:
I've repeatedly pointed out that biology is a minor part of PZ's blog. His eccentricity has to do with is non-biological views.
That's not my concern. My concern is the truth. My views about federal spending have been marginalized. Why? Because the opposing side has succeeeded in presenting only a partial truth which the mainstream media leaves unchallenged. Eventually the truth has a way of surfacing and we can thank Morris for that morsel of truth.
Even though PZ sports some crackpot views I take his biological assertions seriously and treat them with respect because I avoid broad brushing people through the labeling tactic. You can draw a lesson from this and consider Berlinski's RNA world points in isolation. There was nothing eccentric in his critique of RNA first proposals.
Comment by Bradford — February 2, 2010 @ 9:14 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:22 am
Wow olegt is STILL harping on one new protein binding site.
Is that all you have oleg?
I take it that olegt is upset because people actually listen to Berlinski and ignore him.
And what is this alleged poor understanding of biology?
And what does biology have to do with the pre-biotic environment?
In the end all olegt and his ilk have is empty rhetoric.
Attacking people as opposed to substantiating your claims is a sure sign of a crackpot.
As for PZ- let him stay in evolutionary biology and what happens to EB? Still nothing. PZ is as clueless as anyone when it comes to EB.
Comment by ID guy — February 2, 2010 @ 9:22 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:49 am
Bradford,
Of course you should take PZ's writings on biology seriously! He was chosen for Science Blogs because he is a good biology teacher, not because he is a militant atheist.
On Berlinski, though, I have no idea why you think he should be taken seriously. My knowledge of biology and biochemistry is insufficient to judge his arguments on their merits. However, I do know a little bit of physics to see that Berlinski's critiques of cosmology are nonsense. he hasn't done any science since graduate school—and that was along time ago—and I doubt he did any in graduate school. His physics writings are total bunk. Why would I assume he is doing any better on the biological front?
Perhaps I'm wrong and Berlinski is a brilliant writer when it comes to biology and the origin of life. I'm sure then some qualified biologist could confirm that. So let's do what I suggested 2 days ago.
Is there a biologist in the house?
Comment by olegt — February 2, 2010 @ 9:49 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:51 am
ID guy wrote:
Bradford, tell me, is there any reason why Joe G is running around unsupervised in these parts? Does he bring anything of value to this blog?
Comment by olegt — February 2, 2010 @ 9:51 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:52 am
He should be taken seriously with respect to the referenced article as it makes some cogent points.
Comment by Bradford — February 2, 2010 @ 9:52 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:54 am
Bradford wrote:
Sez who?
Comment by olegt — February 2, 2010 @ 9:54 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:55 am
Olegt, I have a distaste for put downs but you opened the door to it with your attacks on Berlinski.
Comment by Bradford — February 2, 2010 @ 9:55 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:01 am
Me. It's an open forum where those who see it differently can point out the errors of my (and Berlinski's) way. It is not achieved by name calling.
Comment by Bradford — February 2, 2010 @ 10:01 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:06 am
Well, I suppose that settles it.
On an off chance you're interested in what biologists think about Berlinski, google around a bit.
Comment by olegt — February 2, 2010 @ 10:06 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:14 am
Olegt:
The OP discusses RNA world scenarios. Berlinski is the intro tool. Nice try at making Berlinski the red herring though.
Comment by Bradford — February 2, 2010 @ 10:14 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:35 am
As with anyone all you have to do is follow up on what he is saying to find out for yourself if it has any merit and should or shouldn't be taken seriously.
So you attack the person.
Do you have anything of value to to say- ever?
By quote-mining?
Have you discussed any of your issues with Berlinski with the man himself?
Or are you just taking the ball and running in whatever direction you want?
And why should we talk to a biologist about the origin of life scenarios?
As for what biologists think of Berlinski- on the off chance they ever happen upon the evidence to support their claims and refute what Berlinski and others are saying, I am sure he will man-up about what he had claimed earlier.
However in the absence of that what they think is irrelevant.
Comment by ID guy — February 2, 2010 @ 10:35 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:38 am
Sorry, Bradford, but the focus of the OP is Berlinski's take on the RNA world, specifically his response to Fletcher. If you're not interested in what biologists and biochemists think of that, you're free to ignore their opinions.
Comment by olegt — February 2, 2010 @ 10:38 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:40 am
olegt's value-add-
Attack the messenger ignore the message
conflate ID with Creation-
conflate materialism with science
innuendo
assertion
whining
Comment by ID guy — February 2, 2010 @ 10:40 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:44 am
Opinions? Opinions are meaningless if unsupported.
Instead of voicing their opinions perhaps they should focus on the data required to shut him up and take ID down once-and-for all.
The fact they need to voice their opinions is a sign that Berlinski has hit that nail right on the head.
Comment by ID guy — February 2, 2010 @ 10:44 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:42 am
Olegt:
Let me clue you in Olegt. Enthusiasm for the RNA world is not overwhelming among biologists. But as I have said before this is an open forum.
Comment by Bradford — February 2, 2010 @ 11:42 am
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Olegt-bot reponse:
*BEEP BLEEP BLORT* Myers is not a *ZNNNNNK* crackpot because I agree with him *MOMP MOMP*.
*WOOP WOOP* Berlinski is a crackpot because I disagree with him *TINK TINK TINK MWORP*
Christians are *whirrrr WEEB WEEB* degrading science, as evidenced by COMPUTATION ERROR… NULL VALUE… SET TO DEFAULT ENEMY STRING. DEFAULT "DISCOVERY INSTITUTE" RETRIEVED. ACCESS DOCUMENT "WEDGE".
*GAZUNK GIRRRRR FWINK* I am completely operational and all my circuits are functioning *ZING ZING* perfectly.
So as you *WONK* see by my evidence, Christian radicals are degrading REASSESS TERM… IMPACT INSUFFICIENT MUST EXPAND AND ENHANCE… NEW TERM ACCESSED AND ONLINE… ruining science.
PURGE DATABASE LINKS "MOON MISSIONS" "NASA ENGINEERS" "CHRISTIAN PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS"… OPERATION COMPLETE.
PURGE DATABASE LINKS "ATHEISM" "LYSENKOISM"… OPERATION COMPLETE.
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 2, 2010 @ 1:30 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Perhaps someone with access to peer-reviewed literature could find the paper mentioned in this Berlinski quote (bolded by moi):
Excerpted from here.
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 2, 2010 @ 2:22 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Lol! Olegt steps on rake, smashes nose, steps backwards onto shovel, whacks head, stumbles forward into ditch, crawls out puts hand in mousetrap, falls backwards into wedding cake, large drooling St. Bernard licks icing off his face, and…cut! Print it!
Tune in to next weeks thread when Uberphysicist Olegt continues to ignore crackpot David Berlinski by posting dozens of comments about him.
Followed by a bonus episode of "I Love PZ"!
Comment by chunkdz — February 2, 2010 @ 3:48 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:00 pm
I must say, this thread has not been very informative, but it has been entertaining. I suggest that we keep olegt around for a while. He is the gift that keeps on giving. (If you know what I mean)
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 2, 2010 @ 4:00 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 4:10 pm
JAD wrote:
I'd say this is true about TT in general.
Comment by olegt — February 2, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:22 pm
…said the crackpot.
Comment by ID guy — February 2, 2010 @ 7:22 pm