ARN-wrestling with Facts

If you make fun of enough fundies, eventually one of them will notice. “Oh boo hoo! Stop laughing at us!” Such is the case with Access Research Network, who are upset about my last post. Their rebuttal is written by Tom Magnuson. He writes:

The Bay of Fundie blog, no friend of ARN, opined on our recent “Top 10 Darwin and Design News Stories of 2007”.

Poor ARN! They don’t have me as a friend!

It is not surprising that when someone has little to say concerning the substance of the debate, he resorts to ad hominem attacks and vitriolic speech.

For instance, ARN and IDers are crackpots, morons, “smart guys”, retards, incapable of understanding biology, Clowndi_ks, fundies, disinformationists, etc.

Actually, I had a lot to say about the substance of the debate. Apparently Tom didn’t read that part of the article. Maybe if he’d get in the habit of reading something in its entirety, like a biology book, he wouldn’t be so ignorant.

Yes, I throw in derogatory terms, such as “crackpot” and “moron”, but they are accurately descriptive. If you promote crackpot ideas like creationism, then you’re a crackpot. If you proudly advertise your lack of comprehension of sixth-grade science, then you are a moron.

Reread that list of “ad hominem attacks and vitriolic speech”. With the exception of “clowndick” (which was just thrown in because I’m sick of creationists) every single item in that list is accurate.

He asserts there is no debate, which is often the first line of “defense” of proponents of the “Modern Synthesis”, a.k.a. Neo-Darwinism (and Global Warming).

What? So now “Darwinists” are also proponents of global warming? Why stop there, Tom? Why not accuse us of also including the Kennedy assassination and the Iraq War into “Darwinism”?

Notice that he equates the Modern Synthesis with Neo-Darwinism. As is typical of creationist retards, Tom either didn’t read the article I linked to (they don’t seem to read much science), or he was incapable of comprehending it. The article about the Modern Synthesis clearly says:

…more recently the classic Neo-Darwinian view has been replaced by a new concept which includes several other mechanisms in addition to natural selection. Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis….

Here’s a cheat sheet for you, Tom. Cut it out and hang it on your fridge until you learn it:

Darwinism ≠ Neo-Darwinism ≠ Modern Synthesis.

Also notice how he didn’t actually address the point I made in the article. That’s really funny, because he started his article by accusing me of not addressing the issues raised.

So come on, Tom. Put up or shut up. In my article, I specifically asked you to tell me who all of these scientists are who doubt evolution. Who and where are all of these scientists who are part of the great debate?

IDers are liars, like Joseph Goebbels (a Nazi), who once may have said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” As was said in the blog, sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

Apparently he’s calling me a liar. Which statements, specifically, are the lies? Everything stated as fact in my article is a verifiable fact. Tom can not say the same thing about the article I was commenting on.

As is typical of Neo-Darwinists…

I’ll say it again. Modern biology has moved beyond Neo-Darwinism.

…they separate the origin of species from the origin of life.

Now Tom launches into a misdirection. I mentioned that evolution and abiogenesis were separate, because it was in response to the laughable statement in their original article that said:

[T]he level of biological complexity being discovered in early life history provided another challenge for Darwin’s molecule-to-man theory in 2007.

Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism nor the Modern Synthesis have a “molecule-to-man” theory. This is all part of the ARN disinformation campaign. They try to get the public to equate all of modern biology with the one theory that Darwin proposed. Then they show that Darwin’s original theory doesn’t explain everything. Then, ipso facto, they have disproven evolution!

Neo-Darwinism does not deal with the origin of life, and we are well aware of that fact.

Well you sure as hell didn’t give that impression in the original article! You very specifically said that it did. Weren’t we saying something earlier about liars?

But, in the materialist’s worldview, the origin of life is actually more problematic than the origin of species. That’s why Francis Crick pushed back OOL by proposing directed panspermia. He rightly concluded that a chemical origin of life on Earth was impossible. He posited that OOL must have happened somewhere else in the universe, and was brought here. Neo-Darwinists choose to say, “In the beginning was a great mystery, then evolution.”

This is all misdirection. It has nothing to do with the original article that I was responding to. In any event, there are several scientifically-valid hypotheses involving the origin of life. None involve “God did it”.

One of the citations in the blog to indicate how out-of-touch IDers are with Neo-Darwinism is from 1993.

Wrong again, liar. It was to show how out of touch you are with the Modern Synthesis.

In that post, Moran states, “Biologists no longer question whether evolution has occurred or is occurring. That part of Darwin’s book is now considered to be so overwhelmingly demonstrated that is is often referred to as the FACT of evolution. However, the MECHANISM of evolution is still debated.” So, my question is, “If we don’t know HOW materialistic evolution happened, how do we know THAT it happened?”

Excellent question, Tom! (I’m not being sarcastic for once. That is exactly the type of question that any person should ask. How do we know what we know?) There might be a brain in that skull after all! (OK, now I’m back to the sarcasm.) Your question can be easily answered with this illustration:

You can see evolution in the fossil record.

The debate (which he says doesn’t even exist among REAL scientists) is about the HOW (mechanisms). What they accuse us of (God of the Gaps), is exactly what they are doing (Science of the Gaps), when saying they don’t know HOW it happened.

Wrong again, liar. We never said we didn’t know how it happened. We have an excellent theory that explains it all. It’s called evolution. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?

But, according to them, it had to have happened, because it fits their worldview.

You’re putting the cart before the horse. We have that worldview, because it fits the data.

Believers in the extranatural either believe that the universe was front-loaded with information, or a designer injected information into systems at various times.

“Extranatural” isn’t a word. You’re looking for “supernatural”. And looking for the supernatural is not science. Stop claiming it is (e.g., “intelligent design”).

If REAL scientists can infer design in SETI, criminology, etc., why not in biological science?

He lost me here. What are you saying, Tom, that SETI is trying to prove that God made aliens? We need to find some first, then we can try to figure out where they came from.

Well, that would upset the apple cart, because they cannot allow a “divine foot in the door”.

It has nothing to do with not allowing a “divine foot in the door”. It’s just that a few centuries ago, we discovered that we didn’t need a divine foot to explain the natural world.

So they attempt to nail the door shut by saying there is no legitimate debate.

Nobody’s nailing any doors shut. It’s shut, because nobody has opened it in a hundred years. I’ll repeat my challenge from above: Where is this huge gaggle of scientists who are debating evolution? You didn’t answer it in the original article, and you didn’t answer it in your rebuttal.

I prefer clarity of thinking over agreement. This is what we should all strive for this coming year, including Neo-Darwinists.

Well, Tom, you go find yourself some Neo-Darwinists, and you guys can get yourself a nice big clarity orgasm. In the meantime, all of modern biology will continue with the clarity of thinking that we’ve enjoyed for over a hundred years.


Note to those coming here from Carnival of the Godless. This is the second post in this series, both of which pissed off one of the guys at ARN. The post I wrote right before this one received the brunt of the comments from their “Director of Media Relations”. He just proves what I say in that post, that they’re a disinformation site. If you want to read that post, and the barrage of comments that it generated, you can see it here.

6 Responses to “ARN-wrestling with Facts”

  1. Jalestra Says:

    Accusation upon accusation on where everyone else is wrong, but not one scientifically valid bit of information to back him up…par for the course…It would be so nice if creationists could make an accusation and back it up with something other than “it just is”.

  2. joe Says:

    Hope he responds again, probably won’t.

  3. Andrew Says:

    That bit about SETI is the Dembski defense (ie if SETI is valid science, then why is not ID)…

  4. Ron Britton Says:

    That’s one I hadn’t heard. The creationists’ desperation knows no bounds.

  5. Kevin Wirth Says:

    Jalestra said:

    “Accusation upon accusation on where everyone else is wrong, but not one scientifically valid bit of information to back him up…par for the course…It would be so nice if creationists could make an accusation and back it up with something other than “it just is”. ”

    Funny, that’s what I always think whenever I see that silly poster with the fossil that says “Evolution. We have the fossils. We win”

    Pretty lame. A compelling case fo evolution cannot be made on the basis of just fossils alone.

    Kevin Wirth

  6. Derek Says:

    Pretty lame. A compelling case fo evolution cannot be made on the basis of just fossils alone.

    Depends on whom you’re trying to convince. A compelling case for gravity and germ theory and heliocentrism also couldn’t be made to those who simply decide they don’t want to accept it.

    Anyway, besides fossils testifying to the factuality of evolution, there’s also the existence of nested hierarchies, biogeographic distribution of species, genetics, observation of change in action (hello dogs, finches, peppered moths, etc) and more.

    Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all.