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
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 and 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.gingoro
August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
I'm pretty sure this is the case regarding Shubin and the telic. 1. Shubin "invoked" one or more processes to explain something. (The same process invoked by nearly all others working in his field.) 2. Shubin has never invoked any telic processes. 3. Therefore, Shubin invoked one or more non-telic processes. I am assuming that all hypotheses are either telic or non-telic. Non-telic does not mean that no agent could possibly be behind the process in question, but that none is necessary — it's an equivalent to the distinction between "innocent" and "not guilty". Science has no more business being "atheist" than law has of determining a defendant's "innocence". To bornagain: I have to say, I ? your comma-triplets! They are like trains of ducklings and have grown on me.Lenoxus
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT
Mr BA^77, as far as I am concerned please respect my wishes for you to refrain from commenting on anything I say as I am done with your antics. I'll try to respect your wishes, but this is an open forum. If we are both posting in the same thread, you have to be prepared for that. Plus you've got a way of making dogmatic and absolute statements that invites response.Nakashima
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT
Mr Joseph, In order to invoke something it has to be explicitly stated. I've never seen a scientific article that forced the authors to recite their belifs about the Big Bang, formation of the Solar System, etc to provide warrant that the hypothesis discussed was non-telic. Do you think every experiment needs a stick "No Telic Process Assumed"? Do you seriously put forward the possibility that Dr Shubin was using telic assumptions in choosing what to look for and where?Nakashima
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT
"intelligent agent" materialist believe in little green men.... Atheist, Materialist Richard Dawkins believes little green men are possible ancestors DATCG
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
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. That the NCSE is so deparate to allow such a snake-oil salesman into their fascist abode is telling. They're losing when a scoundrel like this is run out as their foot soldier, lol... please, put him on TV as an NCSE representative over and over.DATCG
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT
Nakashima, "Since all the intelligent agents I’m familiar with are solidly materialistic, I take it you are voting for a visit by littering space aliens 4 billion years ago" Why do you keep referring to Richard Dawkins little green men evolutionary tale? Afterall, it is the athest materialist like Dawkins who pawn off little green men stories. Your materialist friends are a hoot. Thanks for bringing the subject up space aliens by a materialist, dogmatic zealot like Dawkins up again. Your humor is a good reminder of your sides double-standards and blatant hypocrisy.DATCG
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT
Why is bornagain77 abandoning the conversation? Because it is impossible to have one with you.Joseph
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
Nakashima, Only the uneducated think that by not invoking something in reality invokes something. IOW if Shubin didn'y invoke telic processes only the uneducated would say that is invoking non-telic processes. In order to invoke something it has to be explicitly stated.Joseph
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Mr BA^77, Why abandon the conversation now? We are talking about a specific case, not spraying videos all over the place. Let's talk about that quote from Ohno-sensei, I don't think his point was quite what Dr Meyer, et al made it out to be.Nakashima
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
If all you have is to throw time at something then you don’t have any science, you have faith. Nakashima:
Hardly, sir.
Then please tell me how it is scientific to just throw time at something.Joseph
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
Mr Joseph, If all you have is to throw time at something then you don’t have any science, you have faith. Hardly, sir. You asked if someting was transitional. You can only know that retrospectively. There is a cherry tree in a park near where I live. Is it a member of a transitional species? Tell me, Mr Joseph, how you would know using ID?Nakashima
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
R0b, I think plenty of the evolution skepticks here would admit to once having unquestioning belief in evolution. I was one of them.Berceuse
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
bornagain77:
You cannot falsify a theory in a mind of someone that has such uncritical acceptance and blind faith as Darwin does in your eyes,
Just out of curiosity, have you ever falsified evolutionary theory in the eyes of anyone who didn't already believe it to be false?R0b
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
Mr Joseph, So that’s it? Now I understand why the vast majority of people reject the non-telic position. Too bad you can’t provide any support for your claim. Shubin describes how he found Tiktaalik without invoking a telic process (AKA using a non-telic process) Proof by YouTube! Thank you Mr BA^77 for revealing the secret to me!Nakashima
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
Nak, I've done my job, far be it from me to show you that the only thing that is consistent with the Darwinian theory is the evolutionists hypocrisy to overlook any deficiency of evidence no matter how great and to promote any trivial evidence no matter how questionable,,,You cannot falsify a theory in a mind of someone that has such uncritical acceptance and blind faith as Darwin does in your eyes, ...as far as I am concerned please respect my wishes for you to refrain from commenting on anything I say as I am done with your antics.bornagain77
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
Mr BA^77, Well, it seems Mr Darwin was predicting that the history of life extended at least 600 million years back past the Cambrian, and he was right. Where is the failed prediction?Nakashima
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Nakashima:
Come back in 5 million years, and you’ll have an idea!
If all you have is to throw time at something then you don't have any science, you have faith. Your trinity is Mother Nature, Father Time and magical Mystery Mutations.Joseph
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Nakashima:
I’m provisionally sure that if Shubin wasn’t predicting a telic process, then he was predicting a non-telic process.
So that's it? Now I understand why the vast majority of people reject the non-telic position. Too bad you can't provide any support for your claim.
Two of my favorite examples are the single mutation that was capable of changing an annual plant to a perennial woody type, and the genetic evidence of the development of tricolor vision in primates such as man.
1- It wasn't a single mutation that did that. It was a simultaneouly intelligently introduced mutations- ie genetically engineered changes. 2- The alleged development of tri-color vision could also be seen as evidence for the loss of tri-color vision.Joseph
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
The role of bacteria in hydrogeochemistry, metal cycling and ore deposit formation: Textures of sulfide minerals formed by SRB (sulfate-reducing bacteria) during bioremediation (most notably pyrite and sphalerite) have textures reminiscent of those in certain sediment-hosted ores, supporting the concept that SRB may have been directly involved in forming ore minerals. http://www.goldschmidt2009.org/abstracts/finalPDFs/A1161.pdf Transitional Metals And Cytochrome C oxidase - Michael Denton - Nature's Destiny http://books.google.com/books?id=CdYpDRY0Z6oC&pg=PA203&lpg As well, geological processes helped detoxify the earth The Concentration of Metals for Humanity's Benefit: Excerpt: They demonstrated that hydrothermal fluid flow could enrich the concentration of metals like zinc, lead, and copper by at least a factor of a thousand. They also showed that ore deposits formed by hydrothermal fluid flows at or above these concentration levels exist throughout Earth's crust. The necessary just-right precipitation conditions needed to yield such high concentrations demand extraordinary fine-tuning. That such ore deposits are common in Earth's crust strongly suggests supernatural design. http://www.reasons.org/TheConcentrationofMetalsforHumanitysBenefit And on top of the fact that poisonous heavy metals on the primordial earth were brought into "life-enabling" balance by complex biogeochemical processes, there was also an explosion of minerals on earth which were a result of that first life, as well as being a result of each subsequent "big bang" of life there afterwards. The Creation of Minerals: Excerpt: Thanks to the way life was introduced on Earth, the early 250 mineral species have exploded to the present 4,300 known mineral species. And because of this abundance, humans possessed all the necessary mineral resources to easily launch and sustain global, high-technology civilization. http://www.reasons.org/The-Creation-of-Minerals To put it mildly, this minimization of poisonous elements, and maximization on useful minerals, is strong evidence for Intelligently Designed terra-forming of the earth that "just so happens" to be of great benefit to modern man. Man has only recently caught on to harnessing the ancient detoxification ability of bacteria to cleanup his accidental toxic spills, as well as his toxic waste from industry: What is Bioremediation? - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSpjRPWYJPg Clearly many, if not all, of these metal ores and minerals laid down by these sulfate-reducing bacteria, as well as laid down by the biogeochemistry of more complex life, as well as laid down by finely-tuned geological conditions throughout the early history of the earth, have many unique properties which are crucial for technologically advanced life, and are thus indispensable to man’s rise above the stone age to the advanced "space-age" technology of modern civilization. Metallurgy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy Inventions: Elements and Compounds - video http://videos.howstuffworks.com/hsw/20809-invention-elements-and-compounds-video.htmbornagain77
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
As Well Nak, please cite me a paper where they have conclusively generated functional information, of say 140 fits, by natural processes, instead of you cherry picking fringe stuff of what you want to look at,,,I really don't have time to waste with you! So just show me the evidence that conclusively establishes evolution is even plausible for what we know of reality! Or as someone has famously said: "Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting." -- Ernest Rutherford The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” Then once you explain information generation to a base level of physics, I may take you seriously, other than that Nak, evolution is a joke and you are one of its worst comedians. By the way I use "latent genes" to show the ancient terra-forming ability of bacteria- Interestingly, while the photo-synthetic bacteria were reducing greenhouse gases and producing oxygen, and metal, which would be of benefit to modern man, "sulfate-reducing" bacteria were also producing their own natural resources which would be very useful to modern man. Sulfate-reducing bacteria helped prepare the earth for advanced life by detoxifying the primeval earth and oceans of poisonous levels of heavy metals while depositing them as relatively inert metal ores. Metal ores which are very useful for modern man as well as fairly easy for man to extract today (mercury, cadmium, zinc, cobalt, arsenic, chromate, tellurium and copper to name a few). To this day, sulfate-reducing bacteria maintain an essential minimal level of these heavy metals in the ecosystem which are high enough so as to be available to the biological systems of the higher life forms that need them yet low enough so as not to be poisonous to those very same higher life forms. (Ross: Creation As Science) Bacterial Heavy Metal Detoxification and Resistance Systems: excerpt: Bacterial plasmids contain genetic determinants for resistance systems for Hg2+ (and organomercurials), Cd2+, AsO2, AsO43-, CrO4 2-, TeO3 2-, Cu2+, Ag+, Co2+, Pb2+, and other metals of environmental concern. http://www.springerlink.com/content/u1t281704577v8t3/ http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/26/m026p203.pdfbornagain77
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Nak, Cambrian Prediction: Darwin realized that building highly complex animals such as trilobites from single-celled organisms by natural selection operating on minute, step-by-step variations would require a multitude of transitional forms and failed biological experiments over vast amounts of geologic time. Accordingly he made the following prediction: . . .if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. 24---Reference;Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species, 1859, reprint (Penguin Books, 1985), p. 313. Also see first edition Harvard University Press, facsimile reprint (1964), p. 307. Darwin’s original quote used the “Silurian” rather than the “Cambrian” because in Darwin’s time, what we now label the Cambrian period was subsumed within the concept of the lower Silurian. Darwin’s prediction is significant because of his appreciation of the amount of time that his theory required. Geologists in Darwin’s day employed relative dating methods. They did not yet have modern radiometric methods for determining the “absolute” date of rocks. Nevertheless, Darwin had a clear picture of what his postulated selection/variation mechanism implied about the history of life. On his theory, complex structures could only be built gradually, minute improvement by minute improvement. Thus, natural selection would require vast periods of time to create new biological forms and structures. Even in the 19th century, Darwin understood that this process would take many tens or hundreds of millions of years. Modern neo-Darwinists concur in this view. As noted above, neo-Darwinism envisions minute changes in gene sequences accumulating very slowly as the result of random mutations. Empirically-derived estimates of mutation rates in extant organisms, suggest that the kind of large scale morphological changes that occurred in the Cambrian would have required far more time than the duration of the explosion. As Susumo Ohno has explained: Assuming a spontaneous mutation rate to be a generous 10-9 per base pair per year and also assuming no negative interference by natural selection, it still takes 10 million years to undergo 1% change in DNA base sequences. It follows that 6-10 million year in the evolutionary time scale is but a blink of an eye. The Cambrian explosion denoting the almost simultaneous emergence of nearly all the extant phyla of the Kingdom Animalia within the time span of 6-10 million years can’t possibly be explained by mutational divergence of individual gene functions.25 http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/Cambrian.pdfbornagain77
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
MR BA^77, in re the Cambrian Explosion - what was the prediction? Please be specific.Nakashima
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
Mr BA^77, Mr Joseph and I have already had sevral discussions around these issues. Two of my favorite examples are the single mutation that was capable of changing an annual plant to a perennial woody type, and the genetic evidence of the development of tricolor vision in primates such as man. I'd be happy to discuss them again.Nakashima
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
Nak, please answer Joseph's question on mutations because even as Darwin himself insisted: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." We are not asking for much,,,just maybe the demonstration of something like the flagellum being formed in the laboratory: As for the Cambrian which you so non-nonchalantly ignore, Darwin considered a huge problem for his theory as well that would be "cleared up" with future fossil discoveries. He was wrong once again in his prediction! Why don't you mention that glaring failed prediction that is so contrary? Oh that's right you don't care about the truth and only want to defend your atheism no matter what deception you have to use! As for you saying that the air-breathing fish will change in a few million years,,,I ask you,,,exactly what evidence do you base this speculation on other than your deluded desires for the fossil record to be as you wish it would be so as to conform to your God-free illusion of the universe... The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists --Gould The fossil record may, after all, be 99 percent imperfect, but if you can, nonetheless, sample a species at a large number of horizons well spread over several million years, and if these samples record no net change, with beginning and end points substantially the same, and with only mild and errant fluctuation among the numerous collections in between, then a conclusion of stasis rests on the *presence* of data, not on absence! --- Gould http://www.blavatsky.net/newsletters/fossil_record.htmbornagain77
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
Mr Joseph, Are they also transitionals? Come back in 5 million years, and you'll have an idea! I think we are all either transitional or going extinct. We won't know for a while...Nakashima
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
Mr Joseph, I'm provisionally sure that if Shubin wasn't predicting a telic process, then he was predicting a non-telic process.Nakashima
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
BTW there are air-breathing fish in the Amazon River today. Are they also transitionals?Joseph
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
Nakashima:
How was Shubin’s prediction of Tiktaalik a ‘telic process’ prediction?
Who said it was? What you need to do is show it was a prediction borne from non-telic processes.Joseph
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
Nak, You never address anything that is asked of you and always refer to dubious evidence, then act all innocent as to it all didn't matter when all that really matters to you is to deny any teleological inference whatsoever, this is not science. In fact I want you to provide a concise answer to Joseph's question and not just dance around with semantics. "IOW what is the evidence that demonstrates mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery and new body plans?"bornagain77
August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply