pseudobug

Jesse, Nic and others,

I'm just getting into the specifics and personalities of creationist hogwash and this Wells character is a new name on my list.

Since I'm a curious sort, I decided to crank his name into Google and see what came up.

The first link I went to yielded this quote from--I suppose--Wells himself:
The link containing the above is <a href="http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/DARWIN.htm" target="_blank">here.</a>

I would love to know when some of these yo-yo's wander into western NY state--I have some questions I would like to ask...

Where does one find seminar schedules for these creationist hosers?

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]</p>

rafe gutman

wells is aware of the existence of that site, since it was referred to in a handout passed out to all the attendees. he mentioned during the Q&A session that he had a copy of it.

you can check out wells' response to the NCSE response to his "10 questions to ask your biology teacher" <a href="http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&i d=1106" target="_blank">here</a>.

Automaton

Yeah, I've never been too fond of the NCSE. Their critiques are far too lightweight for my liking, and thus leave themselves well open for such a "treatment" by IDers. If only they had thoroughly scientifically addressed the points, Wells wouldn't have made such a decent-sounding rebuttal.

pseudobug

Automaton,

While Wells' responses may read well--that is beside the point.

The real point is WHERE'S THE BEEF/EVIDENCE FOR ANY CREATIONIST ACCOUNT?

Well's game is not difficult to see through and is highly coordinated as laid out by the Discovery institute.

1. Have credentialed people to present "challanges" to evolution.

2. Attack areas of contention in evolutionary science or currently intractable problems of evolution theories and related science...

3. Cloak no. 2 above in scientific language presented by "credentialed experts"...

4. Purpose an "alternative hypotheses" consonant with the tenets of xianity (evidence for the hypothesis need not be submitted, BTW ).

5. Win the "hearts and minds" of the fencesitters and scientifically illiterate..

6. Failure to prove creationism "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" results in acquital of creationism...

7. Fencesitters tumble into the arms of Jesus.

The eyes of most unsophisticated people will have glazed over in steps 2-4 due to the complexity (or, perhaps lunancy) of creationist obfuscation. It won't matter to them that creationist present no supportive data.

The goal is victory by raising doubt in the current understanding of evolutionary science--not the pursuit of truth.

It's like Martin Luther said:
[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]</p>

Nic Tamzek

I just checked, it looks fixed. Hopefully this weekend I'll get a bit o' time to reformat it for the web, link up the links, and add back in some more Wells issues (this was, unfortunately, just an appetizer -- no author I've ever seen can screw up so many topics so fast, he's like Phil Johnson on speed or something).

Hey, since we're talking about Dobzhansky, I should point out that the entirety of his flame-breathing materialism (/sarcasm) is on display here:

<a href="http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml</a>

I think far too many IDists have read the title, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" and not the actual essay. Therefore on general principle it ought to be referenced as much as possible.

Nick

rafe gutman

in fairness to the NCSE, the original wells' "10 questions..." thing was actually distributed as a bookmark. their response was originally intended as a bookmark. i don't think nic's article would fit too well on a bookmark, it looked dense enough on 2 double-sided pages.

i saw "sex and the city" last night on hbo. the main character is a freelance journalist. vogue was willing to pay her $4.50/word. maybe you could make a similar deal with NCSE nic. even at $0.45/word you'd make out pretty well.

John Solum

Nic,

I loved your article, great work.

1) What would you think about adding either a brief description of molecular phylogeneis or lateral gene transfer or a link to a web site with more information in the discussion of "molecular phylogeny" and "the root of the tree of life"

2) In your discussion of chapter 4 in the section on "complexities of homology" in your quote of Raff should "gymastics" should read "gymnastics"

Thanks for taking the time to put all that together.

ps418

Great work Nic. Thanks for putting this together.

Patrick

Nic Tamzek

Well, I was inspired (or more accurately, provoked, but it amounts to the same thing).

I've got a fair bit more, especially on peppered moths (which deserve a very long article in themselves) -- and plus some more general analysis, although much of that is even more sarcastic (one gets carried away a bit at 3 in morning).

It's important to realize what Wells' tactic is: he tries to snow under the reader by switching topics every few pages, and slipping in defamatory remarks among his extensive but very selective quoting, resulting in a book that takes an awful lot of background to critique thoroughly. Reminds me of the tactics of terrorist groups, actually: asymmetry. When no one is looking, launch attacks on obscure areas that only experts (and committed grad students with full-text journal access to the experts) will understand. When the experts show up to refute you, move on to something else. Repeat process.

So alot of what I do is just point out all the things that Wells blatantly left out.

BTW, if anyone has a particular Wells claim that they have some expertise on, I would be perfectly willing to make this a multi-author project and just start adding in additional comments on various topics. Particularly good links (e.g. that chordate homology link is one Jesse posted over at ARN long ago, <a href="http://gwis2.circ.gwu.edu/~atkins/newwebpages/contents.html" target="_blank">http://gwis2.circ.gwu.edu/~atkins/newwebpages/contents.html</a> ) are also very welcome.

(I don't know of a good webpage discussing the current controversies about molecular phylogenies at the base of the Tree of Life; there are many sets of lecture notes etc. out there but nothing comprehensive like the above homology thing. Like I said, if people come across good links they might forward them my way).

Nic Tamzek

PS: I think the typo in the Raff quote is original, I'll [sic] it in the next version if so.

Dr.GH

I thought that it was sissy that Wells did not take on his attack on Stanley Miller when he spoke at UCSD. Miller, Badda, Orgel and/or their students and/or postdocs might have been in the hall.

John Solum, "1) What would you think about adding either a brief description of molecular phylogeneis or lateral gene transfer or a link to a web site with more information in the discussion of "molecular phylogeny" and "the root of the tree of life""

I went to the mic to ask Wells about this, specifically the Johnson, and Coffin paper on primate endogenous retroviral sequences:

<a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254#Top" target="_blank">http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254#Top</a>

I wanted to be the last question, and I was cut of at the *%## microphone.

I am about 4 references short on a review article on the Wells BS about the Miller-Urey experiment, and the primordial atmosphere in general. I am particularly hopeful about M. A. Line's recent Microbiology review article. The short form is that the Miller-Urey gas mix was the right mix for the wrong seasons.

Generally, the NCSE was far too easy on Wells on this issue. But as noted, they were not presenting a thorough review of "Icons of Evolution," But were writing text for a bookmark.

The responce by Wells to the NCSE is an excellent opportunity to follow up on these issues.