The Science Fraud

[ChemEngineer]

Ok, we understand that, but the issue is whether the USA was the first place to make blacks slaves, and it was NOT.

Something about the Bible and Pharoah comes to mind.......
American blacks have been so brainwashed by their Democrat handlers that they really don't care about what happened to other races, only their own.
South American slaves? ::::yawn:::::
More slaves today in India than any other country on earth? :::: reparations for us!::::::::

 

[Hollie]

johnjaeger

Thu 9/14/2023 11:35 AM​

Hi John—

Your critique of the Dawkins weasel demonstration found its way to me, and I agree with it entirely. I offered my own critique in Undeniable (p198-200). You hit the nail on the head!


Regrettably, even solid refutations of evolutionary arguments like this don’t seem to get their proponents to rethink their position. I’ve become convinced that this is because the root problem is spiritual, not scientific or intellectual.


Best regards,

Doug Axe


Douglas Axe, PhD
Rosa Endowed Chair of Molecular Biology
Professor of Computational Biology
Co-Director of Stewart Science Honors Program
School of Science, Technology & Health
Biola University

Oh, no. You had to go there. Another creationer loon from the Disco’tute.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Axe is a zealous creationist associated with the Discovery Institute (he is the director at their “Biologic Institute"). Axe is a molecular biologist, and thus actually knows some science. He uses this knowledge to write mundane papers, at least two of which have been published in low-tier, although genuine, journals - despite being uninteresting and mundane. Axe’s work is hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence for their views. Of course, there is no actual support of intelligent design in these published papers, and Axe himself admits as much: Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function

Insofar as Axe is a creationist with real scientific publications to his name, Axe’s work is one of the main contributions to a sheen of legitimacy for the ID movement. But given that his publications do not at all support or even touch on their views (but are willfully interpreted as such by other ID-proponents without Axe complaining) he is an important contributor to erecting the framework of dishonesty that is the ID movement.

Diagnosis: Dishonest wingnut who might pose a genuine if minor threat to science and rationality as a creationist with actually published (though unrelated) material.

 

[ChemEngineer]

It's interesting how all the atheists and pseudointellectuals have fallen silent.
They no longer tout their own scientific knowledge while calling me names.

I love to teach, both the willing and the uncooperative. The latter need it the most.
Hopefully I'm getting through to some of them.

It's pretty hard to top Doug Axe's credentials and his confirmation of my critique of Richard Dawkins' monkey business.

 

[Hollie]

It's interesting how all the atheists and pseudointellectuals have fallen silent.
They no longer tout their own scientific knowledge while calling me names.

I love to teach, both the willing and the uncooperative. The latter need it the most.
Hopefully I'm getting through to some of them.

It's pretty hard to top Doug Axe's credentials and his confirmation of my critique of Richard Dawkins' monkey business.

It’s comical how the creationer retreats to quacks and charlatans from the Disco’tute for “scientific knowledge”. It was Ann Gauger and Doug Axe who perpetrated a total fraud by trying to represent themselves as scientists as opposed to the religiously insane.


The industry of creationer fraud has become just a fringe element of religious extremism. As an example of just how fraudulent the Disco’tute, for one example, really is:

Intelligent design think tank's “institute” is a Shutterstock image

A green screen plus a stock image of a lab equals instant credibility.

Intelligent design think tank's “institute” is a Shutterstock image​

A green screen plus a stock image of a lab equals instant credibility.

arstechnica.com

Hey, do the one where it looks like you're on the moon next.
Discovery Institute
As a think tank focused on intelligent design, the Discovery Institute presumably has no need for physical laboratories—its research is mostly imagination-based. So it seemed odd to Richard Hoppe of Panda’s Thumbwhen he saw a video of one of the Institute’s researchers spouting all sorts of bad science from a lab setting. Although the video was datelined from the “Biologic Institute” of the Discovery Institute, it turns out that the nonsensical rant was green-screened in front of a stock image

 

[ChemEngineer]

It just occurred to me this very morning that the anti-science of Darwinism promotes the anti-intellectualism of atheists. They think that because "evolution" gives them the sense that all life made itself, from nothing, that they can extrapolate this pseudoscience to all matter, energy, correspondence, and elegance. Both inanities are completely wrong.

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." - Richard Dawkins

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” -― Richard Dawkins

This is a lie of unbelievable proportion. Religious scientists throughout history have sought to understand the world, and continue to do so today.
Dawkins has only lies, and he continues to support them with more lies.

 

[Hollie]

It just occurred to me this very morning that the anti-science of Darwinism promotes the anti-intellectualism of atheists. They think that because "evolution" gives them the sense that all life made itself, from nothing, that they can extrapolate this pseudoscience to all matter, energy, correspondence, and elegance. Both inanities are completely wrong.

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." - Richard Dawkins

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” -― Richard Dawkins

This is a lie of unbelievable proportion. Religious scientists throughout history have sought to understand the world, and continue to do so today.
Dawkins has only lies, and he continues to support them with more lies.

It should have occurred to you that slogans such as “Darwinism” are clear indicators that your cut and paste "quotes" are stolen from one of the ID'iot creationer ministries; AIG, Disco'tute, Harun Yahya for example. Which one did you steal from?

I'm afraid that your endless cut and paste "quotes" provide no supporting documentation for your opinions. The facts of biological evolution derive from the sciences of paleontology, anthropology, geology, oceanography, physics, archaeology, and other branches of science that conflict with your extremist religious beliefs.

We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence to support the theory that the unsupported claims of the hyper-religious are just not meaningful. Biological evolution is one of those sciences. There will always be a certain number of people who for religious or philosophical reasons reject that facts of science. But there is a reason the argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, because it tells us nothing about what is actually true.

 

[ChemEngineer]

October 3, 2023

John, I think you were spot on.
Well put.
I think it's incredibly dumb to take Dawkins' position as fact or even possible.

Jason Cordova, PhD, Biochemistry

 

[ChemEngineer]

[Postnote: After considerable thought, I have an important addition that was not given to Douglas Axe and Jason Cordova. Note that Richard Dawkins asserts, “We shall make it relatively easy by giving him (the monkey) a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, only 26 keys…”

Thus Dawkins extrapolates from “a restricted keyboard,” producing only one brief sentence, to typing out “all the works of Shakespeare” (sic) rather than what Sir Eddington originally said, “All the books in the British Museum” – a prodigiously larger collection of works than Shakespeare’s.

This ignorant extrapolation of a monkey typing a single line, to typing all of Shakespeare’s works, much less the British Museum’s, is no different from the ignorance of trivial adaptations being extrapolated to produce all living organisms from the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA).]