Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Gary Goodyear confuses science with religion, wagon-circling hilarity ensues


Tantrum-throwing Harper appointee Gary Goodyear is asked a question about science. Goodyear responds by conflating science with "his religion". Goodyear becomes subject of well-earned criticism for his conflation.

Goodyear then takes to the airwaves and again illustrates his ignorance of science by confusing adaptation with the scientific theory regarding the mechanism behind it.



Conservatives then jump to Goodyear's defense by regurgitating Goodyear's conflation of adaptation with contemporary evolutionary theory and playing the victim card.

EDIT: Don't miss the comments below or at "The Nexus of Assholery", where Patrick Ross continues to argue that because Kent Hovind acknowledges that biological adaptation occurs, Hovind actually agrees with contemporary evolutionary theory!









EDIT II: Zorpheus brilliantly captures the YABBA-DABBA-DOO! factor.


15 comments:

Patrick Ross said...

So then you are ignorant of the role adaptation plays within evolution.

Tell it to the University of Michigan, sweetheart.

Audrey II said...

Yes, Patti. Being aware of the difference between evolution and mere adaptation / the difference between acknowledging that adaptation occurs and acknowledging the scientific theory regarding the mechanism through which it takes place = ignorance.

...If only we all had yours and Goodyear's grasp of contemporary evolution, we might actually find that link relevant to what's being discussed!

Patrick Ross said...

So then what you're suggesting is that these scientists from the University of Michigan are ignorant.

As would be these scientists from Minnesota State University?

And New York University?

Audrey II said...

"So then what you're suggesting is that these scientists from the University of Michigan are ignorant."

It appears your reading comprehension is as stunted as your knowledge of basic biology.

Not one of the people you've cited makes the same conflation error that you and Goodyear have. No one is denying that adaptation occurs. Even anti-evolutionary zealots like Kent Hovind acknowledge that adaptation occurs, which makes Goodyear's admission utterly meaningless in the context of subscription to modern evolutionary theory, which posits a particular mechanism behind change and a scope of that mechanism's effect.

But by all means, continue to post snippets of biologists speaking to the issue of adaptation, as doing so (ironically) illustrates your ignorance of evolutionary theory, science, and biology.

Patrick Ross said...

Evidently you're even stupider than I thought you were.

Each and every one of those links confirms that adaptation is a fundamental principle of natural selection, which is a fundamental principle of evolution.

Feigning arrogance about this doesn't change your ignorance.

Audrey II said...

"Evidently you're even stupider than I thought you were."

Given your commentary thus far on this subject, that's hardly any sort of indictment.

"Each and every one of those links confirms that adaptation is a fundamental principle of natural selection, which is a fundamental principle of evolution.

...As is reproduction. But to make the leap from that to subscription to contemporary evolutionary theory (as you've attempted to do) is not unlike claiming that the statement "I believe in reproduction" to mean agreement with scientific evolutionary theory.

Rabid young-earth creationist Kent Hovind "believes" in adaptation, and repeatedly states so in the multiple propaganda videos he produced before going to prison. Goodyear's professed agreement with adaptation doesn't say what you claim it does.

Congrats on your logically incoherent argument and failed grasp of basic biology getting widespread international attention, though. That ought to do wonders for you. ...Pity the "Canadian" descriptive will likely be associated with it.

Patrick Ross said...

Right. And because Kent Hovind believes in adaptation, everyone who believes in adaptation is a creationist?

You're hysterical. The command center conspiracy thinking over here is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

You know, this doesn't really take a rocket scientist to figure out. Gary Goodyear says that he believes in evolution, then elaborates by talking about evolutionary process, and somehow he's a secret creationist.

Audrey II said...

"And because Kent Hovind believes in adaptation, everyone who believes in adaptation is a creationist?"

No (but good work on slaying yet another straw-stuffed shirt!). Mere acknowledgment of adaptation != subscription to contemporary evolutionary theory. There's a difference, and I'm comfortable with the ability of those that read this exchange to recognize the difference that I've delineated and that you've repeatedly attempted to blur.

"The command center conspiracy thinking over here is so thick you can cut it with a knife."

What "conspiracy theory" would that be? Would it involve persecution-card "witch hunt" claims, or are you now echoing Ben Stein's anti-intellectual garbage?

"You know, this doesn't really take a rocket scientist to figure out."

It does take an elementary grasp of science, which your dogged insistence on conflating "adaptation" and contemporary evolutionary theory utterly fails to demonstrate.

"Gary Goodyear says that he believes in evolution, then elaborates by talking about evolutionary process, and somehow he's a secret creationist."

Gary Goodyear says that he, like avid creationists Kent Hovind and Ken Ham, acknowledges adaptation, and somehow you desperately want others to believe that he understands and subscribes to a theory that you've demonstrated repeatedly that you don't understand.

"Hysterical", indeed.

Patrick Ross said...

"Mere acknowledgment of adaptation != subscription to contemporary evolutionary theory."

But somehow affirmation of belief in evolution + acknowledgment of adaptation = secret creationist?

I'm sure this makes sense to you. But to anyone who isn't ideologically blindfolded, it doesn't.

"I'm comfortable with the ability of those that read this exchange to recognize the difference that I've delineated and that you've repeatedly attempted to blur."

I'm not the one trying to argue around a politician's affirmation of his belief in evolution in order to claim he's a secret creationist.

Audrey II said...

But somehow affirmation of belief in evolution + acknowledgment of adaptation = secret creationist?

No, affirmation of belief in adaptation is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for subscription to contemporary evolutionary theory, and making the former affirmation when specifically asked about the latter fails to delineate any real distinction between Goodyear's grasp on science and that of Kent Hovind or Ken Ham, which is cause for legitimate concern in light of the position Harper has put him in

"I'm not the one trying to argue around a politician's affirmation of his belief in evolution in order to claim he's a secret creationist."

The fact that you continue to claim that Goodyear's statements = an affirmation of a belief in evolution speaks volumes about your grasp of basic biology.

Patrick Ross said...

"No, affirmation of belief in adaptation is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for subscription to contemporary evolutionary theory"

Affirming one's belief in evolution then proceeding to elaborate by talking about the process is.

Unless you're bound and determined to identify a "secret creationist", in which case apparently the fact that adaptation is central to the evolutionary process will be ignored.

"making the former affirmation when specifically asked about the latter fails to delineate any real distinction between Goodyear's grasp on science and that of Kent Hovind or Ken Ham, which is cause for legitimate concern in light of the position Harper has put him in"

Once again, to make this argument you have to ignore the fact that adaptation is central to the evolutionary process -- something, by the way, corroborated by every one of the links I've posted here. If you weren't ridiculously stupid you would have understood this; if you weren't ridiculously dishonest you would have admitted it.

Goodyear's elaboratory comments reflect his belief that evolution is a continuous process. I'd like to hear a single, solitary rational argument about how his comments about adaptation -- again, central to the process of evolution -- in that context demonstrate ignorance of evolution.

A rational person can see differently very quickly. Then again, any rational person who's paid even a passing amount of attention to you has realized that you and ration aren't very good friends.

"The fact that you continue to claim that Goodyear's statements = an affirmation of a belief in evolution speaks volumes about your grasp of basic biology."

The links I've cited here -- which evidently you're content to pretend you've examined -- disagree with you.

Furthermore, they come from individuals with a high level of expertise in the subject.

I've researched the subject and determined that, yup, adaptation is part of the evolutionary process. I've even found examples confirming some of Goodyear's specific examples -- related to things such as sun intensity and skin colour.

Meanwhile, you keep pretending that arrogance is equal to expertise. Sadly for you, when you arrogantly continue demonstrating your ignorance, you can't really make that case.

Audrey II said...

No one is "bound and determined to find secret creationists" (but by all means, continue to play that perpetually persecuted victim card). Many are concerned by the minister's original refusal to answer a direct question about science, his confusion of science and "his religion", and his subsequent comments that no more prove that he subscribes to contemporary evolutionary theory than rabid young-earth creationist Kent Hovind's repeated expressions of agreement with adaptation prove his agreement with modern biology.

Draw a circle. Label it "agreement that reproduction occurs".

Draw a smaller circle inside it. Label it "agreement that adaptation occurs".

Draw two smaller, non-intersecting circles inside the above "adaptation" circle. Label these "creationism" and "contemporary evolutionary theory".

Congrats, you've just constructed a Venn diagram. As you can see from it, professing a belief in "adaptation" is no more "affirming a belief" in contemporary evolutionary theory than is affirming a belief in "reproduction". To be asked a question about the small "contemporary evolutionary theory" circle in your diagram and to 1) refuse to answer it, 2) understand that question to be about your religion, and then 3) proceed to deflect the question by talking to the larger "adaptation" circle (as Kent Hovind and Ken Ham often do) is cause for concern given the position Goodyear's been appointed to. That's not a witch hunt, and the increasing concern has been Goodyear's creation (pun intended) at every step along the way.

Your continued insistence that the links you provided where evolutionists speak to adaptation as it applies to contemporary evolutionary theory don't remotely mean what you so desperately want them to. Not one of them shows anyone claiming that subscription to adaptation = agreement with conventional evolutionary theory. This is because virtually no one denies adaptation takes place. Biologists and creationists alike agree on this, which makes your ongoing "Goodyear agrees with adapation! Evolutionists talk about adaptation too! This proves Goodyear agrees with contemporary evolutionary theory and if you can't see that you disagree with the people at Harvard!) argument all the more absurd. Either you don't understand that acknowledgment that adaptation occurs says absolutely nothing at all about ones agreement with or grasp of contemporary evolutionary theory, or you do and are arguing in bad faith. Either way, I'm again satisfied at having pointed out the ongoing problem with your position.

CC said...

Twatsy expectorates:

"So then what you're suggesting is ...

Here, let me reword that to make it more accurate:

"So let me misrepresent you completely as saying ..."

Yeah, that's more like it.

Patrick Ross said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Patrick Ross said...

"No one is "bound and determined to find secret creationists" (but by all means, continue to play that perpetually persecuted victim card). Many are concerned by the minister's original refusal to answer a direct question about science, his confusion of science and "his religion", and his subsequent comments that no more prove that he subscribes to contemporary evolutionary theory than rabid young-earth creationist Kent Hovind's repeated expressions of agreement with adaptation prove his agreement with modern biology."

You truly are one of God's simple creatures.

If someone asks an individual if they're a creationist, they aren't asking about science. They're asking about religion.

"Draw a circle. Label it "agreement that reproduction occurs".

Draw a smaller circle inside it. Label it "agreement that adaptation occurs".

Draw two smaller, non-intersecting circles inside the above "adaptation" circle. Label these "creationism" and "contemporary evolutionary theory".

Congrats, you've just constructed a Venn diagram. As you can see from it, professing a belief in "adaptation" is no more "affirming a belief" in contemporary evolutionary theory than is affirming a belief in "reproduction". To be asked a question about the small "contemporary evolutionary theory" circle in your diagram and to 1) refuse to answer it, 2) understand that question to be about your religion, and then 3) proceed to deflect the question by talking to the larger "adaptation" circle (as Kent Hovind and Ken Ham often do) is cause for concern given the position Goodyear's been appointed to. That's not a witch hunt, and the increasing concern has been Goodyear's creation (pun intended) at every step along the way."

Oh. My. Dear. Lord.

I sincerely doubt that Gary Goodyear has drawn a fucking venn diagram regarding his views on evolution.

That being said, this is nothing more than an excuse on your part to add two and two and come up short of four.

I just find it remarkable that you can't defend your views based on Goodyear's comments -- you have to try to move the goalposts (move 'em, baby, MOVE 'EM!) to talk about this other character's comments.

Your conclusions simply aren't rationally defensible. They don't fit within Goodyear's statements, they're based on what you insist Goodyear isn't saying, not on what he said.

"Your continued insistence that the links you provided where evolutionists speak to adaptation as it applies to contemporary evolutionary theory don't remotely mean what you so desperately want them to. Not one of them shows anyone claiming that subscription to adaptation = agreement with conventional evolutionary theory. This is because virtually no one denies adaptation takes place. Biologists and creationists alike agree on this, which makes your ongoing "Goodyear agrees with adapation! Evolutionists talk about adaptation too! This proves Goodyear agrees with contemporary evolutionary theory and if you can't see that you disagree with the people at Harvard!) argument all the more absurd. Either you don't understand that acknowledgment that adaptation occurs says absolutely nothing at all about ones agreement with or grasp of contemporary evolutionary theory, or you do and are arguing in bad faith. Either way, I'm again satisfied at having pointed out the ongoing problem with your position."

Unshockingly, Audrey, you missed the point. Despite having it explained to you at length.

The witch hunters (and yes, this is a witch hunt) who are so intent to paint Gary Goodyear as a secret creationist have insisted, at length, that because Goodyear was talking about adaptation, he wasn't talking about evolution.

Until an admission that, yes indeedy, adaptation is central to the process of evolution was extracted from these individuals, including yourself.

Now that you no longer have the option of pretending that adaptation isn't part of the evolutionary process, it seems that your last trick is to separate Goodyear's talk about adaptation from its context -- Goodyear's affirmation of his belief in evolution, and his elaboration on it as an ongoing process.

It amuses me that you simpletons still can't figure out -- or, more likely yet, simply won't admit -- that Goodyear elaborating on his belief in evolution by describing it as an ongoing process doesn't amount to him being a secret creationist.

It's also part of an ongoing shell game of arguments that I don't think I'll ever stop laughing at. One thing you clowns really need to decide is whether you're trying to argue that Goodyear's a secret creationist or ignorant about evolution.

Then again, we've covered this whole "ignorance of evolution" argument, and the fact that you've entirely backed away from it gives us a pretty good indication of where this argument is headed -- even if you think your arrogance has concealed it.

Post a Comment