Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, February 08, 2012

So you think Evolution is science? Uh, no!

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." 

- Sir Isaac Newton, brilliant scientist and devout Christian

credit


There are several journals and magazines and publications I receive and plenty of online resources are at my fingertips.  The glory of the still-free internet is the plethora of information that the ruling paradigm has not yet managed to control and censor to any extent.   Therefore truth is still to be found here in the USA and most other nations where the government does not censor the internet.  We know that Communist China filters the internet and Google helps with the process, which is one reason I do not post Google ads despite the fact that I would be paid to do it.  I believe it would be wrong to do.  Wrong.  Do you know that word?   Of course, what I think is wrong and what atheistic naturalists think is wrong are two different things.   I believe that God decides right and wrong.  

In any event, Jerry Bergmann wrote a fantastic article that appears in the AIG Answers Research Journal and was available for distribution today, so here is the beginning of the article.  The entire article is available to read or download as a PDF now.

Answers Research Journal 5 (2012): 1–12.
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v5/n1/evolution-myth-biology

by Jerry Bergman




Abstract

Darwinists commonly claim that evolution is the foundation of all of the sciences, especially the ife sciences and that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” To evaluate this claim I reviewed both the textbooks used for life science classes at the college where I teach and those that I used in my past university course work. I concluded from my survey that Darwinism was rarely mentioned. I also reviewed my course work and that of another researcher and came to the same conclusions. From this survey I concluded that the claim “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” is false.

Keywords: Teaching of evolution, the application of evolution, creationism, college text books

Introduction

In 1929, an article in Popular Science was written to encourage the teaching of the theory of evolution in spite of the laws that were passed by several states to curb the teaching of Darwinism. The article claimed that “The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences” (Armstrong 1929, p. 135). The most popular biology book in the 1920s by Dr. Truman Moon, entitled Biology for Beginners, stated that the theory of evolution is “the cornerstone of all recent science and the foundation of all modern thought” (quoted in Armstrong 1929, p. 133). Almost a half-century later, the eminent American evolutionist, Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975), claimed that “evolution” is the cornerstone of biology and is central to understanding both living and extinct organisms (Dobzhansky 1973, p. 125).

His statement that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” has been repeated in thousands of articles to argue that Darwinism must have a central place in all areas of life-science education, including biology, anatomy, medicine, agriculture, and biotechnology (for example, see Antolin and Herbers 2001, p. 2379). Orthodox Darwinism is defined as the evolution of all complex life forms on earth from a single common ancestor as a result of natural selection acting on random mutations in the genome over vast periods of time through strictly naturalistic processes. A recent internet search revealed over 50,000 hits for Dobzhansky’s quote. As a result of this oft-repeated assertion, many argue that evolution must be a central part of all public school and college life science classes. In the words of the National Academy of Science, evolution isthe most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things” (emphasis mine) (National Academy of Science 1998, p. viii). This claim is made because Darwin’s
Origin of Species has had more influence on Western culture than any other book of modern times. It was not only a great biological treatise, closely reasoned and revolutionary, but it carried significant implications for philosophy, religion, sociology, and history. Evolution is the greatest single unifying principle in all biology (Prosser 1959, p. 539).
Dawkins opines that, without Darwinism, “biology is a collection of miscellaneous facts.” He adds before children “learn to think in an evolutionary way” the material that students learn
will just be facts, with no binding thread to hold them together, nothing to make them memorable or coherent. With evolution, a great light breaks through into the deepest recesses, into every corner, of the science of life. You understand not only what is, but why. How can you possibly teach biology unless you begin with evolution? How, indeed, can you call yourself an educated person, if you know nothing of the Darwinian reason for your own existence? (Dawkins 2002, p. 58).
The claim that evolution is central to biology has been around for decades. For example, the Scopes Trial transcript included the following words penned by Vanderbilt University biology professor Dr. E. N. Reinke:
To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach . . . physics without assuming the existence of the ether (Reinke 1927, p. 8).

The ether idea has now been fully refuted, a fact that illustrates the fallibility of the biology claim if the analogy were true. The evolution-is-central-to-biology belief has even made the Doonesbury cartoon; the lead character stating that “Evolution is the foundation of all life sciences. Without it, whole fields from genetics to ecology can’t exist!” (Trudeau 2011).

Although Darwinists often talk about the central importance of “evolution” in gaining a basic understanding of the natural world, in the daily work of both scientific education and scientific research, evolution is rarely mentioned or even a concern. This has been my experience as a research associate involved in cancer research in the department of experimental pathology at the Medical University of Ohio and as a college professor in the life and behavioral sciences for over 30 years. As Conrad E. Johanson, Ph.D., Professor of Clinical Neurosciences and Physiology and Director of Neurosurgery Research at Brown Medical School in Rhode Island noted, research scientists
rarely deal directly with macroevolutionary theory, be it biological or physical. For example, in my 25 years of neuroscience teaching and research I have only VERY rarely had to deal with natural selection, origins, macroevolution, etc. My professional work in science stems from rigorous training in biology, chemistry, physics, and math, not from world views about evolution. I suspect that such is the case for most scientists in academia, industry, and elsewhere (Johanson, pers. comm.).
Renowned chemist and National Academy of Science Member, Dr. Philip Skell, Professor Emeritus of Pennsylvania State University (see Lewis, 1992), surveyed his colleagues “engaged in non-historical biology research, related to their ongoing research projects.” He found, in answer to the question, “Would you have done the work any differently if you believed Darwin’s theory were wrong?” that “for the large number” of the Darwinist researchers he interviewed, “differing only in the amount of hemming and hawing” was “in my work it would have made no difference.” Some added they thought it may make a difference for other researchers (Skell, pers. comm.).

Another scientist, Professor Henry F. Schaefer III, the Graham-Purdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Chemistry at the University of Georgia, added that

Darwinian assumptions are not needed for the day-to-day work of science. If you look at the biochemical literature for scientific papers that try to explain how biochemical systems developed step-by-step in Darwinian fashion, there aren’t any. It’s startling. Most biologists completely ignore evolution in their work, and the ones that think about it simply look for relationships and don’t bother with Darwinism. My University of Georgia colleague in biochemistry, Professor Russell Carlson, has expressed the same sentiment to me privately (Schaefer 2004, p. 102).
From 1981 to 1997, Professor Schaefer was the sixth most highly cited chemist in the world out of a total of 628,000 chemists whose research was cited at least once. The Science Citation Index reported that, as of December 31, 2010, his research had been cited over 47,000 times.

Of interest is that the fact that molecular, cell, and developmental biology majors at Yale University Graduate School are no longer required to complete courses on evolution (Hartman 1997). I have noted from my own research, both to my frustration and over my objections, that many of the subscriptions to journals focusing on evolution at both the University of Toledo Medical College and Bowling Green State University have been dropped. I was told by the reference librarian that there was little demand for them.

I also interviewed several biology professors. Typical is Tony Jelsma, who obtained his Ph.D. in Biochemistry in 1989 and did postdoctoral research for almost eight years before landing a position teaching at the Department of Biology, Dordt College (Sioux Center, Iowa). His B.Sc. (1983) and Ph.D. (1989) were both completed at McMaster University. He stated that he did not encounter Darwinism in his work or studies except in one undergraduate biochemistry class where he studied the abiotic synthesis of adenine (Jelsma, pers. comm.).

A Survey of Textbooks

Having taught biology, genetics, zoology, psychology, and related courses at the college level for the past 40 years, I evaluated this claim by examining the content of the major textbooks that I have used to teach science courses. I found most of the biochemistry/molecular biology, genetics, and cell biology texts we have used never, or hardly ever, mentioned Darwinism (see Table 1). The only courses that covered it in any detail were Biology 101, zoology, and anthropology. In my experience, even in these classes, many instructors skipped the section on evolution.

Even those textbook chapters labeled “evolution” often spend much time on non-evolution topics, such as basic genetics, human development, population genetics, and similar areas. None of the anatomy and physiology textbooks we have used ever mentioned evolution. The only reference to Darwinism in the microbiology texts we used was on the development of bacterial resistance (which is not a concern for intelligent design or even creationists because many of the mechanisms producing resistance are well known and do not support orthodox evolution, see Bergman 2003).


Read the rest at the original site: 

The fact is that in the real world of science, evolution is never observed nor is it in any way helpful to the study of the cell or DNA or the structure and systems of living organisms.   New scientific disciplines have arisen to study the design of nature and to copy or mimic such designs to make man-made objects better or to attempt to copy the designs intact.   While Darwinists proclaim with all the enthusiasm of snake-oil salesmen the need to understand evolution, science is studying the DESIGNS of nature and applying them to improve the world of man.  For example:

Living Surprises, Living Hopes

Posted on January 21, 2012 in Amazing Facts, Biology, Biomimetics, Botany, Cell Biology, Darwin and Evolution, Genetics, Health, Humanity, Intelligent Design, Mammals, Marine Biology, Microbiology, Origins, Terrestrial Zoology, Uncategorized
 
Here are ten recent discoveries about plants and animals that are surprising and inspiring.  Some of them may lead to technologies that can improve our own lives.

Fish-o-pus:  Slinking through Indonesian waters is a master of impersonation: an octopus that can elude predators by imitating a fish.  But that’s just part of the story.  Scientists have now found a fish that imitates the octopus that imitates the fish!  Story on Science News.  The jawfish apparently hangs around with the mimic octopus to share in its protective strategy.

Mind meld with apes:  German scientists studied the four anthropoid apes, chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans, Science Daily said, and found that some (but not all) appeared to be able to calculate risks before acting.  Their experiment involved choices between small banana pieces in reliable spots, and larger banana pieces hidden behind variable locations.  The gorillas didn’t do so well.  It’s not clear whether readers will be as impressed with this as the researchers were, considering that birds seem to do even better at these kinds of brain teasers.  Last month, Live Science reported  that pigeon brains are on par with primates.

Brazilian worm-eating plant:  A new kind of carnivorous plant has been found in the Cerrado of Brazil, a unique tropical biodiversity hotspot.  Reported in PNAS (January 9, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1114199109), the plant Philcoxia apparently uses sticky underground leaves to trap and eat roundworms.  PhysOrg has a picture and summary of the predatory plant.

Flower powerPhysOrg featured a researcher at Kansas State that is trying to untangle sunflower genetics.  Different species living in different climates have apparently become successful through gene duplications, hybridization and mobile genetic elements – pieces of genetic code that can relocate and insert themselves in different parts of the genome.  Although Mark Ungerer is couching his explanations in evolutionary terms, the article seems to indicate a kind of controlled adaptability that has occurred recently.  It seems premature to credit unguided processes with success at adapting to climates as different as Texas and Canada, considering Ungerer’s humble admission, “Although virtually all plants and animals have these types of sequences in their genomes, we still know very little about what phenomena cause them to amplify and make extra copies of themselves.

Rhinoceros foot puzzle:  The Royal Veterinary College is playing footsie with rhinos to see how their “stumpy little feet” can support so much weight.  Their weight-bearing strategy is apparently different from that of elephants.  According to the BBC News article, Dr. John Hutchinson has another reason for investigating this unknown marvel: “From understanding the feet of rhinos, as an example of a big land mammal, we could draw inspiration and understand how to build devices that can handle heavy loads and carry them around while moving.”

Pause for paws:  Speaking of feet, why don’t dogs get frostbite from walking in the snow?  Think of those brave Alaskan huskies on the Iditerod.  Actually, dogs can get frostbitten paws, depending on the breed, but they rarely do.  PhysOrg told how scientists from Tokyo checked out the paws of four dog breeds and discovered an ingenious heat-exchanging system in the blood vessels that not only transfers warmth to the bare surfaces of paws but ensures blood returning to the heart is warm enough.  Cool pet tip: spray the paws with cooking spray before taking your best friend into the snow.

Gecko fish:  Ever heard of the northern clingfish?  These are small fish on the north Pacific coast that have mastered the art of clinging to shoreline rocks as they search for food.  Remarkably, their modified fins use a similar adhesion technique as geckos, reported Science Magazine (20 January 2012: Vol. 335 no. 6066 p. 277, doi: 10.1126/science.335.6066.277).  Their modified belly fins have tiny hairs that make use of atomic forces, adhering to rough surfaces better than suction cups.  An undergraduate student found that the clingfish can support 180 times their own weight.

Do the fish walk:  The headline at Life’s Little Mysteries promises to show how “Discovery Reveals How Fish Learned to Walk,” but the article is actually about real living fish called Pacific leaping blennies that do the twist as they flip around the intertidal zones of Guam.  These are not Darwin fish; they have no feet, and their muscles are really not different from those of other fish.  Their flip-flop “walk” is more an adaptive behavior than evolution.  Researcher Tonia Hsieh was astonished to find half her lab blennies walked out of the tank overnight.  Then she found some of them on the wall.

Leaping lizards:  Speaking of Tonia Hsieh, a biologist at Temple University who developed a childhood fascination with lizards and other animals, she has a cool lab to study lizard leaps in slow motion.  She especially likes the basilisk, a lizard that stands up and runs fast, reported the Philadelphia Inquirer – so fast it can run over water, giving the nickname the “Jesus lizard.”  You can watch these amazing lizards in action on Hsieh’s track at the Temple University website.  “It’s important to realize that animals do not have a specific program to tell them how to react to each and every possible perturbation scenario in the real world,” she said, yet they manage to keep going even when encountering a slippery spot.  Understanding their locomotion strategies, she believes, can help robot designers walk out of the wheel rut.  Her research might also help the elderly prevent falls.

Miracle tree:  Readers may remember Moringa oleifera, the “miracle tree” that not only provides food and fuel, but can actually disinfect water for poor countries (3/09/2010).  Previously we learned that crushed Moringa seeds, sprinkled in turbid water, took out the turbidity and killed bacteria.  One problem was making the process sustainable and affordable.  Without proper techniques, the dissolved organic compounds could return to cloud the water again.  Now, according to PhysOrg, clean drinking water for the poor is a step closer to reality.  The American Chemical Society published a paper by scientists who identified the protein in the seeds that has the antibacterial effect.  By attaching it to sand, they can attract both the bacteria and the dissolved organic compounds to the sand particles, which carry the impurities to the bottom, leaving clean water suitable for drinking.  The paper is published in the ACS journal Langmuir.  The new process is inexpensive and sustainable, said Science Daily, and a billion people stand ready to benefit from this one remarkable plant, “one of the world’s most useful trees.”

We love good science here.  Most of this is good old, Darwin-free scientific discovery.  What has evolution done for any of it?  Sure, the sunflower wizard believes in evolution, but he was watching built-in adaptation tricks of the genome in action, not some external “natural selector” corralling chance mutations.  Sure, Tonia believes in evolution, but her lizard track meets are designed to improve senior health and robotics.  In every case, evolution had nothing of substance to add to the science.  What wonderful benefits await poor people from research on how to employ a tree’s built-in codes to purify water!  Evolution is like a ball and chain on this kind of science.  Take it off, and let science take off.

Exactly!  Evolution is the embarrassing relative who gets drunk at wedding receptions.   We are stuck with him for a short time yet.  Within a generation of today the absolute proof of Biogenesis will have to be accepted by science, the certainty of design within organisms will be too obvious to be ignored and the overwhelming evidence against long ages that will be built up by the coming generation of scientists will allow the younger generation to usher the old eccentric uncles like Dawkins and Myers out the door of relevance and then with a deep breath, toss away all the nonsense of Darwinism and get on with real science again.  The worst part of the scientific aspect of the 20th Century was the unnecessary anchor of Darwinism that held back scientific discovery and dumbed down education.  With the last book authored by Hawking the ruling paradigm played their last card and that card was the King of Incoherence.   The Universe had to make itself? (see below)  A toddler could think things out equally as well as the poor deluded Hawking.   Ironic that he included the word "design" in his last book, is it not?   Design in the Universe and in organisms is inescapable.   

Hawking Says Universe Created Itself

Stephen Hawking, leading cosmologist and recently retired Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, has co-authored a new book, The Grand Design. In it, he claims that the universe did not need God to create it. This conclusion goes against the writings of another famed Lucasian Professor who is credited with discovering the very law Hawking uses as his "proof"--Sir Isaac Newton.

The Telegraph quoted from The Grand Design:
Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.1
What would compel a person to ascribe the power of creation to just gravity? Perhaps it stems from the idea that gravity has an equal amount of "negative" energy to perfectly balance all other "positive" energies.2
 Recent investigations into gravity--one of which questioned its very existence--left plenty of room for doubt about claims that depend on an accurate conception of this particular natural force.3

But even if "gravity" did provide such balance, it could hardly suffice as an adequate cause for the whole universe. Pointing out qualities of already-existing energies is no more an explanation for their origin than pointing out how the energy-of-motion in a rolling ball will be exactly matched by the energy-of-resistance from friction. Neither quantity answers where the ball came from and who or what pushed it.

On the other hand, for his hypothesis Hawking may have relied on the common cosmological concept that gravity supposedly can pull matter together from fine dust into nuggets, clumps, large conglomerates, nebulae, planetesimals, planets, stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, and superclusters. The physics, however, shows that gravity alone cannot do this.4 This is why the shockwaves of "nearby supernovae" or giant collisions are routinely invoked to jump-start star formation from dust clouds, where the gravity is too weak to overcome repulsive forces of hot gas particles.5

Extraordinary information also characterizes this vast universe. The three-dimensional placement of heavenly bodies in space and the particular--and peculiarly life-enabling--universal parameters, such as the speed of light and electromagnetic strength, are some examples of fine-tuned information.6 Also, there is the mountain of information in living systems to explain.

Since concerns over gravity and energy do not address the more obvious question of information--a massless yet ubiquitous fundamental entity--then statements about gravity or energy alone form insufficient grounds to reject a supernatural origin for the universe.

In addition, any assertion that a thing can make itself is self-contradictory. This is because in every case where something has actually been made, that which caused it existed prior to it. For example, an oak tree may have found its immediate cause in the planting action of a pre-existing squirrel and by the acorn production of a pre-existing oak tree. So, for the universe to have made itself, it would have had to exist prior to its existence--a contradiction of the undeniable first principle of causality.7

A classic argument for the existence of God holds that since something exists (say, the universe), and since something cannot make itself (without violating the first principle of causality), then a cause outside that thing must exist (God).8 In essence, Hawking has attempted to refute this reasoning by simply denying the second premise!

Did the oak tree come from an acorn? No, Hawking would say--it was just the result of "spontaneous creation" and there it is. Such reasoning makes no sense. Hawking's illustrious predecessor, Sir Isaac Newton, formed a more reasonable and accurate assessment of the universe's origins:

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."9

References
  1. Roberts, L. Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe. Telegraph. Posted on telegraph.co.uk September 2, 2010, accessed September 2, 2010.
  2. Gribbin, J. Are we living in a designer universe? Telegraph. Posted on telegraph.co.uk August 31, 2010, accessed September 2, 2010.
  3. Thomas, B. Physicist Questions Gravity's Existence. ICR News. Posted on icr.org August 6, 2010, accessed September 2, 2010.
  4. Coppedge, D. 2009. Bottom-up Science. Acts & Facts. 38 (11): 18.
  5. DeYoung, D. B. 1996. New Stars, New Planets? Acts & Facts. 25 (4).
  6. Coppedge, D. 2006. There's Only One Universe. Acts & Facts. 35 (12).
  7. The first principle of causality can be stated several ways, including "every effect has a cause," and "nonbeing cannot cause being." Geisler, N. L. 1999. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 120.
  8. Importantly, this argument requires that the "something" that exists is the kind of something that is contingent and finite, like an oak tree, person, or the universe. This is unlike the Creator Himself, who is self-existent, uncaused, eternal, and infinite. Infinite beings require no cause.
  9. Quoted in Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: Isaac Newton. Acts & Facts. 37 (5): 8.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
  

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

" We know that Communist China filters the internet and Google helps with the process, "

Google has been providing uncensored results via google.hk since 2010. Google has not censored search results for years.

I'm wondering, do you use or recommend Cisco hardware? If so, you should rethink that, since they helped the chinese build their "golden shield".

radar said...

So you believe that Google is not involved in filtering information in China? Funny. Got another one?

Anonymous said...

It's not a matter of believing or not, you can see for yourself. Go to google.cn, and try to search. Look at that, it redirects to a .hk domain, just like I said.
Then translate "tiennamen square" or "tank man" into Chinese, and paste the results into the search bar. Look at that, results!

Or, if you're lazy, search for "google pulls out of china".

I just assumed you'd know about this, being an IT expert and all.

Still no opinion on CIsco?

Jon Woolf said...

Hmmm. Curious, that all these scientists would say they don't use the unifying theory of biology in their work.

Or maybe not.

Tony Jelsma - an Intelligent Design advocate

Henry Schaefer - not a biologist, but an Intelligent Design advocate, signed the Disco Institute's anti-Darwin letter

Philip Skell - not a biologist, but anti-evolution advocate, signed the Disco Institute's anti-Darwin letter

Conrad E. Johanson - a medical researcher and professor who deals with what is, not how it got that way.

Et cetera. None of these gentlemen strike me as valid sources on Dobhzansky's intended topic in his quote, which is that if you wish to study biology as an integrated whole, you must have an understanding of evolutionary theory. If you don't, it won't make any sense to you.

I also note that Bergmann teaches at a two-year community college that doesn't even offer a biology major, so it would be difficult to see why he or any of his colleagues there would spend much time on evolutionary theory. Or why he would think that their failure to do so proves anything.

Anonymous said...

China is still censoring information in various ways, including the email accounts that Google provides and other less obvious means as well. Did you really think that Google was actually completely freeing the internet in China? Jon? Oh, that is right, you just usually get your information from the MSM so of course you think China became "free" in 2010.

Cheers,

Anonymous said...

Radar,
You originally accused google of being complicit in China's censorship:

"We know that Communist China filters the internet and Google helps with the process"

Then I showed you that wasn't the case (and hasn't been for two years), and you then retreat to China censors the internet.

Well, no kidding!! -- but Google doesn't help them. Feel free to retract your above accusation and install adwords. You can finally profit from your massive traffic.

P.S. This isn't Jon
P.P.S. Still a Cisco fan? They helped build china's censorship regime.

radar said...

A - Google is still working with China to censor the internet. You do not have any idea how many factors are involved in what happens in China and how many pies Google has a finger stuck into, but China is continuing to censor with Google's help. Unless you are in China yourself, you cannot tell me otherwise.

China, however, has nothing to do with this post. Cisco has nothing to do with this post. You are playing games in trying to change the topic because you cannot speak to the topic.

For ordinary readers, I can tell you China is not easily understood. The government is running spam and botnet programs designed to steal your money, information, use your computer resources and they get away with it because this administration will not call them on it. Eastern European crime gangs are also high on the list of offenders and I suspect Putin's government is doing some of it as well, although that one is just a guess.

On the other hand, there are now more Christians in China than there are in the USA. Part one.

radar said...

Part two. While the Obama Administration merrily tries to take us down the red brick road to totalitarian socialist OZ, like a great big North Korea, China is beginning to shed the communist skin from the inside out. The internet, which China needs to be a player in the world market, is also the way information is passed around the country.

While there is some filtering of content being done by China with help from Google and Cisco (I do not post ads from Cisco either, BTW) there are parts of the country and individuals working on projects that require relatively free access. In addition, the blogging community in China has rallied the common man to ask for and expect more freedoms and more capitalism in their daily lives.

Do you wonder why Barack Obama and his cohorts are trying so hard to cram a law like SOPA through? Because the internet is the land of the First Amendment. While the major news media fawn at his feet, the internet is not in love with Obama, it is neutral.

Liberal loonbats like the HuffPo can shill for him (and even become part of the MSM), but there are thousands of bloggers pointing exactly in the other direction.

Because China cannot truly censor the internet to the extent the leaders would like, eventually I expect the nature of the country itself will change. Nevertheless, while Google may claim to be in no way involved in censorship in China, don't believe it. Just like Obama said Catholic churches would not have to pay health insurance costs for abortions while the other hand makes sure the insurance companies they would use still would. Google claims to be the good guys but all is not exactly as it seems.

Google actually runs the blog program I use now. They also do the spam filtering. It is hard to get away from them, frankly. But I will still refuse to run their ads as a personal choice. That choice has nothing to do with this blog post, BTW, so for me this ends the discussion. Yap away if you like, though.

radar said...

As to Jon Woolf's classic ad hominem attacks on scientists, including Bergmann, who are not Darwin Bots, guess what? Bergmann has far better credentials than you!

Google (ironically) the Gene Gun and you will find John C. Sanford was the inventor, a man with eight degrees and multiple awards and who remained in the secular community laboring away while being completely anti-Darwin. What is he doing or has done?

"My central research objectives have involved:

Study of the theoretical limits of the mutation/selection process
Development of genetic transformation technologies
Development of new approaches to genetically engineer disease and pathogen resistance
Conventional breeding of strawberries and raspberries

My most significant accomplishments are:

Co-developer of “Mendel’s Accountant” – today’s most advanced forward-time population genetics simulation program
Primary inventor of the biolistic (gene gun) process
Co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process
Co-inventor of the Genetic Vaccination process
Primary inventor of numerous conventionally-bred fruit varieties
Most of the world's transgenic crop acreage were transformed via my biolistic process

I am presently looking at genome-wide patterns in higher genomes."

This creationist has used his belief in a created genome to advantage and benefitted the world greatly. In fact a blog post about just what just one creationist can do for science might be a good idea.

Anonymous said...

p"A - Google is still working with China to censor the internet"

Do you have any evidence other than assertions to prove your point? I mean, google closed their china office, which doesn't indicate cooperation with china. I've also shown you that google doesn't censor search results.

More to the point, how can google help china censor the internet from a technical perspective? They don't provide internet access in china.

"Unless you are in China yourself, you cannot tell me otherwise"

Well, I used a chinese proxy and google *still* didn't censor results.

"(I do not post ads from Cisco either, BTW)"

That's a pretty nice dodge, but you do sell Cisco's products, right?

"Barack Obama and his cohorts are trying so hard to cram a law like SOPA through"

Black is white with you. Obama opposed SOPA.

evidence: http://goo.gl/SA4mO

BTW, it's nice to see you finally come out against SOPA, the silence was deafening for a while.

radar said...

I am against SOPA and PIPA and any censorship of the internet, period.

I have sources in Asia and Europe and they say censorship is still going on in China. You think closing an office is anything more than a PR move? I don't and what Google claims to do versus what they actually do is difficult to know. I will go with what I hear from people and not from Google press releases.

BTW the situation in Russia is getting dire. Obama has proven to be a paper tigers, so Putin and the criminal element in power there are a grave danger to bordering nations now physically as well as a base of attack on US networks. Furthermore, Christianity behind the borders is being attacked. A family that lives there, missionaries, can not leave and are therefore imprisoned within that nation's borders. Russia is still allowing Christian organizations to send Christmas stockings and take short-term mission trips to help the poor. But some who took up residence there are trapped and may wind up being imprisoned.

The world is not the easy, black-and-white picture you get from the network nightly news. Christians are being slaughtered in Islamic nations and dissidents against Islamic totalitarian regimes are being eradicated. The 21st Century is beginning with a theme of big governments with dictatorships and therefore eliminating the middle class in the process.

China is going against the flow. Here in the USA the 2012 election will likely prove to be the turning point because right now we are headed down the road towards an Orwellian dystopia. Liberals never learn. Socialism/Communism never works in favor of the people, it only turns into a dictatorship in which only the political leaders and their cronies benefit. The USA is heading that way right now.

Anonymous said...

"I have sources in Asia and Europe and they say censorship is still going on in China."

Well, if you are saying that there's censorship in China, then you're right. If you assert (without any evidence) that Google is doing it, you're wrong.

You see, google isn't in a *position* to censor anything except search results (and email), and it's very easy to show that they don't. So easy, in fact, that I've done it above. Unless google provides infrastructure in china (and they don't) then they can't censor.

There's even a page on wikipedia that shows some of the censored terms.
http://goo.gl/rKK1
Go play around and see how google gives results to these terms. Then head over to baidu and see what censorship looks like.

"You think closing an office is anything more than a PR move?"

They did more than close an office, they stopped doing business in china. You can see the results on their earnings reports, so yes, it was more than a PR move.

"I will go with what I hear from people and not from Google press releases"

How about going with what you can see with your own eyes and from experiments that you perform? You claim to be an adherent to 'operational science', here's your chance to see it in action. Hunt down a proxy server in china, point it to google and search away.

"China is going against the flow"

Yes, for a long time, people said that capitalism eventually leads to democracy. China is proving that statement false.

Anonymous said...

"I have sources in Asia"

By Asia, I assume you mean china, since after all:

"Unless you are in China yourself, you cannot tell me otherwise"

And are you also claiming that Google censors European search results?

radar said...

As promised, I am not going to comment further on Google and China no matter what is said. I trust my sources and that is that.

However, one of you raised another issue concerning capitalism.

"Yes, for a long time, people said that capitalism eventually leads to democracy. China is proving that statement false."

All nation states act as capitalist entities on the world market. Capitalism is unavoidable unless someone like a Hitler succeeded in becoming Pinky and The Brain and "conquered the world."

Some liberals apparently long for a one-world government, which really would be quite impossible to hold together for long. Now on to China. China is HUGE and the government has discovered (surprise!) that communism doesn't work. Giving productive workers and companies an incentive to produce beyond threats and propaganda is already policy within China.

There are areas in China where employers are advertising for Christian workers and trying to hire only Christians in order to be more productive. Also, more Bibles are printed in China than any other nation outside of the USA. It is possible that they have even surpassed us in Bible production since the last numbers I saw.

Capitalism is in fact becoming more accepted within Communist China as the leadership tries to walk the fine line between control over the masses and success in the world marketplace. The USSR failed in large part because of their adherence to the communist mindset. With no incentive to be productive, the workers tended to work when possible in an underground economy and within a world of barter and exchange of goods for services outside the purview of the Politiburo and the KGB. Part one.

radar said...

In Soviet nations, that underground economy also was paired with organized crime elements, all working outside of the "official" communist system.

You could either wait in line all day for toilet paper, or you could trade your ability to fix a primitive computer in exchange for a couple of rolls of toilet paper and some eggs. You could spend a large percentage of your paltry salary at official stores or you could have a garden in a vacant lot somewhere and be growing potatoes, some to eat and some to convert into a homemade vodka of sorts.

I have talked with Russians and Czechs and East Germans about life behind the Iron Curtain before the Berlin Wall came down. Yes, Reagan's policy of presenting military might to the Soviets so they would devote a good portion of their resources to the military helped bring down the economy. But the communist economy was unsustainable anyway and was coming to a grinding halt as it was.

When two college professors put together still had to share an apartment with their parents and only able to have one computer and phone and no car, as you can imagine, the common man was far worse off than that.

The real downside to all of this was the rise of organized crime in Russia and Eastern Europe. Now there is a big market in human trafficking and prostitution as well as a well-organized internet crime wave coming from the former Soviet nations. The economy and infrastructure under the communist regimes of these countries suffered great damage. Ancient old electric busses labor up hills, travel by horse and cart is common in many of these areas, and frankly tourism in the safer and friendlier areas is all that keeps things from falling apart.

I am looking forward to discussing the situation in Armenia with my cousin, who just came back from a visit there. Russian is still the common language where they went and tourism is a boon to them. The American dollar goes a lo-o-o-o-o-o-ong way in Armenia compared to here at home! Part two.

radar said...

It is tragic that the aftermath of the Soviet regime is areas that are falling apart, areas that have been taken over by crime lords or Islamic totalitarian governments. In Moscow, the capital city of Russia before the tragedies of the 20th Century, there are still many places where tourists can enjoy visiting but in the background prostitution and alcoholism run rampant and children are abused and sold into slavery.

Once Christianity was welcomed into Russia after the fall of the Iron Curtain but that is changing. The Putin gang is really more like KGB 2.0 and they are clamping down on freedoms and hostile to Christianity. They'll take the food and toys and so on we send there. They will still allow the medical missionaries to come. But ordinary churches and missionaries are facing harder times.

China is very likely going to become a more democratic society from within by measures OR there will be a revolution again going in the other direction. Right now it looks like a process of relaxation of oppression by the powers that be in hopes of a happy medium being reached that leaves them in power while mollifying the ever-increasing desire for freedom within the population at large. The internet, even being filtered, has caused great change within China!

My heart goes out to people under Islamic regimes. If you are not an Islamic alpha male, you are going to be dominated and mistreated under Sharia Law. While Socialism is a great enemy here in the USA, Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world at large. This is why an Iran with nuclear weapons is not simply a danger to Israel.

Sometime next week I will speak to some of the issues specific to the USA that are peripheral to conditions around the world.

I do not care if some of you do not believe me. I was right about Obama and what his administration would do. 88 million Americans are out of work and the debt has surpassed even my expectations of what an Obama Administration would accomplish. Go back and read my predictions of the dire straits the USA would be in if Obama won in 2008. I was right about that.

I am right about China as well. Some of you could take some time to study what is actually taking place there instead of spending time defending Google or deriding Cisco. Too many of you failed to take a course in political science. Geopolitics is about nations and not all nations are nation states.

Multinational corporations can and do act as nations in the world marketplace and have political clout as well. There are even some private armies that are more powerful than the armies of some smaller countries. Within the USA there is more than one faction, we are not one people, we are a collection of smaller nation-groups or, if you prefer, tribes that are at war for control of the national tiller.

The common American who is unaware of the key issues and votes with all the forethought of deciding between a Coke or a Pepsi with his lunch is the tool that is used to allow tyranny to get ahold of the keys to the Kingdom, as it were. What a sad end this country could have, ending with a sigh rather than a bang?

Anonymous said...

"As promised, I am not going to comment further on Google and China no matter what is said. I trust my sources and that is that."

Of course you won't because you're completely turned around and won't admit it. Blindly trusting your sources is what gets you into hot water when you discuss creationism and here as well.

I gave you all you need to know to perform experiments to test your earlier statement, and you rather than take five minutes and do a test, you'd rather trust your sources. Sources can be wrong radar.

The facts are simple and easy for anyone to verify --if that person actually cared about facts.

Anonymous said...

"Some liberals apparently long for a one-world government"

None that I've ever met, but don't let that stop you.

You seem to take my earlier comment as an attack on capitalism. It's not, just a critique on those who think that free markets automatically spawn democracy.

But go ahead and beat up that strawman if it makes you happy.

echidna said...

Radar,
You must be bored with all these people who are never, ever right.

Why do you bother sharing your intellect with people such as these commenters who would never understand, much less appreciate your vast understanding of, well, pretty much everything?

They must get bored of constantly being shown the error of their ways.

Anonymous said...

Nice try, Jon, citing Newton while trying to hide your familiarity with yet another logical fallacy (false analogy, i.e., apples to oranges comparisons). As though Newton’s investigation of historical measurements and his ultimate conclusion by inference has anything to do with alchemy. And what’s magic? The amount of steps allowed by Jews in a Sabbath day’s journey?

And you’re what?—(get this, folks) a Buddhist wannabe in a role playing game? Yeah, the “Ishap Abbey.” Nice product placement, by the way.

The astute reader (take a break here, Jon) will see that Jon simply refuses to accept as primary sources the basic unit of measurement evident in the Great Pyramid, the unified field of measures demonstrated in the O.T.’s description of Solomon’s Sea (which includes the earliest written description of the golden mean), etc. But what a crashing bore—having to repeat my argument because Jon’s repeating his.

Anyway, his implicit “:I AM” statement (I speak as a Christian) which he uses to authorize himself to declare what shall or shall not be regarded as evidence is in fact highly individualistic, and therefore totally at variance with the theoretical idea (if such is an idea) of “Mu”, the Zen belief that “yes” and “no” is the answer to every ‘question’. One in the eye to Hegel’s dialectic and the Socratic statement that “all I know is that I know nothing.” Ho hum, we’ve seen it all before, the individual crying “it’s the end of the world,” while ‘explaining’ there is no world. I only hope Jon will spare me the “You don’t understand Mu” speech.

So, Mu it is?. So if Jon’s not an atheist it’s because he’s not anything? Well, I agree at least his arguments are not anything. Still, it’s funny how the ‘nothingness’ of Christianity keeps raising his mu-hackles.

Daniel Gracely

Jon Woolf said...

That's quite impressive, Mr. Gracely. Not only are you wrong in every particular, you didn't even post that mindless rant in the right comment-thread. The post on your numerological nonsense is a couple of steps downstream.

Thanks for playing, though. As a lovely parting gift, I'll correct you on one of the many things you got wrong. MU is a Zen term; when given as an answer, it means the question should never have been asked. A mu-theist is one who thinks the question "does God exist?" should never have been asked, because it has no meaningful answer.