Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Reverend Barry Lynn Blasts Infidels Who Refuse to Venerate Darwinius

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

On May 26, 2009 Reverend Barry Lynn offered his characterization of infidels who refuse to venerate Darwinius. His tirade (supported by Eugenie Scott) can be found here: Show #1415 Eugenie Scott, Susan Russell.

Some excerpts:

Reverend Barry Lynn :
The more new evidence that develops the more some people dig in to their erroneous earlier beliefs
…..
I am still flabbergasted by the notion that no matter what you show some people and say…”this why I believe what I believe” some people say, “nope not enough”….

….the religious right is already saying….”it [Ida (Darwinius)] could be a fake”

What’s wrong with people that they can’t look at evidence and say, “Ok, I didn’t see it before I’m going to re-evaluate based on what I do see.”

But then, less than a month later, reporter Denyse O’Leary pointed us to a Scientific American article:

And in an elaborate public-relations campaign, in which the release of a Web site, a book and a documentary on the History Channel were timed to coincide with the publication of the scientific paper describing her in PLoS ONE, Ida’s significance was described in no uncertain terms as the missing link between us humans and our primate kin. In news reports, team members called her “the eighth wonder of the world,” “the Holy Grail,” and “a Rosetta Stone.”

The orchestration paid off, as Ida graced the front page of countless newspapers and made appearances on the morning (and evening) news programs. Gossip outlets, such as People and Gawker, took note of her, too. And Google incorporated her image into its logo on the main search page for a day.
And in an elaborate public-relations campaign, in which the release of a Web site, a book and a documentary on the History Channel were timed to coincide with the publication of the scientific paper describing her in PLoS ONE, Ida’s significance was described in no uncertain terms as the missing link between us humans and our primate kin. In news reports, team members called her “the eighth wonder of the world,” “the Holy Grail,” and “a Rosetta Stone.”

But a number of outside experts have criticized these claims. Not only is Ida too old to reveal anything about the evolution of humans in particular (the earliest putative human ancestors are a mere seven million years old), but she may not even be particularly closely related to the so-called anthropoid branch of the primate family tree that includes monkeys, apes and us.

So Reverend Lynn was criticizing the skepticism of those who refused to venerate Ida. He insinuated that those who were skeptical of Darwinism were closed minded and had no basis for skepticism of Ida. What does Lynn have to say now? Is anyone aware of a retraction or apology for his smear on those skeptical of Ida?

Let me remind Reverend Lynn of his own words:

What’s wrong with people that they can’t look at evidence and say, “Ok, I didn’t see it before I’m going to re-evaluate based on what I do see.”

Reverend Lynn’s guest on this show was Eugenie Scott. Genie speculated on the large financial interest that certain organizations have in perpetuating the myths and untruths of Darwinius.

Eugenie Scott:

This is a wonderful wonderful fossil….it [Ida (Darwinius)] is a wonderful transitional fossil ……

My hypothesis about the secrecy…had to do with the payment…the asking price was a lot of money…I suspect that it was the company that ended up making the book, making the movie, selling the showing rights to ABC and the history channel…I suspect that the money came from the media…..

Reverend Barry Lynn:
We’re gonna explore…this persistent fear by people from people don’t like evolution. They don’t believe in anything. They don’t include…like Ida.

…we’re talking this first half of the program about the new discovery of a 47-million-year-old skeleton….kind of a branch of the chain that breaks out into lemurs and other varmints and then that branch in the evolutionary ladder, tree or whatever you want to call, that branches out to humans….

Eugenie Scott:
I am looking much more Neanderthal since I had this job…
A real problem that anybody has is when you let your ideologies override the evidence….

Did your irony meter explode like mine did?

NOTE:

To set the record straight, I probably think more highly of Genie and the NCSE than most. She seems like a nice person for the most part (except for her treatment of Sternberg). I think she is mistaken on many issues, but I certainly would not go so far as to say what one teacher in Minnesota said of her organization:

“The NCSE is lying.”

–PZ Myers

Comments
Clive, Thanks for the offer, but I'm afraid I am headed toward the moderation sandbox regardless of what I say. I shall henceforth post elsewhere. Best regards, herbherb
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
herb,
Sir, I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I am waging a “campaign of sarcasm”. It could simply be that I am a poor communicator, or, may I gently suggest, that you just might be seeing more trolls here than there really are. Which is understandable—this place is awash in socks. And of course I can’t answer your loaded question. All I have to stand on is my modest record here as an ID supporter.
First, call me Clive. Second, I'm smarter than that. This post itself is sarcastic. Your record is very modest here as an ID supporter because you don't support ID at all. This place is awash is socks, and you're one of them. You don't want to answer my question, and expose your sock-puppetry. I will give you one more chance to stop having fun with people, and start posting serious comments. Otherwise, you will be moderated, not banned, just moderated.Clive Hayden
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
Frost, Thanks for posting that. After reading your explanation, and rereading my own post, I now see how it could come off as sarcastic. I'll always plead guilty to being too simplistic as well, and I'm sure my wife would agree LOL.herb
August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
Herb I originally did not think your comment was sarcastic- then after I read what Clive said looked back at it I thought it probably was. I just think it was maybe a bit too simplistic- with the QED part being a little over the top because it is totally unclear how UCA was falsified QED simply by my observation that what we really mean by "missing link" is a smooth transition from ape to man. Halibus to Erectus would be a good example - and Mito Eve (or transtions from throughtout this change) might be important as well. But this is not a falsification of UCA just a challenge it must face if it wants to be accepted as fact or close to it. I have no hard feelings against ya- just be careful about how you present your posts. You lucky Dave Judge-and-Jury Scott isn't hear... he would have banned you already. Lol.Frost122585
August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT
Are you going to answer my question of whether you will continue your perpetual campaign of sarcasm? The above is not an answer.
Sir, I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I am waging a "campaign of sarcasm". It could simply be that I am a poor communicator, or, may I gently suggest, that you just might be seeing more trolls here than there really are. Which is understandable---this place is awash in socks. And of course I can't answer your loaded question. All I have to stand on is my modest record here as an ID supporter.herb
August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT
herb,
Perhaps this miscommunication is the reason you and Clive concluded I was being sarcastic.
Are you going to answer my question of whether you will continue your perpetual campaign of sarcasm? The above is not an answer.Clive Hayden
August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
Frost: according to the article history, someone added that anonymously today. Just a few hours ago, in fact. It reads as fairly creationist to me. Namely, someone trying to show that Y-chromosomal Adam could have been Noah, and not trying to discredit that idea. The same person made another edit, this one trying to support the idea that mtEve could really be the biblical Eve. In any case, I've reverted them.Doomsday Smith
August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
Doomsday, another thing i find strange is that article goes out of it's way to try and disprove the Bible's flood theory of descent... I dont follow though exactly how they get to ruling out the existence Noah. It seems they take the time to assert that the flood requires bottle necks right off the bat but without elucudating the reasoning. Not that Eve should be a religious concern anyways- which is a dead giveaway of the obvious bias of the article's author.Frost122585
August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
Doomsday those are the real questions. As far as Eve- I think it is important to demonstate that sequence to insure that man was the result of true common descent. I have not yet seen any good real fossil transitions two and from Eve. In regards to other place I want transitions- how about from halibus to erectus? I have never seen a good first hand sequence between any of these- and so remain theoretic in my mind.Frost122585
August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
Scott, I am gald you agree with my skepticism. I once heard the creationist Hovind say to Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine "I agree with you alot of what you write, you are right to be skeptical of the tons of dumb theories out there... but I wish you would apply some of that skepticism to your advoated theory of Evolution." Regardless of whether UCA is correct or not skepticism is still warrented especially when looking at a fossil lke the one shown here. And I liked your point about "ology"- you right iut takes when than just puting that suffix on the end of your occupation to validate the quality of your expertise. The world today is stupidly fooled by the classical "fallacy by authority"- if logic was taught right in schools people might understand that just because an accredited person- or someone in a postion of authority and or power- says somthing, that has nothign to do with whether it is true or not. The only true authority is reason. Darwinism is more about "progress" as defined in terms of poltical, social, philsosophical and economic terms than it is about sceintific truth- which is what we should be after. People who support Darwinism by and large want it to succeed not because they are interested in a closely scrintinized and then highly agreed upon consensus- but because they only want a certain materialistic view of reality to prevail. Science is a convention- truth is an objective grasp of reality- neither can are derived from occupational sources of authority without careful examination from both inside and outside their respected communities. Nazi Germany is the best example of consensus by authority and majority of society -and it is one example claimed in the name of true science. Everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Science is not about progressing one bias- it is about progressing towards truth and that requires hard logical and rational scrutiny. So my skepticism of UCA may one day prove unecessary if it is clearly shewn to be correct- but until then I agree with Paul Feyerabend's quote about sceintific progress "The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes." We can expect plenty more "missing links" between apes and man to come. But until they get a real one- (without a tail...) I will remain unconvinced and unfooled. They progress towards a theory's absolute acceptance- I progress towards absolute truth.Frost122585
August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
Frost: Mitochondrial Eve was a single and almost certainly anatomically fully-modern human woman, who lived in Africa roughly 150 thousand or so years ago. IOW, millions of years after we parted company from chimpanzees, and around a couple hundred thousand after Neanderthals went their own way. Which is to say, the term "missing link", when applied to mtEve, is even more inappropriate than it usually is. Also, what exactly is your point? What sort of transitional is it, specifically, that you think must be found? Whereabouts in the sequence of ape and hominid fossils should it be? Are there certain features you would find particularly convincing?Doomsday Smith
August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
Herb, No problem and thanks for clarifying. I understand your point completely. Hedge, I think you understand my point regardless of whether Eve is one particular creature or representivite of the very specific and closly related creatures denoting the missing link which leads us into modern humans.Frost122585
August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
Frost122585 said: "As far as my QED- my logic is exactly right- scientists say there was a first human – mitochondrial Eve- and we need the transition to it for the synthesis to be accept as reasonable proven." Now, I'm no expert in Darwinism, but I don't believe this is correct. I believe that Mitochondrial Eve is actually not the first human, but is the most recent common ancestor of all living humans along the maternal line. As far as I can tell, the identity of this person is determined retrospectively and is not fixed in time. That is, 10,000 years ago (to pick an arbitrary timeframe) the person who then could be considered to be most recent common maternal ancestor of all living humans was not the same as the person who is said to hold that title today. Likewise, the Mitochondrial Eve 10,000 years from now will almost certainly not be the same person as it is today. Wikipedia has a pretty decent article on this that you might enjoy.Hedge
August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
Frost,
I made it very clear that I do not totally rule out universal common ancestry- but in light of how un human this thing looks I can hardly consider it THE missing link we all think of between ape like ancestors and modern humans. It really isn’t even close. And in the case of your ridiculous fish Tiktaalik- that is not a missing link between anything. It is insulting to my intelligence that anyone would be convinced of UCA based on an ancient fish.
Let me clarify---I didn't realize that by "missing link" you meant specifically an organism transitional between our alleged apelike ancestors and modern humans. I interpreted your use of the term to be more general, so that you could talk about supposed "missing links" between humans and any of our alleged ancestors. Perhaps this miscommunication is the reason you and Clive concluded I was being sarcastic. I certainly do agree with your main point. BTW, I completely reject the fairy tales that Shubin fronts concerning Tiktaalik.herb
August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
Herb, I made it very clear that I do not totally rule out universal common ancestry- but in light of how un human this thing looks I can hardly consider it THE missing link we all think of between ape like ancestors and modern humans. It really isn't even close. And in the case of your ridiculous fish Tiktaalik- that is not a missing link between anything. It is insulting to my intelligence that anyone would be convinced of UCA based on an ancient fish. As far as my QED- my logic is exactly right- scientists say there was a first human - mitochondrial Eve- and we need the transition to it for the synthesis to be accept as reasonable proven. Now in light of the abundant evidence of UCA I think the fact that Darwinists have to even bring up Tiktaalik at all proves how poor that evidence really is. I remmeber whenn they were saying that birds evolved from dinosaurs - as if to test how gullible the general publically is- the nthey switched to the much more said- retile to bird hypothesis. Appearently evolution changes according to scientific design. Iv'e made my point.Frost122585
August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
Frost @66: I feel similarly. After seeing so many overblown "missing links" which often turned out to be just fragments of bones and which are quickly overturned, I'm not very trusting. These are not cases in which science overturns old ideas in light of new evidence. Rather, great claims are made based on weak evidence or none, and everyone jumps on the bandwagon. So what am I do to when faced with some "overwhelming" lineage of transitional fossils? I don't have time to become a paleontologist or the resources to examine the fossils in person. And yet it's plain as day that some accredited paleontologists will say anything about a few bones if it gains them some notoriety. And no one cares. The field of paleontology is sorely lacking in credibility. It takes more than an "-ology" on the end to make something science.ScottAndrews
August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
herb,
But now Tiktaalik is a second missing link between humans and the ancestral pond scum! So the notion of a unique “missing link” refutes itself! Common descent is therefore falsified, QED.
It's obvious to me that every post you make is sarcastic. Are you doing this for the benefit of anyone or any group in particular? Will you start actually contributing thoughtful comments or will you continue your campaign of sarcasm?Clive Hayden
August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
Frost122585,
There can only be ONE true missing link-the one that gets us to mitochondrial Eve- and we have heard that they have found it “many times” before.
Thanks for pointing this out. Here's what the evos claim: Pond scum -> Ida -> Mitochondrial Eve Now look at this whole situation in a different way. Obviously Ida did not spring fully-formed from the primordial ooze, so from her point of view there must have been a "missing link" between her and the pond scum as well! Let's throw the evos a bone and call it Tiktaalik: Pond scum -> Tiktaalik -> Ida But now Tiktaalik is a second missing link between humans and the ancestral pond scum! So the notion of a unique "missing link" refutes itself! Common descent is therefore falsified, QED.herb
August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Sal, I would like to say that I do not accept common ancestry- however I do not totally rule it out either- my views of science are provisional based on evidence and reasoning that I have expierenced myself- but I am very skeptical of all these "missing links" that the evolutionists have put forth- especiallly in the primate to man sequence. There can only be ONE true missing link-the one that gets us to mitochondrial Eve- and we have heard that they have found it "many times" before. How this particular new one can, once again, rediscover the missing link, or so to speak- is beyond me. It shows this is more about trying to get people to accept Darwinism than it is really about forward origins science. The internet has been a major blow to Darwinism because now with yooutube and site like this people can actually find out about the dissent. Before everyone was either a true beleiving Biblical literalist or at the mersey of what they learned in biology class. Now anyone regardless of what their past is can come into contact with the problems regarding Darwinism- as moreover with the scientific success and development of the theory of ID. I think that all of these primate fossils that have been found- which once you see them you realize they are not as glorious as Scott describes them- are ultimately either classifiable into modern man or ape categories. The fossil record DOES have some "candidates" for transitional fossils- but as we always find out later, those transitions get reevaluated and moved from "missing link" into one distinct category or another. Appearently every new fossil they find that looks somewhat ape like or man like they deem "THE missing link" - that is until it runs out of press coverage and hype - then it's designation "evolves" into some other less significant link- once again usefully leaving open the door for another silver bullet to be crowned some time in the future. The fossil record is very deplete of transitions between major body plans and forms- and until we get some very good remains in a smooth order (which I have yet to see as the orders are always changing) I am going to remain skeptical- as all truly scientifically minded people do. Lets take a look at the missing link Scott romantically calls "a wonderful transitional fossil" http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/files/2009/05/darwinius440.jpg It does not look ANYTHING like a modern human- unless I have in fact have tail that I am unaware of- and is therefore not THE missing link- and very well may not be A missing link of any sginigicance to modern humans either. My fist throught was that it looked more like a dinosaur than a human- and now i think maybe it is more ape like- but close to human? No.Frost122585
August 12, 2009
August
08
Aug
12
12
2009
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
Lenoxus, My point is we don't know if these fossils are really transitionals or we accept them to be because the paradigm needs them. Phenotypic platicity can also explain apparent transitionls. Also the fossil recird is made up mostly of marine invertebrates, >95%. In that vast majority we do not observe universal common descent. Also there isn't anything in any genome, that we know of, that determines form. Influences, yes, determines, no. We don't seem to have any evidence of an accumulation of mutations doing much of anything. Natural and sexual selection keep the norm and reign in the "freaks", the outsiders, the mutants. Heck with sexual reproduction there isn't any guarantee a beneficial change will get passed on. Then if you have more than one competeing beneficial change...Joseph
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
Nakashima, #1- I will get to the video later. I am going to read his book "Your Innner Fish" sometime this year.Joseph
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Nakashima san "You haven’t addressed my question. Is this your personal level of skepticism and evidence or do you think other people (such as myself) should only change their beliefs when provided with this amount of evidence?" First the level of detail I was requesting wrt macro evolution was from evolutionists like Dawkins or Coyne not ID researchers. I need low brow books by the likes of Dawkins since my background is in electrical engineering and applied mathematics. I spent my career doing all kinds of programming- real time, operating system, application and compilers and interpreters. Due to attending high school in various schools and countries I managed never to take any biology which is my loss. Religiously I am an evolutionary creationist or what is often called a theistic evolutionist in terms of origins. The universe appears to be about 15 * 10**9 years old and the earth about 4.7 * 10**9. Second You have to decide for yourself what level of evidence you require. However I note that Coyne in his book provides all kinds of evidence for sexual dimorphism in birds eg the peacocks tail. Yet when he deals with evolution of complex biological features he is largely silent and comes no wheres near the level of detail I am asking for. He discusses experiments where birds tails were made longer and shorter and what affect that had on attracting mates. Yes I know that the level of detail that I am looking for is very hard to obtain but large claims require large amounts of evidence. IMO the evolutionists do not even have a prima facie case for macro evolution all they have is hand waving and just so stories. If I am wrong please point me at a low brow book with the level of detail I am asking for. My understanding that the state of the art right now is that if you provide a biologist a genetic change that they are unable to reliably infer what if any external change would be visible ie they can't go from genome to morphology. So in summary if you ask me where I stand on macro evolution my response is that it appears to have happened but we have no real idea as to the mechanism of how it happened. Coyne and Dawkins may be right, Behe may be right, who knows but I lean towards some kind of intelligent input. When people assert that science supports their religious world view I get rather skeptical and atheism is Coyne's and Dawkins religion/world view IMO. Dave W ps Sorry my comments are delayed but I only have periodic access to the net plus I am doing construction on our summer home. I wrote this earlier but it did not post.gingoro
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
Mr Joseph, Watch the YouTube video I linked to earlier, and you can hear for yourself what Shubin said. Since you are someone who enjoys demanding an answer, I would appreciate the same consideration. Have we been talking, in your view, about 1, 2, or an equivocaton between them?Nakashima
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Joseph:
Also it is a safe bet that Shubin doesn’t even know whether the transformations required- to go from fish to land animal- are even possible.
You keep saying that ("even possible") whenever transitionals come up. I think you mean "possible by purely evolutionary means" or something like that. Obviously, if macroevolutionary changes are impossible, then not even a designer could cause them, and all relevant fossils must be illusions or hoaxes. (Personally, I think a good word is "plausible". That at least one line of fish naturally developed a walking ability seems plausible to me and, more relevantly, to experts in the relevant fields. Obviously, such an ability was developed one way or another — and we don't have data yet demonstrating such a transition by any means, artificially or no. So in that sense, we also don't know yet whether it's possible for a designer to induce the required change, one or more mutations at a time.)Lenoxus
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Also it is a safe bet that Shubin doesn't even know whether the transformations required- to go from fish to land animal- are even possible. Perhaps you could also cover that.Joseph
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
Then produce Shubin's hypothesis. Then we can all see if it pertained to non-telic processes. Ya see there is this peer-reviewed paper that says there isn't enough time for non-telic processes to do the trick. So it would be interesting to see what Shubin actually said.Joseph
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
Mr Joseph, I'm trying to see your point, but it is difficult. 1. Shubin's hypothesis was that non-telic material forces caused a certain kind of animal to live at a certain period, and that the remains of that animal might be preserved by the subsequent material, non-telic geohistory of the planet. 2. Shubin's thinking was itself an act of an intelligent agent, designing it's goals and activities. I have been under the impression that your repeated demands have been answered by 1 above. Have you really been talking about 2 the whole time? Did you switch between 1 and 2 earlier? Do you agree with 1 but find 2 problematic? Do you think the combination of 1 and 2 forms a contradiction?Nakashima
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
Nakashima, You can't even form a testable hypothesis using non-telic processes. If you think I am wrong then have at it- produce a testable hypothesis based on non-telic processes. Your failure to do so will expose your position as a fantasy.Joseph
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
As for the sanctimonious wolf in sheeps clothing – the very un-reverand – Lynn, who never pastored a church, cared for a precious baby, but only seeks to murder them, frankly he’s an absurd character, masking hatred and lies, distortions and mocking about the bible, Christ and history.
He's an ordained minster for the United Church of Christ. Are you saying that despite that ordaination, the reverend never was a pastor?scordova
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
Mr Gingoro, Thank you for the introduction! No need to apologise for the spotty access. We all have day jobs! I've enjoyed the popular science books by Sean Carroll, His most recent one with the whole ice fish discussion was very good. But I've also found that to really get a good grip on the arguments, I have to go deeper. I read Lynn Margulis' book on symbiosis. and Raff's Shape of Life was excellent but very challenging for me. Now I am struggling with Valentine's On the Origin of Phyla, but most of the time it is winning! :) On the subject of macro-evolution, at this point do you think that all speciation events need help from an intelligent agent or just some? The second view has been presented as the position of Alfred Russell Wallace.Nakashima
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply