We should thank True Skeptic

MattusMaximus

Intellectual Gladiator
MattusMaximus
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
15,948
Howdy all,

In a strange way, I suppose we should all thank True Skeptic. Without realizing it, he/she is showing us all the next front in the creationist war against science, complete with the newest wave of rhetorical arguments and relabeling ("scientific creationism" --> "intelligent design" --> "front-loaded evolution").

Before True Skeptic showed up here recently, I had never heard of Front-Loaded Evolution (FLE). Now I know to watch out for it in the next round of the creationist attacks on science...

1) relabel "intelligent design" as "front-loaded evolution"
2) insist that the Discovery Institute is accepting of evolution - in an attempt to kill it
3) rant and rail against the scientific community for ignoring the "valid FLE hypothesis"
4) well, we all know the rest by now... it's pretty much par for the course from here on out

We should all be taking careful notes - I know I am :)

Cheers - MM
 
I think they'll probably tweak the name before fully unleashing it. After spending decades conditioning their "flock" to freak out at the very mention of the word "evolution," I don't think they're going to get very far even persuading their own people to support something called Front Loaded Evolution.

This is the Achilles' Heel of the creationists: legally (in the U.S.) they have to avoid words like "creation" and "god," but they can't motivate their supporters without doing so.
 
It seems they can say they are playing science this time round as they now have a falsifiable hypothesis. It’s a big claim with many problems like interference from random mutation and natural selection but if they are right a wealth of evidence must await them.
 
He/she/it claims to be a panspermist.

The connection with creationism is that panspermists and creationists use exactly the same arguments, only creationists finish up with "goddidit" and panspermists finish up with "aliensdidit".

Many of the most popular creationist arguments were borrowed wholesale from panspermist whacko Fred Hoyle.
 
Dr Adequate said:
He/she/it claims to be a panspermist.

The connection with creationism is that panspermists and creationists use exactly the same arguments, only creationists finish up with "goddidit" and panspermists finish up with "aliensdidit".
Click to expand...


I get the impression that he's one of the "anunameddesignernudgenudgewinkwinkyouknowwhodidit" brigade.
 
shawmutt said:
I found one article on it so far, not sure how good the science is as it's not my specialty.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/06/exaptation_vs_front_loading_wh.php
Click to expand...

Excellent article shawmutt. It shoots down ELF, I mean FLE before it even gets out of the gate. When I first saw that silly idea, which I do have to thank True Skeptic for, I thought it was going to be proved to be some sort of misinterpreting genetic data and I was right. Everyone had to know that the creationist crow was going to come up with some other way of saying "god did it". It is just another sad attempt to keep godless evolution out of the public schools.
 
For those that don't know, real scientists are the most feared ID skeptics on the world as they have routinely used their superior scientific knowledge to put IDists of all sorts and forms in their place.

And this will continue...
 
Dr Adequate said:
He/she/it claims to be a panspermist.

The connection with creationism is that panspermists and creationists use exactly the same arguments, only creationists finish up with "goddidit" and panspermists finish up with "aliensdidit".

Many of the most popular creationist arguments were borrowed wholesale from panspermist whacko Fred Hoyle.
Click to expand...

I know nothing about Hoyle and panspermism, however calling him a "wacko" is a bit unfair. He made major contributions to astronomy, physics and cosmology -- but, obviously went astray somewhat with his solid state theory. In the end, I believe he did concede that the big bang model (which he named) was superior.
 
Dunstan said:
I think they'll probably tweak the name before fully unleashing it. After spending decades conditioning their "flock" to freak out at the very mention of the word "evolution," I don't think they're going to get very far even persuading their own people to support something called Front Loaded Evolution.

This is the Achilles' Heel of the creationists: legally (in the U.S.) they have to avoid words like "creation" and "god," but they can't motivate their supporters without doing so.
Click to expand...


They've already legitimized the use of the word "evolution" with the micro/macro gambit. Note that the principal ideological villian in this play is "Darwinism" or some variation thereof.
 
Last edited:
Dr Adequate said:
whacko Fred Hoyle.
Click to expand...


ugh, Take that back!

He had some inspirational ideas still used by many in cosmology/astronomy today. Different and underappreciated ideas, yes, but still scientifically worthy enough for a wealth of scientists to pay attention to them and get published in the most reputable journals there are. His ideas spawned many similar cosmologies, each with their own merits and pitfalls.
 
Check out the sites for Back Loaded Evolution. That's where they pull the data out of their rectums.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Before True Skeptic showed up here recently, I had never heard of Front-Loaded Evolution (FLE). Now I know to watch out for it in the next round of the creationist attacks on science...
Click to expand...

True Skeptic has revealed himself to be a FLE-Bitten IDiod Creationoinalist.

FLEBIC TM
 
Zeuzzz said:
ugh, Take that back!

He had some inspirational ideas still used by many in cosmology/astronomy today. Different and underappreciated ideas, yes, but still scientifically worthy enough for a wealth of scientists to pay attention to them and get published in the most reputable journals there are. His ideas spawned many similar cosmologies, each with their own merits and pitfalls.
Click to expand...
But he was still a whacko.
 
Zeuzzz said:
No, he wasn't

Theres no reason to say that. Unless we are considering all great 'mad' scientists to be whackos. If einsteins a whacko too, then I guess he's in good company.
Click to expand...

Except for one thing - Einstein wasn't a whacko, and Hoyle was.

The guy clung desperately to an increasingly discredited (and fundamentally flawed from the start) "alternative" to the big bang, apparently because of some bizarre philosophical prejudice. He denied the possibility of abiogenesis for naive and totally wrong reasons. He rejected evolution by natural selection in favor of some totally ridiculous idea.

He may once have been a good scientist, but as he got older he wandered further and further into nutjob cranky cloud-crackpot fruitloop quackulent whacko-land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom