201. Comment #121947 by Michael on February 4, 2008 at 11:47 am

As a retired surgeon I must express my profound embarrassment at Simmons woeful ignorance of basic biology. It is a sad fact that medics are not taught the really deep issues of biology and therefore miss out a lot.

Apropos some of Steve Zara's pertinent observations, it is interesting to speculate how far H sapiens was down the road to speciate. As a global species we were bound to speciate with time, but for the development of technology and wide travel this is now unlikely. More likely we will be the cause of the next mass extinction!

Other Comments by Michael

202. Comment #121949 by berwickl on February 4, 2008 at 11:54 am

My quick google search returned this PBS inforation about whale evolution:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html

Perhaps Simmons has not evolved enough to know how to use simple research tools?

Other Comments by berwickl

203. Comment #121962 by AllanW on February 4, 2008 at 12:20 pm

'Perhaps Simmons has not evolved enough to know how to use simple research tools?'

Maybe he was just dogma-bound; you know, like egg-bound but his mental straitjacket only allows him to see/read/hear from one source.

Other Comments by AllanW

204. Comment #121963 by Goldy on February 4, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Though this may be interesting in this thread...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/science/29obplat.html?_r=1
Odd 1/2 the comment went missing. Anyway, regarding the speciation of H. sapiens - I read somewhere we are diverging and at quite a lick despite travel etc. I'll try to find where I read this, so bear with me...

Other Comments by Goldy

205. Comment #121968 by Geoff on February 4, 2008 at 12:31 pm

I had that problem earlier, was it the part immediately after the hyperlink?

Other Comments by Geoff

206. Comment #121971 by Goldy on February 4, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Yes it was. Shall be more careful in future and write in word beforehand!

Other Comments by Goldy

207. Comment #122041 by Zieglar on February 4, 2008 at 2:28 pm

I felt sorry for Dr. Geoffrey Simmons until he started lying, then I just felt pity. . .

Other Comments by Zieglar

208. Comment #122052 by Stephen Maxwell on February 4, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Simmons probably wants to use the problems of Darwin's theory pointed out at the beginning of "Developmental Plasticity and Evolution" by Mary Jane West-Eberhard as more proof for design in future.

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

209. Comment #122060 by D'Arcy on February 4, 2008 at 3:01 pm

The so-called "Discovery Institute", for which Dr. Simmons works is but a paid agent for creationism. It has discovered nothing of use to the human race, but merely exists to give credence to ideas like "teach the controversy", "evolution is only a theory", etc. by using its well known "wedge" tactic.

Those fundamental Christian bloodsuckers, having no ideas of their own to put forward, apart from a magical explanation of nature, resort to picking what they see as holes in a very well established scientific theory.

As Meyers said, Simmons did not put forward his own point of view, but instead chose to play to the Christian gallery, and in the process exposed his own ignorance.

Science will sort these bastards out.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

210. Comment #122081 by BarelyEvolved on February 4, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Excellent debate, soundly won by a very knowledgeable, tough and confident Dr Myers. 'Dr' Simmons is obviously making a nice cottage industry for himself preaching ignorance to the ignorant along with the rest of his ID brigade.

PZ is quite obviously a very learned and active member of his field and is at the forefront of research into topics that Simmons, effectively a layman, was trying to argue against.

Simmons showed himself to be what he is: a mechanic who knows how the body works so that he can treat it when it goes wrong. However it is the biological equivalent of the mechanical and electronic engineers that PZ represents, someone who knows a lot more about the construction theories and about how life works from blueprint to showroom.

I think that this debate highlights the very serious gap between science and the general public - you have to take a lot of time to study the incredible volume of theory and evidence that has arisen since Darwin, and keep up with it with more depth and vigour than flicking through a copy of Scientific American, if you are to 'get' the big picture.

Unfortunately unless education is improved, people would much rather reach for the bible or listen to ID's misunderstandings than endeavour to discover for themselves.

Oh, and when can a man of the ID cloth put forward their theory and evidence without ever mentioning the words 'Darwin' and 'evolution'? Because they cannot. It is a non-theory. It is anti science, hoping to revert to the 'default' position that we fill the gaps with evidence-free speculation that is entirely unprovable and hinders mankind's progression in its understanding of the universe.

Other Comments by BarelyEvolved

211. Comment #122096 by phasmagigas on February 4, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Oh, and when can a man of the ID cloth put forward their theory and evidence without ever mentioning the words 'Darwin' and 'evolution'? Because they cannot.

a good point!!!! in fact simmons said barely anything atall that had any relevant meaning, pure hogwash. it was one of the weakest 'performances' ive heard from an ID advocate, then again they have nothing to put forward at best and likely never will.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

212. Comment #122113 by Cartomancer on February 4, 2008 at 7:10 pm

Is it just my uptight British sensibilities or does anyone else find it highly irritating when people use "to debate" as a transitive verb with the opponent in said debate as the direct object? Are prepositions in short supply on that side of the pond?

It should be "to debate WITH someone ON THE SUBJECT OF the issue".

Grrr. I'm going off in a huff to underline all the split infinitives in the newspaper...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

213. Comment #122115 by Goldy on February 4, 2008 at 7:16 pm

Cartomancer, they probably said the same about Shakespeare's use of English ;-)
What it should be and what it is are transient things - soon you can say what it used to be and what it is now.
Now, spelling influenced by texting....arrgh! Bloody students!!!

Other Comments by Goldy

214. Comment #122116 by tyler gislason on February 4, 2008 at 7:18 pm

I've been reading the board for some time and seen some crazy stuff, but this debate is the first that's motivated me to register and post. It's maddening that Dr. Simmons is publishing items as facts when he's essentially not done the research to back it up.

I am educated, and maybe mistakenly, I assume that someone with a doctorate(MD) would... at the very least, recognize the importance of researching the information that he/she presents as fact.

For (dr) Simmons to tell the esteemed Dr. Myers that he was absolutely WRONG and then to support his argument by citing a single periodical article is unbelievable. And then to find out that he's actually published this stuff with his name, proudly attached is... crazy! It should be criminal. In my opinion, his title gives him credibility and authority that he doesn't deserve.

I sincerely hope that he's the laughing-stock among the real scientists at the Discovery Institute (if there are any).

Other Comments by tyler gislason

215. Comment #122121 by Goldy on February 4, 2008 at 7:22 pm

I assume that someone with a doctorate(MD) would...

He's only a medic.
In our department (well, a few of us in the dept of pharmacology), we don't consider them doctors - the "dr" is merely an honorific. All they have done is got a medical degree.
Real doctors do research.

Other Comments by Goldy

216. Comment #122129 by Mattt on February 4, 2008 at 7:29 pm

An absolute classic example of an ad hominem by Simmons in talking about Darwin's attitudes towards women and black people. Does he honestly think this undermines evolutionary theory?

Other Comments by Mattt

217. Comment #122190 by sent2null on February 4, 2008 at 10:18 pm

PZ took the flame thrower to everyone including the radio show, loved it.

"Biology IS..."

I said something similar about mathematics (oops Logic) in my last post.

This is great stuff.

Other Comments by sent2null

218. Comment #122201 by MPhil on February 4, 2008 at 11:00 pm

sent2null,

:D

My statements still stand :)

Other Comments by MPhil

219. Comment #122206 by wipeout on February 4, 2008 at 11:19 pm

Wow! You seem to be having really hard time with this guy, wooter, ha! No worries, I ain’t no wooter. But honestly don’t you think that this guys had done very well even he is not a native speaker. I read all his comments last night searching all threads. I have no religion and I am not atheist either, nor native speaker, nor creationist. I am just a normal guy questioning myself and decide what to believe. One thing is sure that you got some serious issues against this guy. You are really ticked off when I mentioned the name wooter? Why? He can write and you answer. And I could not find his comments on Group delusion. One of my friends just passed his comment to me from another web-page. I think this guy is really a good debater:


Actually atheism can help for censorship as well. I started a debate on Dawking's web page and my discussion was based on questioning how logical evolution theory(E.T) is but they were all pissed off when I stand against their E.T with logic and reason. They swear, slander, so-called teasing, mocking, exchanging jokes, and I kept my stance saying that all the bad words belong to the owner of the mouth it pops out. Anybody go and check group delusion thread; all their answers(most of it is insulting) to me there, but my logical questions and analogies are all deleted. Do you think it is fair? Is this the approach that atheists guys take it; if you can't beat it, just delete it?

Wooter
Never give up!

Today's joke: One of the recent TV debates, one of the atheists' says, "it is a pity that Dawkins is all alone among those believers?"

It is a pity(!) that only 16% world population is atheists. Is that the reason? God help those who are struggling in a Dna Soup trying to find out millions kinds of creatures.

Other Comments by wipeout

220. Comment #122221 by TonyA on February 5, 2008 at 12:08 am

wipeout, zip your pants up, your wooter is showing.

Other Comments by TonyA

221. Comment #122222 by AllanW on February 5, 2008 at 12:16 am

re; comment #122206 wipeout

Sigh. Now marked as troll. Evidence? DNA soup; oh dear, not again. Faux jokey and upbeat straining tone and then completely ignoring the substance of previous posts to present a mistaken propoganda ('Wow! You seem to be having really hard time with this guy, wooter, ha!'; no, the only hard time we had was swallowing our feelings of deep regret and sadness when it became obvious that he was a deluded troll).

Josh; do us all a favour and mark this jerk as wooter, please?

Other Comments by AllanW

222. Comment #122223 by epeeist on February 5, 2008 at 12:25 am

Comment #121146 by yyuryyub

Let's not forget the fact that this guy Simmons is a medical doctor!

Which doesn't make him a real doctor, all it means is he spent some extra time as an undergraduate. Real doctors have to do some research.

Other Comments by epeeist

223. Comment #122224 by epeeist on February 5, 2008 at 12:27 am

Comment #122222 by AllanW

re; comment #122206 wipeout

Sigh. Now marked as troll. Evidence? DNA soup; oh dear, not again.

Also the use of ET for the theory of evolution. Absolute wooterism. Perhaps Josh could check the IP Address of the poster and see whether it is in the same range that wooter's posts came from.

Other Comments by epeeist

224. Comment #122226 by Steve Zara on February 5, 2008 at 12:32 am

I think this guy is really a good debater:

These must be some new definitions of the word "good" and "debater".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

225. Comment #122227 by LorienRyan on February 5, 2008 at 12:33 am

epeeist,

I doubt the Admin here would waste their time - wooter, wipeout, blacknad, becomethearrow, hes2@usa... it's all the same rubbish.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

226. Comment #122230 by Verylee on February 5, 2008 at 12:41 am

Next time a creationist mentions that "Evolution is just a theory".....Maybe the retort should be something along the lines of, "Are you implying that the listeners are all so stupid that they do not know the definition of a scientific theory? Like for example "Eintein's General Theory of Relativity", is just a theory?"...."How arrogant and deceitful of you, I am sure that the audience are delighted to know that you think that they are all morons!"

Other Comments by Verylee

227. Comment #122232 by epeeist on February 5, 2008 at 12:41 am

Comment #122226 by Steve Zara

I think this guy is really a good debater:

These must be some new definitions of the word "good" and "debater".

All it means is that he debates with a lot of people at the same time, a mass if you like.

Other Comments by epeeist

228. Comment #122233 by Steve Zara on February 5, 2008 at 12:45 am

All it means is that he debates with a lot of people at the same time, a mass if you like.

Of course he could just be winding us up. You know, a baiter. He seems to be a master of that.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

229. Comment #122243 by NMcC on February 5, 2008 at 1:45 am

What, you mean he's a mass debater!

Other Comments by NMcC

230. Comment #122247 by PJG on February 5, 2008 at 2:11 am

Verylee

I really agree with you on this point about anti-evolutionists "insulting the intelligence of the audience" tactic.

OK, the fact is that most people DO misunderstand the meaning of "theory" in science. Most people are amazingly ignorant of the theory of evolution and science in general. It horrifies me when I talk to JWs and other Bible literalists, I find it impossible to believe they attended, let alone understood, a single science lesson while they were at school.

However, if you talk to them as if they have a basic understanding, they often start to enquire and then you can start to discuss evolution (and religion) with them. It is interesting to see the change in their attitude. I think it is a good ploy - imply they are intelligent/educated enough to be beyond believing the twaddle and they may rise to it and start to feel left behind. No-one likes to feel left behind or that others think they are ill-informed.

An example of this is in the PZ/Simmons debate itself... Dr. Simmons wanted to seem open to learning by taking the details of Mary Jane West-Eberhart's book when PZ made him look like an ill-informed idiot.

(Incidentally, according to the DI website, Dr. Simmons is a practicing medic - pity his patients)

Other Comments by PJG

231. Comment #122248 by BaldySlaphead on February 5, 2008 at 2:15 am

I listened to this on the way into work this morning, and it was all I could do not to burst out laughing at the feeble and old arguments being made by Simmonds.

It's a credit to websites like this, and the work of Professors Dawkins (and, I hope, not a backhanded compliment) that I was able to pre-empt what aspects of Simmonds' 'arguments' Prof Myers would respond to, and what he would say - minus the considerable expertise and knowledge the Prof Myers obviously has, and I do not.

Anyway, consider my consciousness very much raised from a few years ago when I saw an article in a local Elim church rag that challenged evolution in such a way that I knew it must be bogus, but didn't have the skills or knowledge to debate.

Other Comments by BaldySlaphead

232. Comment #122252 by Verylee on February 5, 2008 at 2:28 am

PJG ....Thank you. Nobody likes to be called a fool with perhaps the exception of the "Fool who has said in his heart there is no god"!

Other Comments by Verylee

233. Comment #122256 by phaseshift on February 5, 2008 at 2:42 am

AAAAAHHHH! Yikes, what a frustrating display of inanity. Poor PZ...in the little time that he has, he's forced to spend most of his time correcting the good "doctor's" claims instead of talking about what he knows.
It's like being invited to talk about calculus, and instead being forced to repeatedly refute your opponent's insistent claim that 2 plus 3 equals 6.

Cheers to you, PZ

Other Comments by phaseshift

234. Comment #122284 by PJG on February 5, 2008 at 5:08 am

Verylee

"Fool who has said in his heart there is no god"!

This is an example of where we can disassociate from those who say this because they missed out the bit in the Bible where it goes on to say, "But verily, the wise man saieth in his brain, after thought, contemplation and realisation that there is lack of evidence for his existence, that there is no God"

Other Comments by PJG

235. Comment #122287 by home8896 on February 5, 2008 at 5:28 am

PJG:

Most people are amazingly ignorant of the theory of evolution and science in general. It horrifies me when I talk to JWs and other Bible literalists, I find it impossible to believe they attended, let alone understood, a single science lesson while they were at school.

I, unfortunately, don't find it hard to believe people around me have no idea between the colloquial definition of "theory" that gets used in real life conversations on a regular basis, and the science definition of "undergone rigorous tests and retesting." School is not valued here, unless it is a faith school. Science is definitely not valued around here, at all. And anything that would provoke even minor change to the ways of seeing the world their grandparents held is viewed as suspicious, at least.

I've given up on the older adults who were brought up with the old Kentucky education standards. They've revamped the standards in recent years, and I grew up in the old way. It isn't impossible to get a decent education, but it is very, very difficult. Add to that the indoctrination and you're very well looking at an audience that is undereducated, especially about science.

The only hope we have is to keep science standards improving. As long as people are kept in the dark, and the religious celebrities are keeping things "easy" for the audience, the less chance we have of convincing anyone that evolution isn't just faith-based.

Other Comments by home8896

236. Comment #122293 by PJG on February 5, 2008 at 6:33 am

Home8896

I am in England where we don't have the evangelical problem... though we now have God TV and judging by the British input into that, it will only be a matter of time :o(

I do think that most people of my generation left school with a bit of understanding of natural selection (if nothing else!) and the Bible literalists are certainly in the minority here. I don't know what it is like with the younger generation as I give most children a wide berth!

There have been a few newspaper articles lately about creationism (creeping in by the back door)... and a rise in the number of faith schools is a problem here too. At the moment, most articles touching on religion focus on Islam and the threat from fundamentalists rather than any threat to our education system.

I think I am right in saying, however, that the majority of Muslims are creationists. I heard recently that 95% of Muslims worldwide are creationists though I hope most of the %5 are in the west!

It means we cannot be complacent here ... we are likely to be squeezed between Islam from the east and the Evangelical wave from the west with the opposition to scientific advancement that seems to come with both. I fear this will impact on the UK sooner or later.

Other Comments by PJG

237. Comment #122294 by Roland_F on February 5, 2008 at 6:36 am

I think this misunderstanding of < theory > is coming (especially in Germany) from the term < Theory and praxis > means some setting of challenging plans and targets which are failing miserable in praxis.
So in common language the word Theory has a very bad reputation.

Only later at university I learnt the meaning of a scientific theory, and when the Prof was first telling there is nothing more practical than a theory everyone laughed. It took some time to digest the meaning of the word to a tested, falsifiable, peer reviewed explanation of real life test data.

Other Comments by Roland_F

238. Comment #122297 by Mbee on February 5, 2008 at 6:44 am

A scientific question for the experts here.
At what point does a theory become fact.
Gravity is considered a fact and the theory of gravitation is the best explanation of what it is.
The theory of evolution explains how life evolved so when does Evolution itself become fact?

In my opinion the amount of evidence is the overriding factor and for evolution there is an enormous amount (compared with any alternative) So who gets to decide when it is declared a fact or is it just public consensus?

Other Comments by Mbee

239. Comment #122303 by epeeist on February 5, 2008 at 7:00 am

Comment #122297 by Mbee

A scientific question for the experts here.
At what point does a theory become fact.

You are confusing two things:

1. Evolution is a fact. It has been observed directly in the laboratory and indirectly in the fossil record.


2. The mechanism that Darwin put forward to explain how evolution works is a theory. It started out life as a hypothesis, was tested over a long period of time by a large number of people in a large number of different ways and these tests failed to falsify it. As such it was then accepted as being a theory. The thing about a theory is that it is contingently valid, a new experiment may come along next week which falsifies it. Because this is the case what a theory never becomes is a law, i.e. something that is regarded as true.

Other Comments by epeeist

240. Comment #122305 by home8896 on February 5, 2008 at 7:03 am

I find myself cringing now when I hear people use "theory" in place of "nutty idea I thought up while I was drunk, last night" which goes to show my consciousness has been raised over the last few years. I knew there was a difference in the two uses, but I'm now at the point where hearing it misused bothers me. I hope we can get everyone to that point eventually.

Other Comments by home8896

241. Comment #122307 by epeeist on February 5, 2008 at 7:07 am

Comment #122305 by home8896

I find myself cringing now when I hear people use "theory" in place of "nutty idea I thought up while I was drunk, last night" which goes to show my consciousness has been raised over the last few years.

That would be a conjecture. If you want to take it any further can I recommend Popper's "Logic of Scientific Discovery" and "Conjectures and Refutations".

Other Comments by epeeist

242. Comment #122310 by Steve Zara on February 5, 2008 at 7:13 am

Evolution is a fact. It has been observed directly in the laboratory and indirectly in the fossil record.

And directly in Nature.

Is there any clear point at which an hypothesis becomes a theory?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

243. Comment #122312 by Verylee on February 5, 2008 at 7:15 am

Comment #122305 by home8896
Hear hear! That's why I posted above, that when Creationist ("scientists") wilfully try to deceive people, they should be ridiculed...in such a way as to point out their dishonesty to the audience....granted not everyone knows the "scientific method", but a scientist in a debate should know or be damned forever.

Other Comments by Verylee

244. Comment #122313 by al-rawandi on February 5, 2008 at 7:16 am

I don't get it. No matter how much you explain the difference between fact and theory to some people they still seem to be completely ignorant.


I think I just stated the totally obvious...


Steve are they generally willingly ignorant or is it just a lack of competence?

Other Comments by al-rawandi

245. Comment #122314 by LorienRyan on February 5, 2008 at 7:18 am

Steve,

There is a good explanation at:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Other Comments by LorienRyan

246. Comment #122316 by PJG on February 5, 2008 at 7:25 am

LorienRyan

A bit of a shame the explanation used "All swans are white" as an example of a scientific theory when we know there are black swans.

Other Comments by PJG

247. Comment #122317 by Steve Zara on February 5, 2008 at 7:29 am

LorienRyan: Thanks.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

248. Comment #122320 by LorienRyan on February 5, 2008 at 7:32 am

PJG,

And I'd imagine many different shades of also...nonetheless a nicely succinct explanation.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

249. Comment #122321 by epeeist on February 5, 2008 at 7:33 am

Comment #122314 by LorienRyan

There is a good explanation at:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Aargh, no. Facts and laws are totally different. We can't get to a law in science because we can never know whether something will come along to disprove it, which is why we stop at theories. We don't have verification, because that would assume things to be true. The best we can have is corroboration or verisimilitude.

Other Comments by epeeist

250. Comment #122324 by MPhil on February 5, 2008 at 7:34 am

Nice explanation. However, in metatheory of empirical sciences there's ongoing debate over what theories are, and the accounts forwarded are extremely complex, including such concepts as Ramsey-sentences, T-theoreticity, definitions of "theory" via a set-theoretical predicate etc.

The most modern and IMO most successful approach is the structuralist one, championed by Joseph Sneed, Patrick Suppes, Wolfgang Stegmüller and Carlos Ulises Moulines (under the latter of which I studied philosophy of science).

If you're interested, i could direct you to a few very interesting but also very technical books. You need quite a good grasp of formal logic and set theory to understand them - in most cases. But I found it very worthwhile.

Other Comments by MPhil