5 ms·

Let me get this straight... a noteworthy CS professor points out some obvious and undeniable flaws in the current theory or protein 'evolution.' He also points

Let me get this straight... a noteworthy CS professor points out some obvious and undeniable flaws in the current theory or protein 'evolution.' He also points out that is difficult to get serious researchers to grapple with this issue because Darwinism has turned into a dogma where people are viciously attacked if they point out some fundamental flaws with the idea. Your response: "Almost everything in that article is wrong " "pseudoscientific arguments" "Stephen Meyer is not brilliant and he is a quack" " Computer Science professor has no business arguing about evolution" "widely discredited and dishonest " "known to be fundamentally dishonest" "So it's fundamentally dishonest." "another lie" "fringe views" "fringe creationist quack" In short, you've proved his point. Your comments -- in any other area of discussion on HN -- would probably get you flagged.

the_af 7y ago
> a noteworthy CS professor points out some obvious and undeniable flaws in the current theory or protein 'evolution.' He also points out that is difficult to get serious researchers to grapple with this issue because Darwinism has turned into a dogma where people are viciously attacked if they point out some fundamental flaws with the idea. All of this is wrong. A noteworthy CS professor has zero relevance in a discussion about evolution or biology, particularly when he quotes people who aren't notable in the relevant field and tries to "demolish" strawmen. The word "demolish" is itself a huge red flag. The sources he quoted are creationist crackpots linked to the Discovery Institute, a notoriously dishonest organization who disguises religion as science. It is a mistake for the scientific community to engage with crackpots. > Your comments -- in any other area of discussion on HN -- would probably get you flagged. No, calling crackpots crackpots -- the mainstream consensus -- won't get me flagged. A big indicator of quackery is a persecution complex ("everyone is against me because of dogma", "they want to suppress dissenting views"). I think it's even in Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit. Sometimes people will call someone a crackpot because they've heard their arguments again and again, debunked them, and still that person insists, with a heavy dose of "the world is conspiring against me". It's ok to call that person a crackpot. One last thing: in the US the term "Darwinism" (which the article uses) is almost always used by Creationists, and in a pejorative way. From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism#Other_uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism#Other_uses): "The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an "ism") of philosophical naturalism, or atheism. For example, UC Berkeley law professor and author Phillip E. Johnson makes this accusation of atheism with reference to Charles Hodge's book What Is Darwinism? (1874). However, unlike Johnson, Hodge confined the term to exclude those like American botanist Asa Gray who combined Christian faith with support for Darwin's natural selection theory, before answering the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is Atheism." Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief."
- whowhatwhy 7y ago
  way to do a lot of arguing without actually arguing about anything substantive, A+
  - the_af 7y ago
    What did I miss? I argued that: - The author of TFA is not a subject matter expert. - He relies on the opinions of people known to hold fringe, debunked opinions on the subject matter, like Stephen Meyer. - Said people belong to the Discovery Institute, known to promote religion as science. - It is a pointless exercise for the scientific community to engage with crackpots and people dishonest about their actual goals (e.g. promoting religious views, fighting atheism, whatever it is they believe they are doing). - A persecution complex ("they want to suppress dissenting views") is usually a sign of crackpottery. I believe this is substantive, don't you? > way to do a lot of arguing without actually arguing about anything substantive, A+ If you meant to say "I disagree with you" just say so.
    - whowhatwhy 7y ago
      - It is a pointless exercise for the scientific community to engage with crackpots and people dishonest about their actual goals (e.g. promoting religious views, fighting atheism, whatever it is they believe they are doing). You haven't touched on one single aspect of any of the actual ideas being discussed. All you've offered is ad hominem attacks on the purveyors of the ideas.
      - the_af 7y ago
        His ideas are fringe pseudoscientific ideas at odds with mainstream biology, and he misrepresents the current knowledge he claims to "demolish". He relies on pop culture books from discredited people who are not subject matter experts and who have a religious agenda. What aspect is there to touch?
craigsmansion 7y ago
> points out some obvious and undeniable flaws in the current theory or protein 'evolution.' He doesn't. He showcases his lack of knowledge of biochemistry. > that is difficult to get serious researchers to grapple with this issue It is difficult because serious researchers have found out that explaining these issues doesn't lead to understanding for those who refuse to understand these issues. If I would illustrate that "Nonsense sequences are essentially random" is not true or that "Your task is to invent a new gene by mutation" is a thought experiment completely unrelated to the discussion, would you change your mind, or would you ignore it and focus on some other "obvious and undeniable flaw"? At this point, why would any serious biologist bother explaining something to people who feel their very existence depends on that something not being true?

the_af 7y ago

> a noteworthy CS professor points out some obvious and undeniable flaws in the current theory or protein 'evolution.' He also points out that is difficult to get serious researchers to grapple with this issue because Darwinism has turned into a dogma where people are viciously attacked if they point out some fundamental flaws with the idea. All of this is wrong. A noteworthy CS professor has zero relevance in a discussion about evolution or biology, particularly when he quotes people who aren't notable in the relevant field and tries to "demolish" strawmen. The word "demolish" is itself a huge red flag. The sources he quoted are creationist crackpots linked to the Discovery Institute, a notoriously dishonest organization who disguises religion as science. It is a mistake for the scientific community to engage with crackpots. > Your comments -- in any other area of discussion on HN -- would probably get you flagged. No, calling crackpots crackpots -- the mainstream consensus -- won't get me flagged. A big indicator of quackery is a persecution complex ("everyone is against me because of dogma", "they want to suppress dissenting views"). I think it's even in Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit. Sometimes people will call someone a crackpot because they've heard their arguments again and again, debunked them, and still that person insists, with a heavy dose of "the world is conspiring against me". It's ok to call that person a crackpot. One last thing: in the US the term "Darwinism" (which the article uses) is almost always used by Creationists, and in a pejorative way. From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism#Other_uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism#Other_uses): "The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an "ism") of philosophical naturalism, or atheism. For example, UC Berkeley law professor and author Phillip E. Johnson makes this accusation of atheism with reference to Charles Hodge's book What Is Darwinism? (1874). However, unlike Johnson, Hodge confined the term to exclude those like American botanist Asa Gray who combined Christian faith with support for Darwin's natural selection theory, before answering the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is Atheism." Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief."

whowhatwhy 7y ago
way to do a lot of arguing without actually arguing about anything substantive, A+
- the_af 7y ago
  What did I miss? I argued that: - The author of TFA is not a subject matter expert. - He relies on the opinions of people known to hold fringe, debunked opinions on the subject matter, like Stephen Meyer. - Said people belong to the Discovery Institute, known to promote religion as science. - It is a pointless exercise for the scientific community to engage with crackpots and people dishonest about their actual goals (e.g. promoting religious views, fighting atheism, whatever it is they believe they are doing). - A persecution complex ("they want to suppress dissenting views") is usually a sign of crackpottery. I believe this is substantive, don't you? > way to do a lot of arguing without actually arguing about anything substantive, A+ If you meant to say "I disagree with you" just say so.
  - whowhatwhy 7y ago
    - It is a pointless exercise for the scientific community to engage with crackpots and people dishonest about their actual goals (e.g. promoting religious views, fighting atheism, whatever it is they believe they are doing). You haven't touched on one single aspect of any of the actual ideas being discussed. All you've offered is ad hominem attacks on the purveyors of the ideas.
    - the_af 7y ago
      His ideas are fringe pseudoscientific ideas at odds with mainstream biology, and he misrepresents the current knowledge he claims to "demolish". He relies on pop culture books from discredited people who are not subject matter experts and who have a religious agenda. What aspect is there to touch?

craigsmansion 7y ago

> points out some obvious and undeniable flaws in the current theory or protein 'evolution.' He doesn't. He showcases his lack of knowledge of biochemistry. > that is difficult to get serious researchers to grapple with this issue It is difficult because serious researchers have found out that explaining these issues doesn't lead to understanding for those who refuse to understand these issues. If I would illustrate that "Nonsense sequences are essentially random" is not true or that "Your task is to invent a new gene by mutation" is a thought experiment completely unrelated to the discussion, would you change your mind, or would you ignore it and focus on some other "obvious and undeniable flaw"? At this point, why would any serious biologist bother explaining something to people who feel their very existence depends on that something not being true?