« The Secret To Stress Free Blogging | Main | Miss MENSA »

Creationism/Evolution Debate Boring, Now Over

For the last week Paul and a variety of sites have been arguing over semantics. I'd try and characterize the whole debate, but it's too mind numbingly dull to even summarize. All of the gory details can be found in the archives, but if you've managed to avoid it to this point consider yourself lucky.

Many of the other bloggers felt the need to contact me to inform me of some egregious behavior Paul engaged in (namely deleting comments in a thread where comment rules for that post were established in the post), that I was supposed rectify. I'm not your mother, you all tend to your own mess...

But here's an important note to all parties involved... It's boring, now it's over, move on.

If you wish to continue your pissing match might I suggest you all form a group blog on Blogger and beat the shit out of each other well out of public view?

Note: That's actually not a suggestion, it's an edict. Hiatuses can become permanent and sites can be banned. It's really easy...

Update: Since both The Commissar and Ironbear have proved they can't adequately comprehend that which is not spelled out in explicit terms, this update is just for them.

Let's say, for argument sake, Paul wrote 10 separate post on the oozer/thumper topic. There will not be an 11th post at Wizbang by Paul, not because he's right or wrong, but because my readers have begged me to make the broken record stop playing. Perhaps if their was something that had yet to be said it would be a different story, but there's plenty of spots (10) to continue that argument here in the archives. Providing an 11th spot to argue the same issue is pointless.

Paraphrasing Carly Simon, "you're so vein, I bet you think this post is about you..." Not to worry, it's not about you, it's about Paul...

[Important Note: This post was part of the Wizbang April Fools]


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Creationism/Evolution Debate Boring, Now Over:

» JackLewis.net linked with Blogger roundup

» The Politburo Diktat linked with Party Discipline

» ISOU linked with The Revolution Continues...

» Who Tends the Fires linked with *snork* Wakes up briefly...

» The Politburo Diktat linked with Rebellion at Woozebang?

» WILLisms.com linked with You're Fired: The Making of a Blog Scandal.

Comments (47)

Translate this: Paul's los... (Below threshold)

Translate this: Paul's losing the debate, so he's running for the hills.

Good job Pharyngula.

Translate this: Paul's l... (Below threshold)

Translate this: Paul's losing the debate, so he's running for the hills.

Eva, you're not big on reading comprehension, I take it?

Thank you, Kevin. ... (Below threshold)

Thank you, Kevin.

Eva you obviously can't (or... (Below threshold)

Eva you obviously can't (or won't) read the actual written words in my post. No one other than the participants gives a flying fuck about arguments made by any of the participants.

The debate is idiotic - everyone involved already lost merely by participating...

Right wingers calling each ... (Below threshold)
Ira:

Right wingers calling each other names, like leftists calling each other 'cosmopolitans' and 'running dogs.' (Or born again Christians calling each other 'reprobates.') For Shame!
Oh, Howard Stern just announced that Terry Schiavo died...

Kevin, how could you call i... (Below threshold)
julie:

Kevin, how could you call it boring when it caused such a stir among so many people? You may have found it boring. And I admit I didn't follow it much except to laugh each time they reacted as if on cue.
But, look at it this way -- there were less people slugging it out in the Schiavo threads.

"Eva you obviously can't (o... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

"Eva you obviously can't (or won't) read the actual written words in my post."

I don't think its about the words in your post Kevin, I think its the simple fact that you wrote it and not Paul. I agree with you, it's not your mess. So where is Paul? Why no comments? Why no response to posts such as this, http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001640.php

Kevin says: [Luke, ] I'm... (Below threshold)
Krusty Krab:

Kevin says: [Luke, ] I'm not your mother.

Arghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

The betrayal!

Posted by: Mac Lorry... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Posted by: Mac Lorry

But here's an important note to all parties involved... It's boring, now it's over, move on.

For some people sports are boring, for others it might be politics, and for Kevin, it's the Creation/Evolution debate. Yes, it digressed into arguments about semantics, interpretation and personal attacks. I would say that it became boorish, but it wasn't any more boring than most of the other subjects on this blog.

To those I may have offended, I apologize. I would like to have a civil and thoughtful discussion on the subject, but I don't believe that can be accomplished in a public forum where participants are anonymous.

Julie raises a good point. ... (Below threshold)

Julie raises a good point.

Actually, a number of people are getting quite concerned that religious beliefs are being taught as Science. Genesis is not empirical evidence. When something is a puzzle, and currently not explanable, "God did it", or "it was designed by an Intelligent Designer" is NOT something that is empirically testible.

Skybird writes:

Evolutionists are crack-pots i tell you their crazy ideas are based on a unproven theory based on junk science and fruadulant finding and fake evedence their a little lose from the caboose

EY: Give some specifics, please.

Just for readers' informati... (Below threshold)

Just for readers' information, it took me the third reading of Kevin's post to catch the phrase "hiatuses can become permanent." Presumably that refers to Paul.

Maybe others missed that, too.

I'll reply to the post in my own blog.

Julie raises a good poin... (Below threshold)
julie:

Julie raises a good point.

Well, here's another good point: It had less to do with science and more with seeing how high you people would jump on command. Bravo Paul!

Just for readers' inform... (Below threshold)
julie:

Just for readers' information, it took me the third reading of Kevin's post to catch the phrase "hiatuses can become permanent." Presumably that refers to Paul.

Or, merely wishful thinking on your part. Tell me, are you one of the crybabies than went running to Kevin? Kevin! Kevin! Paul's picking on me! Make him ssstttoooppp!

"wishful thinking?" <... (Below threshold)

"wishful thinking?"

Nope. Paul's posts were very educational, in their own way. I have invited him to guest-blog at The Politburo Diktat. You can read my post.

Yes, I emailed Kevin to complain.

Hiatuses can become perm... (Below threshold)
mesablue:

Hiatuses can become permanent

I hope not.

A permanent hiatus? No mor... (Below threshold)
Roadtripper:

A permanent hiatus? No more of Paul's posts on evolution? Maybe there is a God....

julie wrote:Kev... (Below threshold)
areaman:

julie wrote:

Kevin, how could you call it boring when it caused such a stir among so many people? You may have found it boring.

She has a point there Kevin.

I do understand that getting alot of complaining emails would get old...but then again if that many people are getting pissed off the subject couldnt be called boring...

I think it gets boring beca... (Below threshold)

I think it gets boring because while it may start out 90% serious commenters and 10% illiterate idiots, it ends up with the percentages reversed, and most of the serious commenters are just repeating themselves slowly to the illiterate idiots who are still repeating the same ridiculous arguments over and over. (Hmm, arguments may be too strong a word.)

Anyway, it's not that the subject in and of itself is uninteresting. But how many times can Paul point out that some people just can't read?

But how many times can P... (Below threshold)
julie:

But how many times can Paul point out that some people just can't read?

Well, Raina, at least one more time to Commissar
would be helpful.

Yes, I emailed Kevin to complain.

No, weenie, you emailed Kevin to WHINE. Daddy, daddy, make him stopppppppp!

raina:Anyway, i... (Below threshold)
areaman:

raina:

Anyway, it's not that the subject in and of itself is uninteresting. But how many times can Paul point out that some people just can't read?

Point taken.

We did,nt live in trees ... (Below threshold)
areaman:

We did,nt live in trees we did,nt hang by our tails we did,t come from any monkey you atheistic pinko meat head

The paragon of rationality speaks again.

And I admit I didn't fo... (Below threshold)
Michael:

And I admit I didn't follow it much except to laugh each time they reacted as if on cue.

Which is why Paul kept putting these posts in the HUMOR CATEGORY. Sheesh, how can anybody think this was intended to be some kind of serious debate. The whole fracas was hilarious. Unless, of course, you one of the commenters who didn't know it was supposed to be funny, in which case you were no doubt supplying much of the comedy.

Can't really blame Kevin for missing the joke. You sort of had to be there for the opening round (the self-healing DNA post), when Paul predicted what was going to happen, and then continued the amusement for several more days.

So paul using all the dubio... (Below threshold)

So paul using all the dubious reasoning, and claiming things that wasn't even remotely factual was a joke

_Oh that explains everything_

Seriously dude.... THis is lame activity from a A class blog

skybird,i think yo... (Below threshold)

skybird,

i think you mean to say "you atheistic commie pinko meat head polack."

you're welcome at TPD any time.

So paul using all the du... (Below threshold)
Michael:

So paul using all the dubious reasoning, and claiming things that wasn't even remotely factual was a joke

Of course it was a joke. Paul kept advertising the fact by categorizing his posts as humor. I repeatedly pointed this out (until Paul shushed me in a side email).

Paul didn't use dubious reasoning -- the closest he got was a graph plainly labeled as an exercise in sarcasm. And he didn't make claims that were not factual (other than some responsive name-calling). In fact, in countless comments he claimed ignorance about almost everything. And NOTHING THAT PAUL WROTE WAS THE JOKE. The joke was that he kept getting the reaction he predicted in the first place -- which is that many just couldn't stand his attitude towards science unless they could write him off as a bible-thumper. Which he is not.

My own minor elaboration on the joke was to openly and repeatedly admit that I'M A THUMPER (which happens to be true) and at the same time position myself as Paul's staunchest ally and defender. I got none of the mockery, ridicule and condescension that was directed at Paul (except from Paul, who called me a nincompoop).

Wanna guess why?

you're welcome at... (Below threshold)
Michael:


you're welcome at TPD any time.

Commissar:

Please, take pity on skybird. On your site, it would be like pulling the wings off a fly.

Michael - Yeah, joke, ha ha... (Below threshold)

Michael - Yeah, joke, ha ha.

And he didn't make claims that were not factual

I haven't read the entire sordid mess, but perhaps you could point out an instance of Paul being factually correct?

In fact, in countless comments he claimed ignorance about almost everything.

Oh, okay, never mind then.

Paul made nonsensical claims on a scientific subject. He was corrected. There was no humour involved anywhere.

You say it was meant to be a joke. Seems to me, joke's on Paul.

Michael: Paul didn't use... (Below threshold)
Krusty Krab:

Michael: Paul didn't use dubious reasoning

If he thought people would find his taunts funny, actually he did use dubious reasoning.

However, Paul did prove that evolution doesn't exist, because, as far as I can tell, nobodies ideas evolved at all.

Krusty Krab:Still ... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Krusty Krab:

Still not getting it. It's not his taunts that were funny. Or anything else he wrote. It's the reaction to his posts that were funny. Especially because he openly predicted them.

And, there was a little bit of evolution in the dialogue between Paul and, for example, Areaman and AnonymousDrivel.

On the other hand, the dialogue between Paul and, for example, Commissar, Andy, and s9 was rapidly devolving back to the primordial ooze. These exchanges were pure comedy.

Geez, I feel like I could write a dissertation on these threads. Got to get a life.

Michael: Actually Paul did... (Below threshold)
Carrick Talmadge:

Michael: Actually Paul did get one thing factually wrong. Remember his definition of oozer:

The "oozers" want us to believe (as a matter of religious doctrine) that lightning hit inorganic primordial ooze and it became life.

As I pointed out over at the Commisar's blog, Paul is misattributing the theory.

The actual theory (approximately) is the amino acids which allowed the later creation of life (by whatever means) were formed "from methane and other primordial gasses by electrical discharges in the primordial atmosphere".

Thus, Paul got "theory of abiogenesis" conflated with "theory of formation of amino acids", "inorganic"" with "organic" and "ooze" with "gases". Come to think of it, this is pretty damned funny!

"Paul made nonsensical c... (Below threshold)
Michael:

"Paul made nonsensical claims on a scientific subject. He was corrected. There was no humour involved anywhere."

Pixy Misa:

Try to find one serious assertion by Paul on a scientific subject. Then look at all the comments correcting him on what he didn't say. Then look at the comments which assert that he must be a bible-thumper, even though he flatly denies it (more material at the Commissar's website).

Then reread your comment.

Then maybe you'll get the joke. But I doubt it, because you are one of the punchlines.

Carrick:A funny Oo... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Carrick:

A funny Oozer! You are my hero!

Carrick:Your goodw... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Carrick:

Your goodwill and humor earns you a more thoughtful response.

Paul may be wrong about Ooze Theory (how the heck would a Thumper like me know?), but the fundamental logic train doesn't change. Here's my understanding of the argument:

1. Evolution offers an explanation for the diversity of life, but not the origin of life.

2. Something caused the origin of life.

3. If it was a random event (spark hits primordial gasses, lightning hits primordial ooze, who cares), science has yet to propose a plausible explanation, i.e., an explanation that overcomes the sheer improbability of such an event.

4. If it was divine intervention, then the hostility of environmentalists towards the role of God in the entire process collapses, and the possibility of intelligent design must be admitted. If God was goofing around with the Earth, even Young Earth Creationism becomes a theoretical possibility.

5. So, (Paul's one and only point) there is an awful lot we don't know and both Oozers and Thumpers should stop being so dogmatic on the subject.

6. And (fairness compels me to add this) Paul seems to think the Oozers are more dogmatic than Thumpers (such as myself; see my rant about the prophesies of Isaiah), but skybird testifies to the contrary.

michael:So, (Pa... (Below threshold)
areaman:

michael:

So, (Paul's one and only point) there is an awful lot we don't know and both Oozers and Thumpers should stop being so dogmatic on the subject.

It's a point well worth repeating, IMO.

If God was goofing around with the Earth, even Young Earth Creationism becomes a theoretical possibility.

Christian creationists tell me that I am wrong when I mention that I worked on a Native American archaeological site that dates back to 7,500 years ago. They tell me that God created the earth in 7 days, and that it is no older than about 6,000 years, which is fine with me. Thats their story, and its fine with me. It may sound weird but there is enough room for multiple interpretations in my book. Some Native American creationists tell archaeologists to go to hell when they start saying that all of them came from Asia via the Bering Straight.

Is anyone really right? Does it matter? Not to me.

Michael I appreciate your humor regarding your religion, calling yourself a thumper etc. I like it when people dont take themselves too seriously.

Sometimes I take myself too seriously, but then I remember that I dont know shit, relatively.

Why fight about who's got the right answer? We should all just go get beer IMO. But, I have another class right now. Crap.

But in all of this discussi... (Below threshold)
JD:

But in all of this discussion, and hiatusing, and threatened banning, and namecalling, one question begs to be asked:

WHO GIVES A SHIT?!?

We've got the Southwest being turned into Aztlan with the tacit approval of the POTUS, we have judges who are so dain-bramaged that they cannot figure out what the phrase de novo means, and we're still talking about whether or not Bill Frist is going to push the button! And yet five or six people keep arguing about whether Paul is a Bible-Beater or a scientific illiterate or whether the sky is blue because of intelligent design or because Pablo Picasso wanted it that way.

WE. DONT. CARE.

And besides that, it's Kevin's site. He's paying to push the pixels. And so if a topic is taking up too much bandwith going around the same damned tree, then it's his right to gather everybody up and tell them to sit down and STFU, otherwise take it elsewhere.

Areaman:6,000 year... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Areaman:

6,000 years? Your Thumper friends are being generous. My understanding is that the biblical genealogies only allow for about 5,OOO years.

But who cares?

"Is anyone really right? Does it matter? Not to me."

Not to me either. The origins of life are interesting, and endlessly debatable. But what matters to me is where I am going in the future, and where I will end up.

Hope you enjoyed your class.

Michael jokes: On... (Below threshold)
s9:

Michael jokes: On the other hand, the dialogue between Paul and, for example, Commissar, Andy, and s9 was rapidly devolving back to the primordial ooze. These exchanges were pure comedy.

For the record, there was no dialogue between Paul and me. I would post a question for him, and he would respond by replacing the content of my post with a snarky reply (or simply deleting it outright). This was the case in every thread on the topic in which I participated— not just the weekend thread where he laid down his insane "rules" for discussion.

As for whether he ever made any claims that were not factual— he made several false claims that his critics were making arguments other than what they were making. I called him on this, but he deleted those posts.

Even his claim that his critics are "zealots" is obvious bullshit. One wonders if Paul even knows where the word "zealot" comes from, and why the word does not mean the same thing as enthusiast or fanatic. His critics are certainly enthusiasts in the defense of evolutionary biology, but he never even tried to make a case that their devotion was irrational, they were willing to go to extreme lengths, or that they were militant in their activism.

In other words, he just wanted to mock and smear for no purpose other than for the yucks it would bring to others of his ilk who have nothing but contempt for science and the people who do it. This is supposed to be humor on his planet. That's just sad, and I'm glad Kevin decided to put his foot down.

s9:Even his cla... (Below threshold)
Michael:

s9:

Even his claim that his critics are "zealots" is obvious bullshit. One wonders if Paul even knows where the word "zealot" comes from, and why the word does not mean the same thing as enthusiast or fanatic.

It's actually a biblical term. A Zealot was a member of a Jewish movement of the first century A.D. that fought against Roman rule in Palestine as incompatible with strict monotheism.

s9To elaborate:</p... (Below threshold)
Michael:

s9

To elaborate:

Peter (originally called Simon) was a Zealot when he met Jesus. He is repeatedly mentioned in the same phrase as Judas Iscariot, which leads to speculation that Judas was also a Zealot, and betrayed Jesus out of disappointment that he was not attempting to establish an earthly kingdom and overthrow Roman rule.

Told you I was a Thumper.

s9:"In other wo... (Below threshold)
Michael:

s9:

"In other words, he just wanted to mock and smear for no purpose other than for the yucks it would bring to others of his ilk who have nothing but contempt for science and the people who do it."

Still don't get it. You are right that Paul was mocking for the benefit of "others of his ilk." You are flat-out wrong in asserting that we have "contempt for science and the people who do it." Read what Paul said. Read what I said. (Paul, by the way, has more regard for science than I do.)

You were mocked for your dogmatic insistence on dismissing Paul as a Thumper. He's not a Thumper, and I can smell a fellow Thumper a mile away. How many times do I have to say this?

Michael says: You... (Below threshold)
s9:

Michael says: You were mocked for your dogmatic insistence on dismissing Paul as a Thumper.

Which is news to me, of course— because I don't remember ever dismissing Paul, let alone dismissing for being a "Thumper" (whatever that really is).

I was the guy who was pissed off because Paul was the one dismissing me, for reasons he gave that made no sense (that I was making arguments I wasn't making).

The only thing I was dogmatic about was that Paul should clarify what he means and take a position in the debate if he wants to argue that his meaning is clear and that he has taken a position in the debate. His reponse to this was to delete my posts and put words in their place to make it look like I was making some other argument.

I never called him a Thumper. I still don't know what Paul believes or why he believes it. He won't say much about it beyond: 1) he's tired of posting it (when he hasn't posted a position in months); and 2) if I can't figure out what he believes from the contradictory and muddled things he has posted in the last several months, then it's because I can't read— not because he keeps contradicting himself and writing himself in circles.

I finally caught him calling himself a scientist and admitting that there are no scientific theories that explain the origin of life better than the modern synthesis theory of evolution, which as far as I'm concerned answers the questions he spent the last week avoiding.

I could not care less what religious traditions Paul holds sacred. And I have seen no reason to criticize him for his religious beliefs. I think his attitude about science remains quite open to criticism, though— once again, it would help matters greatly if he were to provide some clarification about what exactly he thinks scientists can and do know.

Michael: My only point is ... (Below threshold)
Carrick Talmadge:

Michael: My only point is that if you are going to criticize a theory, shouldn't you have a clue as to what the theory says?

What would you think if I were trying to lecture you on Isaiah's prophecies?

I don't disagree with your other comments. Other than, dogmatism is in the eye of the beholder sometimes...

s9"I never call... (Below threshold)
Michael:

s9

"I never called him a Thumper. I still don't know what Paul believes or why he believes it. ""

Paul does not know what he believes either, and said so. Except, he believes that the current state of human knowledge leaves a lot of room for uncertainty. And he said so.

"His reponse to this was to delete my posts and put words in their place to make it look like I was making some other argument."

Beats me if he violated the Rules of Blogging. Personally, I don't understand the rules. If he broke them, shame on him.

"I think his attitude about science remains quite open to criticism, though— once again, it would help matters greatly if he were to provide some clarification about what exactly he thinks scientists can and do know."

Paul doesn't know exactly what scientists can and do know, and he said so. You are right, his attitude is open to criticism. But not because he is a closet Thumper (the running joke), as the Commissar insists.

Carrick:My only... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Carrick:

My only point is that if you are going to criticize a theory, shouldn't you have a clue as to what the theory says?

Yes.

What would you think if I were trying to lecture you on Isaiah's prophecies?

I would think you are in deep trouble, because I can kick ass on the subject of Isaiah.

But, you could legitimately assert that my interpretation of Isaiah was bullshit even if you did not have an alternative explanation. Much like Paul professes disbelief about current theories regarding the diversity of life, or the origin of life, while offering no alternative.

I'm checking out. I'm resigning as Paul's self-appointed defender. He can fend for himself when the "hiatus" is over. Mrs. Thumper is finally home from work and wants to talk about the details of our upcoming trip to Belize. Tropical breezes. Beaches. Snorkeling coral reefs. Howler monkeys in the jungle. Mayan ruins. Should be great.

Good night.

But, you could legitimat... (Below threshold)
Carrick Talmadge:

But, you could legitimately assert that my interpretation of Isaiah was bullshit even if you did not have an alternative explanation.

S'pose. But Paul advanced a theory. In my Isaiah analogy, it would go something like "Isaiah, after completing his Arc and rescuing the Jewish people from the Pharaoh Caesar, having saved the whales and won valuable prizes, traded in the full set of Hebrew tribes in for a pair of walk-on-water boots".

(Ok, it wasn't quite that bad!)

Kevin,If it's abou... (Below threshold)

Kevin,

If it's about Paul, why the threats to other bloggers and sites?

"Paraphrasing Carly Simo... (Below threshold)

"Paraphrasing Carly Simon, 'you're so vein, I bet you think this post is about you...' Not to worry, it's not about you, it's about Paul..."

*snicker* Whatever you say, Kev. And it's "vain".

Laters.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy