Home » Expelled » Mark Armitage possibily the latest victim of the Darwinist inquisition

Mark Armitage possibily the latest victim of the Darwinist inquisition

What happens when you publish a peer-reviewed paper that states inconvenient facts against Darwinism? Better yet, photos that cast doubt on prevailing paradigms:

dino tissue

You get fired. At least that is what a researcher is alleging.

We are very saddened and disturbed to report that Mark Armitage was fired from his position at California State University just days after his paper was published on line.

http://logosresearchassociates.org/week-1/

Again, I repeat, if we assume the Earth is billions of years old, it does not mean the fossils are necessarily hundreds of millions of years old. At the very least, even if the fossils are old, it is still premature to be making claims about their age given the empirical evidence. See: Cocktail: C14, DNA, collagen in dinosaurs indicates geological timescales are false

Here is the peer-reviewed paper that seems related to the latest round of the Darwinist inquisition:

Mark Hollis Armitage
Kevin Lee Anderson

Department of Biology, California State University, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 91330-8303, USA

Department of Biology, Arkansas State University Beebe, Beebe, AR, USA
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acthis.2013.01.001, How to Cite or Link Using DOI

Abstract

Soft fibrillar bone tissues were obtained from a supraorbital horn of Triceratops horridus collected at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, USA. Soft material was present in pre and post-decalcified bone. Horn material yielded numerous small sheets of lamellar bone matrix. This matrix possessed visible microstructures consistent with lamellar bone osteocytes. Some sheets of soft tissue had multiple layers of intact tissues with osteocyte-like structures featuring filipodial-like interconnections and secondary branching. Both oblate and stellate types of osteocyte-like cells were present in sheets of soft tissues and exhibited organelle-like microstructures. SEM analysis yielded osteocyte-like cells featuring filipodial extensions of 18–20 μm in length. Filipodial extensions were delicate and showed no evidence of any permineralization or crystallization artifact and therefore were interpreted to be soft. This is the first report of sheets of soft tissues from Triceratops horn bearing layers of osteocytes, and extends the range and type of dinosaur specimens known to contain non-fossilized material in bone matrix.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

50 Responses to Mark Armitage possibily the latest victim of the Darwinist inquisition

  1. The facts in evidence:

    1. Mark published a paper
    2. Mark is no longer working at Cal State University

    From printed version of the 2013 ICC author bios:

    http://creationicc.org/ICC2013-Author-Bios.pdf

    Armitage is apparently taking legal action.

    Just my speculation, as it is too hard to tell whether the firing was related to Armitage’s work, but if Armitage’s claim of persecution is true, it’s because Darwinists don’t really have an empirical leg to stand on regarding dating of the Phanerzoic fossils (fossils in recent past all the way back to about 500 million years ago). So now their only recourse is avoid the facts and suppress dissent. If they had the facts on their side, they wouldn’t feel the need to behave this way…

    I’ve seen this play out first hand and in the news. Biologists like Caroline Crocker, accomplished evolutionary biologists like Richard Sternberg (who was not even an ID proponent at the time of his firing from the NIH). OOL research Dean Kenyon (one of the tops in his field at the time), and the list goes on…

    Evolutionary theories are not based on not empirical facts or even coherent theory… instead defended by walls of equivocation, fabrication, non-sequiturs, and intimidation.

  2. Are you listening, Elizabeth?

  3. If this is true, that he was fired for writing that paper and questioning evolutionism, then it is time for a war- a bloody war at that because this crap has to stop and obvioulsy the only way to stop it is to rid the world of all the cry-baby loser materialists.

  4. Wow, I was just linking to this paper a few days ago.

    At least the veil is coming down and they’re not trying to hide it anymore.

  5. Not that it is necessarily much comfort for this poor man, but I am actually encouraged when I see the viciousness of attacks by the establishment Darwinians. To me, it is testimony of the truth of Intelligent Design; bearers of falsehood cannot stand the light being shone upon them.

  6. From the ICC website:

    Until recently, Mark served as the Manager for the Electron and Confocal Microscopy Suite in the Biology Department at California State University Northridge. Mark was suddenly terminated by the Biology Department when his discovery of soft tissues in Triceratops horn was published in Acta Histochemica. He is currently seeking relief in a legal action for wrongful termination and religious discrimination by the University.

  7. Of related note Sal: A Creationist Interviews Lawrence Krauss – podcast
    Excerpt: * Krauss Says All Scientists are Darwinists: When you hear consensus, consensus, consensus, you may have reason to doubt the consensus. In 2013, 62% of Americans say that they believe that God either guided the development of, or specially created, human beings. But the general public is not made up of only scientists. Consider then, these lists of educated and highly-educated Darwin Doubters, including many thousands of PhDs, scientists, and professors. Admittedly these lists constain some overlap but the orders of magnitude difference on the numbers indicate that the vast majority are not duplicates. In Part II, when Lawrence Krauss says that all scientists are Darwinists, he was, however, omitting:
    - ____________ (August 2013 Update: we invite you to suggest to RSR the name of one scientist to start this list with)
    - 100 PhDs listed along with world renowned neurologist Dr. Ben Carson at Australia’s creation.com
    - 200 scientists with master’s degrees or PhDs listed over at Answers in Genesis
    - 300 medical doctors signing PSSI’s Physicials and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism
    - 600 advanced degreed scientists who are members of the Creation Research Society
    - 800 scientists who signified their opposition at DissentFromDarwin.org
    - 3,000 scientists and professors, nearly, (most of whom hold a Ph.D. in some field of science) who reject secular Darwinism to varying degrees as named online by Dr. Jerry Bergman
    - 30,000 U.S. public high school biology teachers do not endorse Darwinism in class
    - 100,000 college professors in the U.S. alone who, according to Harvard researchers, agree that “intelligent design IS a serious scientific alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution.”
    - 570,000 medical doctors in the U.S., specialists in applied science, say God brought about or directly created humans. Whereas Darwinsim is dominated by storytelling, the field of medicine is an actual applied science (see definition and applied science section below) within biology that is practiced by highly educated professionals. Thus it is significant that 60% of all U.S. medical doctors reject the strictly secular Darwinist explanation for our existence, with three of five docs agreeing that either God initiated and guided the process that led to human life or that God specially created human beings as we are.
    http://kgov.com/lawrence-kraus.....reationist

    as to:
    100,000 college professors in the U.S. alone who, according to Harvard researchers, agree that “intelligent design IS a serious scientific alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution.”

    And the bottom of page 8 is the question on ID and percentages, and page 4 gives total number of Professors of 630,000, so the numbers crunch to a bit over 100,000
    http://musicology.typepad.com/.....igions.pdf

  8. I hope he wins his suit. It sounds as though he’s on solid ground, legally speaking.

  9. 9

    Darwinists, please tell us again how you’re not against academic freedom.

    I ask you, what other alleged ‘scientific theory’ is protected from critics and facts the way darwin’s myth is???

  10. 10

    Though very helpful to organized creationism to have these examples of what is held in a educated suspicion that the good guys are being oppressed by a frightened establishment regarding origin issues STILL its profoundly sad to live in such a time.
    We are facing a evil establishment and forces in North America in our time.
    Fighting Christianity, Christian identity, and our identities generally.
    We have earned our right to accuse and its our duty to do so and lead to a correction.

    I don’t know the facts about this case but either way it goes we are facing great historical decisions in these times about what should of been settled , and we thought it was, centuries ago.
    North American civilization has been invaded and in a state of occupation here and there.

  11. Mark Armitage’s termination was a regrettable, but vital move to maintain the appearance of a “consensus of scientists.” A termination here and there is a small price to pay when Science itself is at stake! ;-)

  12. I don’t want to seem too flip about this travesty. I hope and pray that Mark’s lawsuit is successful, and that he be completely vindicated.

    Furthermore, I also hope that the person or persons responsible are disciplined for their intolerance and discrimination!

  13. Axel:

    I’ll listen when someone actually links to the story.

    I’ve heard too many false allegations about people being “fired” for supposedly “anti-Darwinist” positions to get to excited until I’ve actually seen some evidence that it happened.

  14. Elizabeth:

    I’ve heard too many false allegations about people being “fired” for supposedly “anti-Darwinist” positions …

    Reference please- we all know about your affinity for bald assertions and it doesn’t wash here.

  15. Joe, look in the mirror!

    And at this reference:

    Expelled Exposed

    Now, when someone can provide a link – any link – to any publicly available report that Armitage (who does not in any case appear to be an academic at CSU) was fired because he was author on recently published paper) I shall show an interest.

    Until then I shall continue to believe that these allegations are trumped up charges in an attempt to divert attention to the blatant censorship that goes on in non-secular education establishments, such as BIOLA for example, where academics are explicitly required to commit to a doctrinal statement on origins, or Southwest Baptist Seminary:

    At that meeting, Dembski was quick to admit that he was wrong about the flood, Patterson said. “Had I had any inkling that Dr. Dembski was actually denying the absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, then that would have, of course, ended his relationship with the school,” he said.

    Get your own house in order, guys.

  16. Elizabeth, just because you ignore my references doesn’t mean I don’t provide them.

    As for your “reference”:

    Expelled Exposed, Exposed

  17. IMHO, most institutions do have “doctrinal statements” of one form or another, including churches, religious schools and seminaries (OK, a few), political parties, businesses, clubs, and so on.

    What I think is unusual and commendable is that most secular universities strive to provide an open, diverse, and safe academic environment for people with educated minority views, both students and professors.

    However, this environment seems contrary to human nature, and people with unpopular views are usually harassed or worse. Consider what happened to the eminent astronomer, Halton Arp after he published his controversial book, Seeing Red. BTW, it had nothing to do with ID or religion.

    Of course, there’s always a plausible rationale for any barbarism or suppression, be it genetic hygiene, academic integrity, overwhelming consensus, the will of God, or progress to name just a few.

  18. Dr. Liddle, did you notice that you are arguing about “blatant censorship” at non-secular education establishments?

    Note what I bolded above. A non-secular educational institution, such as a Catholic-funded university (mine, Regis, was Jesuit) or a Bible college has every right to develop a statement of doctrine. Why would anyone think this is strange? Go to a Catholic school and learn catechism. Why would anyone argue about that? If you don’t like blatant religiosity in education, then don’t send your kids (or yourself) to a religiously funded school.

  19. Also, Dr. Liddle, ask yourself if it appears suspicious that Dr. Armitage was fired mere days after publishing a paper that presents Darwinian evolution in a less-than-flattering light.

    Ask yourself if that’s merely a coincidence. And if you think so, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

  20. Barb,

    You realize Dr. Liddle believes there have been a lot of very improbable things that have already happened. Why would she have any problems with just one more. I think you should hard sell your bridge. You should be able to get top dollar.

    Stephen

  21. I forgot to add the link to the first report of Mark’s dismissal.

    The link was:
    http://logosresearchassociates.org/week-1/

  22. Elzabeth Liddle:

    I’ve heard too many false allegations about people being “fired” for supposedly “anti-Darwinist” positions to get to excited until I’ve actually seen some evidence that it happened.

    Why don’t you come out in favor of ID publicly and where you work? That would be a real test with real consequences on the line. You won’t, not even to test your beliefs. You’re not a real scientist.

  23. Easy answer, Mung: because I’m not persuaded that ID is a supported inference.

    If I were, I would state the case I thought had been quite happily.

  24. Barb:

    Note what I bolded above. A non-secular educational institution, such as a Catholic-funded university (mine, Regis, was Jesuit) or a Bible college has every right to develop a statement of doctrine. Why would anyone think this is strange? Go to a Catholic school and learn catechism. Why would anyone argue about that? If you don’t like blatant religiosity in education, then don’t send your kids (or yourself) to a religiously funded school.

    Barb, Biola teaches science, yet requires its faculty members to comply with a doctrinal statement about scientific models that are permissible:

    Therefore creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and(c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.

    In other words, it is not permissible to be a scientist at BIOLA – not permitted to “follow the evidence where it leads” unless it leads to approved doctrine.

    This means that people like Cornelius Hunter have no credibility at all as scientists – their job depends, quite literally, on accepting a specific conclusion.

    This is simply not true of secular institutions.

  25. Also, Dr. Liddle, ask yourself if it appears suspicious that Dr. Armitage was fired mere days after publishing a paper that presents Darwinian evolution in a less-than-flattering light.

    Ask yourself if that’s merely a coincidence. And if you think so, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

    That’s an argument against his alleged firing having anything to do with the paper’s publication. Does California not have laws against summary dismissal?

    And Sal, your link is simply to another blog making the same allegation. No primary source.

    As far as I can see, Armitage is not a faculty member at California state, but a microscopy technician. It is even more unlikely that technical employee would be fired because they published a paper.

    There are no reports of the senior author being fired from his institution.

    And absolutely no ripples in the pond from the paper itself, which seems fine as far as I can tell. Nobody is about to overturn the age of the earth because of soft tissues in a tricerotops, although conceivably they might overturn the age of the last tricerotops!

    An old age for the earth and universe is not only vast, it is independent and consilient.

  26. Dr. Liddle,

    Barb, Biola teaches science, yet requires its faculty members to comply with a doctrinal statement about scientific models that are permissible:

    Therefore creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and(c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.

    Yes, and as has been pointed out before, science and religion are not enemies. They can and do harmonize. Again, it is a religious school and if a parent does not want their child introduced to religious thinking, then send him or her to a secular school.

    In other words, it is not permissible to be a scientist at BIOLA – not permitted to “follow the evidence where it leads” unless it leads to approved doctrine.

    Or maybe they are following the evidence, and it contradicts Darwinian evolution. Do we revisit the hypothesis and make the changes the data demands, or do we fire the person because they questioned Darwin?

    This means that people like Cornelius Hunter have no credibility at all as scientists – their job depends, quite literally, on accepting a specific conclusion.

    This also means that people who are scientists and who have signed the humanist manifesto also have no credibility as scientists because their job depends, literally, on accepting a specific conclusion.

    It works both ways, Dr. Liddle.

    This is simply not true of secular institutions.

    No, they simply fire people like Armitage, Gonzalez, and the like when they question the secular doctrine of Darwin.

    The problem with the paper is that it shows that there wasn’t enough time for evolution to have happened the way Darwin said it did. If that’s the case, then scientists can either (a) revise their hypotheses based on what Darwin wrote, suggesting that they are following the evidence, or (b) ignore the paper, fire the author, and slander his name.

    I have no problem with an old earth and universe, but when evidence is presented (look at the Adam and Eve threads for another example) that shows that humans may have been around for far less time than previously thought, and so have the animals, then the question becomes: do you follow this evidence where it leads?

  27. Elizabeth:

    Easy answer, Mung: because I’m not persuaded that ID is a supported inference.

    LoL! YOU don’t know what support is, Lizzie. Your position doesn’t have any support and yet you cling to it.

    An old age for the earth and universe is not only vast, it is independent and consilient.

    That is false. In order to know the age of the earth you have to know how it formed, and we do not.

    Ya see Lizzie, the accepted age of the earth depends on the earth being totally molten, to the point no crytals could be had. Then as it cooled the crystals formed and trapped the volitile elements, which then decayed and gave us the reading we use. However no one knows if that scenario ever happened.

  28. Barb

    Or maybe they are following the evidence, and it contradicts Darwinian evolution. Do we revisit the hypothesis and make the changes the data demands, or do we fire the person because they questioned Darwin?

    Barb, you are missing the point completely.

    Which is that if a scientist is required, a priori, only to reach conclusions that support a particular view, then no actual science can be done.

    Whether or not that view is correct.

    I have yet to see any good evidence that anyone has been fired for “questioning Darwin”. Yet, right there, in the contract to teach at BIOLA is the requirement that Universal Common Descent be construed as incorrect.

  29. Barb:

    This also means that people who are scientists and who have signed the humanist manifesto also have no credibility as scientists because their job depends, literally, on accepting a specific conclusion.

    Please link to the humanist manifesto, the names of any scientist who has signed it, and evidence that signing it is a requirement of any academic institution.

  30. Which is that if a scientist is required, a priori, only to reach conclusions that support a particular view, then no actual science can be done.

    Two things:

    You don’t actually believe they would be stupid enough to publish something like that. There are other ways to enforce this. One is by tenure and and another is by grant money. Here is what Lehigh did to Behe

    http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/news/evolution.htm

    Do you think such a thing is not intimidation?

    Second, how can you reconcile such a statement as yours above with the fact that not one biologist in the world can support the neo-Darinian view with evidene and yet this nonsense without support is still the only view taught students in almost all the universities on the planet.

  31. Oh, I forgot a third way they can intimidate one into taking the party line. It is there will be no more dinner invitations. Essentially ostracism.

  32. FWIW,

    I’ll be seeing Mark Armitage today at his ICC 2013 talk. Also in attendance likely will be Bob Eynart who has visited UD. Obviously whatever Mark says today might not resolve the issue, but we could go ask around universities as say, “hey would you fire a YEC if he’s started putting out data that raises questions about the geological timescales? Would you deny tenure, would you deny jobs?”

    How about that. We can at least confirm as a general principle if someone will suffer reprisals for harboring certain ideas.

    FWIW, anyone you who frequented Wesley Elsberry’s “After the Bar Closes” website in 2007/2008 will see guys actively discussing ways to contact the faculty at my school (Johns Hopkins University Whiting School of Engineering/Applied Physics Laboratory) to get me tossed out of grad school (which would effectively limit my future career and academic options). So there it is, prejudice as a matter of public record…

    I ended up at the Whiting School of Engineering partly because in 2007 I was precluded from accepting Robert Mark’s invitation to be his student at the evolution informatics lab at Baylor, and it was at that time the Baylor Darwinists shut the lab down and I was at the Whiting School a week later.

    No grad student was allowed to work in the lab for a while, and that meant no stipend and free tuition for them. Thank God the president of Baylor that was involved (Lilly) was eventually fired and the lab reopened and Winston Ewert succeeded where I did not…By the time the lab reopened I was busy getting my business going while I was part-time at the Whiting School of Engineering.

    Thank God YEC Ben Carson is prominent affiliate of my university…

    But I survived, and Dr. Carson was supposed to be the speaker at my graduation were it not for the Gay Rights activists:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....s-of-2013/

    In 2005 I was there at an ID meeting where a reporter from Nature was present that reported my story and that of Caroline Crocker at George Mason. Three weeks after our story made the cover story of Nature, Caroline was dismissed from George Mason.

    It just so happened Caroline’s attorney worked for a law firm that George Mason successfully pressured to get rid of her as a client (Mason had a commercial matter that involved the firm and said they would hire another firm if they didn’t drop Caroline as a client.) So Caroline was dropped as a client and the attorney representing her was fired from the firm…

    See:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....a_bx1.html

    So I have lots of reasons at a personal level to view these allegations as credible, and doubters can go ask around if firing would be a course of action university administrators would approve of regarding individuals harboring or even promoting ideas of ID or creation.

  33. Well, I want to make it clear that if Armitage was dismissed for publishing that paper that is totally unacceptable.

    But I think the chances that that was the case are negligible.

    But I’d be interested to know what Cornelius Hunter’s prospects at BIOLA would be if he published a paper supporting mainstream phylogenetics of hominids.

  34. Jerry:

    Second, how can you reconcile such a statement as yours above with the fact that not one biologist in the world can support the neo-Darinian view with evidene and yet this nonsense without support is still the only view taught students in almost all the universities on the planet.

    What are you referring to as “the neo-Darwinian view”?

  35. jerry:

    …the fact that not one biologist in the world can support the neo-Darinian view with evidene and yet this nonsense without support is still the only view taught students in almost all the universities on the planet.

    C’mon, jerry, what you consider to be a “fact” is (perhaps) not worth a farthing more than your pompous opinion.

  36. your pompous opinion

    I am not sure what is an opinion in my statement, let alone a pompous one.

    not one biologist in the world can support the neo-Darwinian view with evidence

    Never saw anyone let alone a biologist or even an evolutionary biologist who could support neo Darwinism or whatever variation of it one names (Darwinian evolution, modern synthesis or extended synthesis). See Pigliucci for a history of evolutionary thought:

    http://philpapers.org/archive/PIGAES

    This history is not complete because it fails to illustrate a lot of the concepts covered frequently on this site which point out the weaknesses or fallacies of evolution based on the ideas of Darwin and his successors. So I don’t see that as an opinion let alone a pompous one. Maybe a pompous fact if that is a good use of the adjective, “pompous.”

    this nonsense without support is still the only view taught students in almost all the universities on the planet

    Are there biology textbooks widely used that do not teach some form of Darwinism as part of its content? I wasn’t aware of any but maybe there might be a few. If anyone can point out the text books and where they are used, I will gladly correct my statement. So maybe this is the pompous opinion and if guilty will gladly admit it.

  37. jerry:

    The Darwinian mechanism of adaptation is supported by real-time observations in lab, in field and in silico. The role of genetics in the evolution of populations, both by random drift and biased drift (selection) is also supported.

    Phylogenies using both morphological data and genetic data are highly congruent; where they are not, mechanisms have been proposed to account for the discrepancies, e.g. HGT for example by viruses. These hypotheses have been tested, and supporting evidence found.

    Therefore there is clear evidence for both Darwin’s original theory, and for the role played by genetics in the implementation of his proposed mechanism (“neo-Darwinism”).

    There are also other theories about the sources of selectable heritable variance, including symbiosis (Margulis), and epigenetic effects, as well as evidence for population-level selection (the evolvability of evolution).

    So I simply disagree that biologists have no evidence for either a Darwinian or “neo-Darwinian” view. What is true is that the more we find out, the more detailed the picture becomes, and so at any time, the cutting edge makes the consensus view look simplistic.

    But all scientific models are simplistic. That’s why they are called “models”. Truth is always more complicated than the model. In that sense all models are wrong. That does not mean that some models are not better than others. The neo-Darwinian model remains an excellent model.

  38. Elizabeth:

    The Darwinian mechanism of adaptation is supported by real-time observations in lab, in field and in silico.

    Reference please. Lenski’s experiment doesn’t support Darwin. So please reference one that does.

    Lizzie is so deluded she thinks that all change is darwinian…

  39. Thank you for supporting my “pompous” opinion.

    Therefore there is clear evidence for both Darwin’s original theory, and for the role played by genetics in the implementation of his proposed mechanism (“neo-Darwinism”).

    You have only made assertions. We have been asking this question of anti-ID people since this site started about 8 years ago. No one has been able to support Darwinian processes for anything major in evolution. An imperfect analogy but appropriate is that you have given us 2nd grade arithmetic when post graduate functional analysis is required.

    Darwinian processes are applicable only to what is known today as genetics. A very important discipline for medicine and other areas but it has nothing to do with the evolution debate. No one here denies that genetics is not real or useful. So why even mention it. Remember micro-evolution which is essentially genetics is not under contention. Please don’t respond by saying that small changes over time lead to large changes. Citing deep time is an appeal to the ignorant not a scientific explanation

    Also no one is denying that over time, new distinct life forms appeared with complex novel capabilities. However, there is no support for any mechanism to explain these appearances. That is the debate. So diverting to something irrelevant only weakens any argument you are making. So I suggest in the future you abandon any references to genetics or micro evolution.

    Citing appearance in the fossil record does not support a specific mechanism even if it is appears consistent. No one here will debate that the fossil record records changes. What is missing from the fossil record is the appearance of gradual change of one organism into a distinct organism. Remember what appears consistent is just that, only appearance. We want hard evidence. Sudden appearances is also supportive of some of the ID positions.

    So in the future stay away from the irrelevant and we can then have a fruitful debate. Keep away from buzz words and cite evidence. But if you did you would only be the 2nd anti-ID person to ever come here who did.

  40. jerry:

    Never saw anyone let alone a biologist or even an evolutionary biologist who could support neo Darwinism or whatever variation of it one names (Darwinian evolution, modern synthesis or extended synthesis).

    That’s it? What jerry never saw is an argument?

    We have been asking this question of anti-ID people since this site started about 8 years ago. No one has been able to support Darwinian processes for anything major in evolution.

    As jerry would say, “You have only made assertions.”

  41. So in the future stay away from the irrelevant and we can then have a fruitful debate.

    Why is that a sucker’s game?

    Because jerry gets to decide what’s irrelevant.

  42. That’s it? What jerry never saw is an argument?

    Well yes, it is a very good argument. This is a very contentious debate and if one had a good argument then it should appear somewhere including here. One way to prove it wrong is to provide the evidence. This blog is 8 years old and is searchable. So find somewhere in that 8 years where someone made an argument that provides evidence for the various forms of Darwinism.

    If you cannot find it, you have the opportunity to do it yourself by providing the information. Be the first one to do it here. I am sure the authors and commenters would welcome your contribution.

    So have at it.

    As jerry would say, “You have only made assertions.”

    Yes, it is an assertion and one easily proven wrong by providing the evidence.

    Because jerry gets to decide what’s irrelevant.

    No, anyone can make the case that something is relevant or irrelevant. Again provide relevant evidence and say why. It is easy enough.

  43. Thanks, jerry. If Elizabeth @37 can be dismissed so easily, and nobody here or elsewhere has ever passed your cognitive filter, it seems unlikely that it will ever happen.

    Congratulations, you’ve won the debate!

  44. Congratulations, you’ve won the debate!

    I didn’t know your comments were a debate. I was only trying to answer your objections. You assumed that I did not know what I was talking about by your remark, “not worth a farthing more than your pompous opinion.”

    nobody here or elsewhere has ever passed your cognitive filter, it seems unlikely that it will ever happen.

    Not my filter, the filter of common sense. If you do not see why Elizabeth @37 fails the common sense filter, then ask why she fails or why do others fail. You will get a polite reply.

  45. I didn’t know your comments were a debate.

    They weren’t.

    I was only trying to answer your objections.

    What objections?

    You assumed that I did not know what I was talking about by your remark, “not worth a farthing more than your pompous opinion.”

    But jerry, only you know what you’re talking about.

    Not my filter, the filter of common sense.

    Whatever.

    You will get a polite reply.

    I’ll be the judge as to whether the reply is polite.

  46. I’ll be the judge as to whether the reply is polite.

    Thank you.

  47. This blog is 8 years old and is searchable. So find somewhere in that 8 years where someone made an argument that provides evidence for the various forms of Darwinism.

    Jerry, this blog’s comment policy has been somewhat uneven over those eight years. I tried commenting right at the beginning when Bill Dembski was owner and moderator. I tried to ask for a definition of “Intelligent Design” as this seemed an obvious place to look for explanations of ID. My comment (many efforts to post) never appeared. If you want answers about Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution, you would be better looking elsewhere than here.

    I understand your scepticism about the theory of evolution. I have similar doubts about scientific ID.

    I have said:

    …it is apparent there is as yet no scientific theory of Intelligent Design. If there were, it should be easy to rebut my assertion by stating the theory, giving a summary or linking to the appropriate text.

    Do you have any ideas?

  48. Alan Fox:

    My comment (many efforts to post) never appeared. If you want answers about Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution, you would be better looking elsewhere than here.

    Where? ya see Alan it is obvious that no one on this planet has any answers wrt darwinism nor neo-darwinism- you sure as hell can’t answer anything.

    I understand your scepticism about the theory of evolution.

    The “theory” that no one can find!

    As for ID, start with the following:

    What Is the Theory of Intelligent Design?

  49. Earth to Daniel King- Can YOU post positive evidence for darwinism or neo-darwinism? THAT would be the way to refute Jerry (and all of the rest of us who never sw any support for darwinism nor nde).

  50. this blog’s comment policy has been somewhat uneven over those eight years. I tried commenting right at the beginning when Bill Dembski was owner and moderator.

    This is true but a non sequitur concerning my assertion. You and others like you have had carte blanche to say anything about evolution you want. Most of the moderation has been for personal attacks or improper language. I was banned twice, one by Bill Dembski for criticizing his handling of attackers at a university presentation and once by DaveScot for something I forget.

    The moderation has not been against any opportunity to either defend Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution. So your comment is as I said not relevant. You can either provide the basis for the defense of Darwinian processes or point to a comprehensive defense elsewhere. There has never been a limitation on such comments.

    Since neither has happened and there has been no effort to suppress such a response, I can only conclude that one does not exist. The desire to expose the failings of the ID position is probably very intense among many. They would welcome the schadenfreude when the ID position was debunked.

    From the very beginning I have been a defender of Darwinian processes relevant to micro-evolution or what is essentially genetics. But I have been one to point out that Darwinian processes have nothing to do with the essence of the debate, which is the origin of complex novelties or however one wants to express it.

    In textbooks there is usually the bait and switch approach where they use something like the peppered moths or finches to illustrate evolution when we all know that these are meaningless examples. Yet these textbooks will implicitly imply that Darwinian processes explain everything.

    You are surely aware of this since you have been here before I was. So it hard to see how you can feign ignorance of all this or imply the moderation policy is to blame.

    I have similar doubts about scientific ID.

    Later today I will respond to your ID question which is also irrelevant since it has nothing to do with the validity of Darwinian processes in the evolution debate. They are separate issues. I happen to believe that design can be a likely interpretation of a science study without there being a formal discipline known as Intelligent Design. These are separate issue too as you well know.

    I want to read what Joe has linked to before giving my thoughts which have been expressed here more than once in the last couple weeks.

Leave a Reply