[Via Pharyngula] I just finished listening to the radio debate between PZ Myers and Geoffrey Simmons (Discovery Institute fellow). Years ago, I saw the Discovery Institute as a collection of people put together specifically to put a respectable face on creationism. They wouldn’t repeat the simplistic creationist arguments, but would bring a higher standard to their (still flawed) creationist ideas. (I’ve seen this with other creationist groups – for example, the even the low-brow AnswersInGenesis complains about some of Hovind’s arguments.)
Despite the fact that Simmons had written books on evolution (Billions of Missing Links: A Rational Look at the Mysteries Evolution Can’t Explain, What Darwin Didn’t Know), and says he’s “studied evolution for 40 years“, he came off as clueless as a novice young earth creationist. Unfortunately, most of the listeners simply wouldn’t recognize when he made completely false statements.
He says that the fossil record has lots of holes. He says that there are no transitionals between deer-like land animals and modern whales. He says there are no transitionals showing the movement of the nostrils from the front of the face to the top of the head. Myers cites several intermediates (Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodcetus), but Simmons doesn’t even recognize the names. Instead, he goes on the attack – and revealing his uncompromising ignorance – saying that “[Myers] is very wrong about whale fossils”. Simmons complains that Darwin thought whales evolved from bear-like mammals (roll eyes) – as if Darwin was either 100% right on everything or 100% wrong on everything. Will creationists ever understand that Darwin is not a prophet?
(Basilosaurus, 34-39 million years ago, with well developed hind limbs, though reduced in size.)
I can only guess that Simmons never reads much outside of creationist literature, and doesn’t have much interest in it. That’s the only explanation I can possibly muster for explaining his ignorance on the subject.
Simmons complains that evolution is only a theory. Myers says that calling evolution “a theory” doesn’t mean it’s a flimsy idea (as the common usage of the word would imply). Simmons backs off of that, but later says that “if [evolution] were a fact, they’d call it the fact of evolution”. As if theories somehow graduate and become a fact. (Duh. We still call them the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the theory of relativity.)
Simmons also argues that students should be exposed to other theories and problems of evolution in school. But, Simmons is so clueless about the problems of evolution – citing non-existent problems in whale evolution, and complaining about the word “theory”, you have to wonder what exactly would be taught in schools. Further, evolution is a deep subject. I have very little faith that students are going to come up with the correct ideas when people like Simmons (who have written books) are so clueless about the facts. Would we teach both sides of the theory of relativity? Both sides of atomic theory? No, we would try to figure out the best knowledge in the field and present that to students. Simmons wants to do an end run around scientists and present his “intelligent design” ideas directly to kids without going through the channels that all the other sciences go through.
Simmons even ridiculously claims that there is a kind of reverse inquisition going on against IDists. (Here’s a hint: the real Inquisition tortured and killed people.)
He says that evolution has been disproven by science, but fails to provide anything to back that up, and says Darwin would never get published today (apparently because his ideas were transparently wrong). Yet, Simmons can’t seem to muster a cogent argument against evolution.
Even after all Simmons’ ridiculousness, I still thought Myers should’ve avoided using words like “infantile”. I thought that came off as too harsh, and would turn listeners against him. It also gave Simmons a chance to express indignation (see what those nasty evolutionists are doing to him?)
I think it will be interesting to hear the ID blogs response to the debate. (I already found one that posted about it before the debate happened.)
Update: The Panda’s Thumb says UncommonDescent put up a post about the debate, but then removed it. Fortunately, someone saved the comments before the post disappeared.
In the past I’ve been in the “be firm but polite” camp, but increasingly I’m in the “Call a falsehood a falsehood” camp. How polite should one be to a man who trades on an irrelevant degree (an M.D.) to argue for purveying falsehoods to children when his own ignorance is so transparently obvious? I don’t think “infantile” was out of line in context.
They reminds me of scientologys “fair game” May be tricked, sued or [b]LIED[/b]to or destroyed.
“studied evolution for 40 years”
These people are simply liars and only exist to deceive and confuse the public. They make me sick
I’m pretty sure he didn’t study evolution for over 40 years, if he wasn’t familiar with those whale fossils.
I just listened to the “debate”, and I am absolutely appalled. The word “ignorance” just does not go far enough; it’s an aggressive, brash, indelible, flagrant, and inexcusable ignorance. Simmons did not show one iota of understanding about a theory he clearly has a deep visceral hatred of.
The important question, in my mind, is how to deal with the militant anti-evolutionist crowd, who are hell-bent on dragging evolutionary biologists through the mud. Although the damage they have wrought thus far is (arguably) minimal, it’s not for lack of trying. So, should we (the scientific community) ignore them or engage them? Clearly, there are scientists of both minds, as one might expect. I lean toward engagement, although I’m not keen on the idea of helping to perpetuate their claim that there is a scientific “controversy” over the fundamental tenets of evolution; the more debates they stage, the more it seems to the lay public that there is indeed a controversy.
One suggestion I have is the following: Since the vast majority of anti-evolutionists appear to know very little about evolutionary biology (Geoffrey Simmons being a particularly egregious example), it may be prudent to start such debates by having each side state the *strongest* or most *widely accepted* arguments of the opposing side, simply to prove that they understand what PURPORTED evidence or arguments exist, whether or not they AGREE with such evidence or arguments. Here is how an evolutionary biologist might summarize the strongest arguments of the ID crowd:
1) Life is super super complex. It’s hard to imagine how it got that way without a “designer”.
2) There are mechanisms that appear to be “irreducibly complex”, and therefore falsify gradualism.
3) We don’t see a complete history of gradual transitions in the fossil record for a single organism.
4) The Bible says we were created. etc.
The fact that most of this is rubbish, or at least misleading, is immaterial. This is about the best they have. However, what would an anti-evolutionist like Simmons, who apparently knows very little about evolution, say? I really don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I can’t resist having a little fun:
1) Darwin said so.
2) People sometimes act like animals.
3) If we evolved, then we don’t need to obey any rules.
4) Ummm….
Maybe Simmons could do a little better than this, but I suspect not much. It might also be useful to have such folks state what they think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is. The point is, it’s highly unlikely that someone can make a cogent argument about ANY theory without first understanding what the theory is and what supports it. I think we should call them on it.