"There really is not a lot of evidence for evolution"

[Bucky]

"There really is not a lot of evidence for evolution," says biology professor Caroline Crocker, who supports the theory of intelligent design.
fucking moron from the Washington Post Eden and Evolution

Crocker was about to establish a small beachhead for an insurgency that ultimately aims to topple Darwin's view that humans and apes are distant cousins. The lecture she was to deliver had caused her to lose a job at a previous university, she told me earlier, and she was taking a risk by delivering it again. As a nontenured professor, she had little institutional protection. But this highly trained biologist wanted students to know what she herself deeply believed: that the scientific establishment was perpetrating fraud, hunting down critics of evolution to ruin them and disguising an atheistic view of life in the garb of science.

Is Creationism adapting itself into "Intelligent Design theory" an example of evolution?

It took a while for Nguyen, Lowe and the other students to realize what they were hearing. Some took notes; others doodled distractedly. Crocker brought up a new slide. She told the students there were two kinds of evolution: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is easily seen in any microbiology lab. Grow bacteria in a petri dish; destroy half with penicillin; and allow the remainder to repopulate the dish. The new generation of bacteria, descendants of survivors, will better withstand the drug the next time. That's because they are likely to have the chance mutations that allow some bacteria to defend themselves against penicillin. Over multiple cycles, increasingly resistant strains can become impervious to the drug, and the mutations can become standard issue throughout the bacterial population. A new, resistant strain of bacteria would have evolved. While such small changes are well established, Crocker said, they are quite different from macroevolution. No one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory.

Take THAT, you naysayers!

The students leaned forward. They were starting to realize that this was unconventional material for a biology class. Many scientists, Crocker added, believe that complex life reveals the hand of an intelligent designer. The theory of intelligent design holds that while the evolutionary forces of random genetic mutation and natural selection may shape species on a small scale, they cannot account for the kind of large-scale differences between, say, chimpanzees and humans. Only some form of intelligence -- most people read that phrase as "God" -- could have accounted for the origin of life from nonliving matter, or the existence of complex structures within cells and organisms that rely on many parts functioning together. While many advocates of the theory of intelligent design, including Crocker, are religious, some are not. What unites these advocates is not religion but the belief that supernatural forces are active in everyday life. Science, they say, fails to see the true nature of the world when it refuses to admit anything other than material evidence. Crocker believes that biological systems cannot grow more complex on their own any more than a novel, through chance typographical errors, can turn into a different book, with a different story. How could anyone think that new books get written because of typos in old books?

Man Bites God: Film at Eleven

[varkam]

1. I guess dinosaurs never existed then...

Since, of course, we've never replicated them in a laboratory. We've seen evidence in the world, such as fossilized remains - but this must be tantamount to fraud, and since we cannot replicate it empirically, we must reject it.

I think it's funny she holds evolution to such a strict scientific standard (i.e. replication of macroevolution in a controlled setting), but ID to such lax scientific standards (i.e. well it's just too complex and must be God!). As far as I understand the debate, the central feature of science is testability and refutation. The big problem with ID is that the conclusion cannot be refuted via scientific means (although it can be at least challenged on theological / philosophical grounds). In other words, you can't replicate a "designer" in a controlled setting, either. Just my .02.

[McKenzie]

16. why do I have nipples?

OK varkam, I know I replied to your post about Christianity andd ethics to say "not worth it", or words to that effect. The debate is a worthy one but I feel it divides DU into two camps and generates loads of bad feeling. I've seen DU'ers get really pissed off with one another in Christianity threads. That is my main reason for not wanting us to get too deeply into the complex area of ethics in the context of the (almost) universal faith of Christianity on this board, at least amongst those who hold such faith.

So, at the risk of hypocrisy given what I have just said, please biology Professor...please tell me why I, a male, have nipples. They're of practically no use at all so WTF give me the damned things?

Cheers varkam

[varkam]

26. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is....

I should keep my views to myself, because I might upset someone's sensibilities? I agree that most everyone here is probably a Christian, but I don't think I've been derogatory in espousing my views. I've not called anyone names, nor have I said anyone is stupid for believing anything other than I do. And what's more, I've backed up anything I've posted with (semi) coherent arguments - it's not as though I'm just looking to pick a fight.

<edit for spelling>

[FreedomAngel82]

69. I think he was just warning you

As a Christian I have gotten into some heated debates with people before here and not long ago. So just becareful. "ID" and things like that this liberal Christian knows you can't prove it and science is about seeing and studying things.

[Lorien]

39. Here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8798141

[jsamuel]

48. hehe, thanks, now I know why men have nipples

[genie_weenie]

41. Other biological oddities

Why did God design Humans with a blind spot? Does God have an appendix? Why design lungs for a vertical creature in such a way that things which get trapped in the bottom of the lung can not be expelled?

Of course, some men get excited by nipple stimulation...

And if we are going to teach about Intelligent Design, I want Norse ID used. And Wotan did slay Thyrm and from his blood became the seas, and from his hair became the forests and from his skull the vault of Heaven.


ODIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

[Crunchy Frog]

49. I liked how Jon Stewart addressed that issue

on a recent program where he had an IDer. He came right out and basically asked "what about my scrotum?". The guy didn't have a good answer to that question.

[breakfastofchampions]

52. The purpose of the scrotum is obvious

I don't get why we have tonsils, toe nails or the appendix. And acne.

[Crunchy Frog]

55. I think his point was, not that it doesn't have it's purpose, but

that for what it's purpose is, it is very poorly designed. It was also intended to be humorous, of course.

[Tesha]

57. Okay, what's the purpose?

> The purpose of the scrotum is obvious

Okay, what's the purpose? Other than to act as a hack-fix
to the problem that testicles can't produce sperm and
often become cancerous when operated at the prevailing
mammalian body temperature?

Well I say "Balls!" to *THAT* idea! *WHAT KIND OF DESIGN
WAS THAT*? How intelligent was *THAT* designer?

Tesha

[Crunchy Frog]

80. Seems to me

that human testicles were designed apallingly badly. If I were a man, I'd be inclined to sue the "intelligent" designer.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tesha]

87. Evolutionary biologists turning lemons into lemon-aide...

In what I think is probably an example of evolutionary biologists
trying to turn a pair of lemons into lemon-aide, you'll occasionally
hear it argued that the very fragile nature of testicles is a deliberate
part of the "natural selection" process. In fights, male wild animals
are likely to lose those naughty bits, ensuring that they don't go on
to reproduce, even if they are not outright killed.

Humans, of course, mostly evade this strategy through the use of clothing
(or at least Jockey shorts).

Tesha

[Occulus]

23. What I find funny is

they hold the fossils up as a "test of faith", which ONLY tells me their "god" is a lying sack of shit asshole.

[malaise]

54. You are 100% correct

I've stopped debating the topic.

[FreedomAngel82]

68. You can't prove "ID"

There is no proof of it. I'd love for SOMEONE to go out and challenge them and say "prove it."

[ChoralScholar]

2. wow, what catalog did she order HER degree out of?

I'm missing out. I too could become a professor without any real knowledge whatsoever!!

[Crunchy Frog]

15. Part of a new creationist strategy

is to put some of their people through higher education in order for them to attain advanced degrees in biology, so that they can then trot out "highly trained biologists" who believe in creationism. Anybody can get an advanced degree if they do the work and have a mocicum of cleverness, even people who are getting their degrees for the express purpose of using them to promote non-scientific belief systems.

[BlueIris]

45. Egh. That's ugly.

It's been three years since I last looked into the progress of this strategy. Sad to see that apparently...it's...it's...real.

[JHB]

65. I can believe that...

...One of the counter-creationist arguments for at least two decades has been that all their "doctors", PhDs, and other "scholars" were almost never in the fields they were critcizing; Henry Morris was a hydrologist (which is at least semi-related to "flood theory", but that's been obfuscated as they've tried to play "religiously neutral"), you'll find others may be doctors of engineering, etc. Few if any actual biologists (and even those, it's questionable how much research they do). The arguments made here are straight out of (repeatedly debunked) creationist presentations from 20 years ago, yet here it they are, in a biology classroom!

It really wouldn't surprise me if creationists had sponsored some kind of "stealth scholar" program, although it needn't be that "tinfoily" -- just some fundys who went into biology on their own, inevitably running aground on professional shoals, and turning to small, non-research colleges and deciding to use that as a base to advocate their religious beliefs (dressed as ID)>

[Road Scholar]

18. Really, honest to God, these folks are crazy. I could almost

halfway understand that line being swallowed by some poor uneducated person
who never had the chance to be be taught science and logic. But I'll never
believe that she and Fallwell, Dobson, really believe that bullshit. I'll die believing that they were fully aware of the truth and were taking advantage of their position to further their own cause and to line their own pockets.

[crizzo5137]

3. All must repent...

the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not amused....

[punpirate]

4. Idiots with media exposure...

... are still idiots.

End of sermon.

[davidinalameda]

5. what gets me is "microevolution" and "macroevolution"

I just heard those terms recently from a creationist
to me, evolution is evolution-microevolution is just a stage of macroevolution or whatever you want to call it

the smaller changes lead to overall changes

and no, you're never going to see a dog turn into a cat in the lab unless you have someone seriously manipulating the organism

macroevolution does not take place overnight and I have yet to hear anyone claim that it does

it takes place over years, decades, centuries

it's so easy for these people to confuse the average person by repeating this crap enough times

the average person doesn't know enough science to dispute these claims

[dysfunctional press]

7. another reason you won't see a dog turn into a cat-

is that it's not how it works...somewhere back in the evolutionary chain, there is a common ancestor shared by dogs & cats(and likely many others). some of this ancestors descendents eventually developed into cats, some into dogs, some into other things- over many many many generations, eons and species, in order to get to the animals that we know today.

[rooboy]

6. Even if there was intelligent design...

who says that the "intelligent designer" was Jesus?

[dysfunctional press]

8. it obviously wasn't jesus...

he didn't even exist until 2000some years ago.

[genie_weenie]

42. woooooo

Im the first mammal to wear pants, yeah
Im at peace with my lust
I can kill cause in God I trust, yeah
Its evolution, baby

Mr. Ed Vedder, PJ Do the Evolution, Yield 1998

[dysfunctional press]

9. and there's a number of things not too intelligent about the design-

my aching back and failing eyesight could tell you that.

[DaveJ]

11. Not to mention having a few organs we don't need...

appendix, gal bladder... I don't think an intelligent deigner would be so sloppy by giving us organs that serve no purpose except to get infected and have to be taken out.

[fishwax]

10. a dog has never mutated into a cat?! Everything I believe turns out to

be a lie :cry:

:rofl:

:argh:

[Occulus]

25. Maybe not, but...

...Schrodinger's cat can live and die at the same time.

Take THAT, Godwarriors!!

[DaveJ]

12. She really seems to enjoy posing for the camera

Makes me wonder if her showboating is more about teaching her students, or rather her unfulfilled dream to be queen of the prom.

[dorktv]

44. Yeah she was pissed when I beat her.

[wickerwoman]

13. Exhibit A: The Flounder.

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/why_are_flounder_funny_looking/

Flounders have both eyes on top of their heads so they can lie on the bottom of the ocean and see predators above them. But when they're young their eyes are symetrical on either side of their head like most fish. As they age, their skull reshapes itself and their eyes drift up to the top until they're next to each other.

So you're God and you want to design a fish that lies on the bottom of the ocean. Why wouldn't you just design it with eyes on top of it's head instead of having it go through a dramatic skeletal reassembly?

Anyone? Anyone? Caroline? I didn't think so.

While you're at it, why do human embryoes have tails, webbed fingers, and (at one stage) gills?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

32. You are NOT to question bezdomny

God specifically put the flounder here to fuck with our heads. Doncha know anything???

[Hekate]

14. I'm sure Bob Jones University has a slot for her in their "Science" Dept.

Her Sunday School sermon will fit right in there.

I think we should consider it a failure of a university education if any graduate in any major cannot tell you the difference between scientific theory and a theological statement.

There is nothing -- nothing at all -- that dictates that a scientist must be an atheist; in fact, many scientists hold the Universe in awe, whether or not they are churchgoers. But a scientist who has a religious faith and who cannot tell the difference between scientific theory and theology is no scientist.

Hekate

[Crunchy Frog]

17. Evolutionary theory does not predict

that you would ever see "a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory". The thing that this "highly trained biologist" knows the most about is obfuscation. I wonder if that's what she got her degree in. She's touting the same tired old arguements that the creationists have been trotting out for decades, but expects them to have more validity if they get trotted out by an "expert".

[DanCa]

19. Well.. I am just joking here ..mind you :D

How can Dubya be stupidier than his old man :D I mean evolution doesn't work backwards.
The above was a joke, a jab, a quip, and a jest. Just so were clear :D

[opihimoimoi]

20. Crocker fell off the Rocker....way off base..her comprehension is at risk

[RC]

21. Her picture has been flipped.

Notice her watch and wedding ring. Why do people do flip news pictures?

[Tesha]

58. Sometimes it's just someone being unintelligent. (NT)

[Nikia]

22. She should not teach religion in a scince class anyway

There are some scientists who hold things they can directly observe in the laboratory to be more valid than things that are not directly observable. People who work in applied biology and chemistry might be more vunerable to this sort of thinking because most of their work can be verified in the laboratory. Regardless, she has a responsibility to teach science without getting religion involved. If she was uncomfortable with the curriculm, which I assume was somewhat set at a community college, she should not have agreed to teach the class.

[FreedomAngel82]

70. Is that a public school?

[JNelson6563]

24. Is that a little cross on her neck there?

Why fundies go into the field of science is a mystery to me. That's up there with people who hate kids going into teaching.

Julie

[FreedomAngel82]

71. I don't know

There are those of us who are Christians who love science. My grandfather worked at NASA for a few years and he loved it. I always loved any type of science class since I was in high school. With me personally since I believe in God that I'm studying what God has done even with evolution and everything else with science. I don't know why so many of them fear it. They just don't know what it's about. All this misinformation.

[karlrschneider]

27. I knew there was some reason for the phrase "crocker shit"...

:eyes:

[libnnc]

28. so how does she explain this...

Ms. Smarty-smart :eyes:

[moc]

29. Northern Virginia Community College

She teaches at Northern Virginia Community College

academic-speak translation: she's a loser


Find me one biology professor at a top-tiered university who doesn't support evolution. Just one.

[mediaman007]

36. I wonder what she tells the breeders of the dogs at Westminster, or

the horses that run in the Triple Crown? These people sure as hell believe in breeding and evolution. Why else pay a couple of hundred thousand dollars to have the stallion out to "stud" your mare?

In fact, it just bugs me that a lot of these Bible-thumping, red state people spend a lot of their money on seeds and animals that are products of evolution. Hypocrites, I say!

[Crunchy Frog]

50. She just tells them that it's "microevolution".

That's the stock answer to that type of question.

My question is, she put all that effort into getting an advanced degree in biology, why can't she come up with something new and creative rather than trotting out the same old arguements that creationists have been using for decades?

[Tesha]

59. At what point does micro become macro?

Chihuahuas, like all dogs, were bred from something wolf-like.
But that Chihuahua is pretty far diverged from a timber wolf.
Is that still "micro" to this religiously-motivated fool?

Tesha

[Crunchy Frog]

82. These things are elastic.

It's whatever works for whatever they are arguing at any given moment. If you could show a smooth transition linking cats and dogs, their response would be, "well, they're both still carnivorous mammals. You wouldn't see a bird turning into a dog." or some such nonsense as that. Whenever you demonstrate that something they say is wrong, they simply move the goalposts on you. That's why it's impossible to have a meaningful and intellectually honest debate with them.

[BlueIris]

53. I actually think Northern Virginia Community College is what's "losing"

there. Poor NVCC students (and faculty).

[JHB]

63. But moc, ***it's a conspiracy***...

...by those evil atheists, who just need evolution to be true!

(despite the fact that atheism could handle creationism just as easily, if the facts pointed in that direction. That would just show the existence of an extremely powerful being (or beings). It would not inevitably follow that such a being(s) is(are) divine and should be worshipped.)

[moc]

66. Yes, it's those damn academic scientists' fault, relying on the

scientific method to decide what is true.

You know what pisses me off is the assumption that science and faith are incompatible. Both of my parents have PhDs in chemistry, and both spent their 40 year careers at a top-tiered university, and both are very strong Catholics. And both think that "intelligent design" is a bunch of b.s.

[JHB]

78. Yeah, but you realize, "those people" regard Catholicism...

...in pretty much the same way they do evolution: as one of Satan's lies to lure people to hell and deny them salvation.

To them, your parents are just double-damned chumps, thanks to their "arrogance" that their educations might result in them actually knowing something....

[0rganism]

74. You know the fundy answer to that one, right?

"The liberal elite academic establishment represses scientists with legitimate differing opinions about the unproven theory of evolution!"

Oh well.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

30. She's right...

... in her particular case, she is a perfect example of a meme (and hopefully DNA) that cannot continue.

/"Biology professor" my ass.

Edit: typo

[NewJeffCT]

31. And the evidence for the existence of God is...?

help me out here...

[JanMichael]

33. Well duh! Ugly maroon sweaters were obviously created by God!

Who else would create such a monstrosity?

[Demoiselle]

34. WHY IS THIS IN THE WASHINGTON POST???!!!!!!!???

Do they print this bilge because, in the immortal words of the Daily Show..
"The facts are biased"?
AAAArrrgh.

[BlueIris]

46. Horrifying, isn't it?

But I guess it isn't that surprising considering the unabashed shit they've been putting in there throughout the past three months, espcially. WHORES. FAT, PRIDELESS WHORES.

[MrMonk]

51. The OP has a link to the article

The OP only shows the first few paragraphs of a much longer, and better balanced article.

[sakabatou]

35. Okay, where's the direct evidence to this designer?

Show me a sign!

[TankLV]

37. Well, looking at WHAT controls our country now, I'd say they have a point.

Example #1: OUR White House resident.

[FlaGranny]

38. The Rapture

I just got done watching a program called "The Rapture" on Discovery Times Channel. I'm depressed. There is no reasoning with these people - NONE. Peacemakers are the anti-Christ, they want war in the Middle East. They don't care that young Americans are dying because they are helping Israel's enemies so they can rebuild the temple. They don't care about the environment because they're not going to be here long enough for it to matter. They want the government to make their beliefs into law - they are trying to purify the US. They want us all to follow their guidelines. They are trying to devalue science. Their movement is growing, spreading like a cancer. They are damned dangerous and crazy people, and they are your pleasant, kindly next door neighbors. They love George Bush because he is the instrument of all this coming to pass. Perhaps they will see their folly after the earth is ravaged by pollution and war and they find themselves and their loved ones NOT raptured - still here, suffering with what's left. ARRGGHHH! I want to get off this planet.

[laheina]

43. The funny thing about the rapture eschatology

(eschatology meaning roughly their theory of the end times) is that it is an idea that is roughly 150 years old, and they act as though Jesus himself spouted it.

[FreedomAngel82]

72. And as a Christian it is depressing because

they're not following anything God says about taking care of the earth. *sigh* :(

[Odin2005]

40. All the creationists do is...

...spread mis-information about evolution, and then use said mis-information as a straw-man to attack. The "evolution is random", "there's no transitional forms", and "if we evolved from apes why are apes still around?" are just some of the mis-information they intentionally spread to use as straw-men. It's fucking annoying. :banghead:

[Warren DeMontague]

47. What a Crocker Shit. nt

[blindpig]

56. How does one get an advanced degree in Biology believing such tripe?

Good article, but where did she receive her degree? Who was her Faculty Adviser? I'll bet they're sick about letting this one slip through. Or complicit.

[Tesha]

60. One lies, err, "parrots back the accepted statements". (NT)

[ProfessorGAC]

61. Apparently, The Standards For Professorship Are Too Low

What a buffoon! A biology professor thinks this? Tenure or not, she should be cut loose at the quickest possible time.
The Professor

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nolabels]

64. God damn world is flat also

So all you ignorant fundies go back to Europe already :D

[FreedomAngel82]

67. These people are so ignorant

it makes me want to explode! They seriously don't understand anything about science or evolution. Is this woman a science teacher?

[nodehopper]

73. gah! the only difference

between microevolution and macroevolution is speciation, which is essentially a quantitative leap. The process is the same. any "highly trained" biologist knows that.

[realisticphish]

75. For the LAST MOTHERFUCKING TIME

science THRIVES on conflict. If some grad student found a way to definitively prove darwin wrong, he would kill his own mother to do so (so, fundies, is THAT what you want? Matricide? ;)). There is no coverup. There is no big building that has the word "SCIENCE" on the side, where everyone decides what to believe.


Also, books don't mutate, you dumbfuck

[0rganism]

76. IMHO, the theory of Stupid Design has a far more merit

For one thing, we can immediately dispense with the myriad problems that any implicit presumption of Great Skill on the part of the designer introduces. The theory of Stupid Design explains things like nipples on men, useless "residual" organs, and detrimental instinctive behaviors. It explains certain things that are outright ridiculous on the part of our premised designer -- for example, connecting the front end of the food pipe and breathing pipe, thus introducing the unecessary risk of choking, quite simply avoided by having well-supported trachial openings on the sternum or perhaps doubled-up near the spine (itself a blatant instance of a single point of critical failure).

Intelligent design, my ass. This "design" has all the distinguishing features of an undergraduate project gone horribly awry, and should be considered as such. One can only hope that our designer either gave up entirely after this one or consulted with the faculty and received sounder advice for his/her/its future endeavors.

[Crunchy Frog]

84. The arrangements at the other end of the pipe

are even crazier. Maybe the designer is a sicko as well as being stupid.:evilgrin:

[Pryderi]

77. Show me the evidence of God.

[LynnTheDem]

79. And there IS for God???

WTF?

Have so many Americans ALWAYS been so deeply ignorant, or is this a new thing?

[spanone]

81. Sounds like a Crock er shit to me.

[Saphire]

83. "not a lot of evidence" huh? Just some??

[EstimatedProphet]

85. I find it hard to believe she ever passed her orals

How does someone like this get a doctorate?

I'm not talking about disbelief in Evolution, although frankly it is much better documented than she is trying to pass off. But the fact is, Intelligent Design is a cartoonish idea of a scientific theory. Instead of trying to come up with answers, ID basically states that when a question becomes too difficult, the answer is "God did it." It is hard for me, as a biologist, to understand how someone could become a biologist and believe that in effect there is no point to asking biological questions. All it demonstrates is a lack of drive and imagination.