Fucken ID Bastard Shit-faced MOTHERFUCKER
Feb. 7th, 2005 12:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenSorry, the above subject is not appropriate for children under 13. Fortunately, neither is the following rant.
First, the reason I am grinding my teeth at work.
Son of a bitch.
This guy teaches? This man. Him, the author, is responsible for the education of young minds in the field of biology? He believes in INTELLIGENT DESIGN OVER EVOLUTION AND HE IS TEACHING!? Oh, he has a very intelligent, snarky, 'aren't I so smart, I can stay calm while I rip science a new one' attitude and explanation, and, I admit, it's a tough sell, especially to the audience of The New York Times. More power to him, that he thinks he can convert.
Tough break, though, seeing as he's selling the same horse shit the religious right nutjobs are spewing only hidden in elegant, restrained, researched argument. He has a line, the famous, 'if it walks like a duck...' in his op-ed. I got news for you, Behe. If it looks like shit, smells like shit, and has the same consistency as a logical argument, guess what? It's SHIT!
He basically ignores fundamental principles of science to sell I.D. while referencing articles so as to draw an inference that science itself is undecided. Newsflash: we're not. We're ten, maybe fifteen-to-one decided for evolution. The only question there is punctuated or gradual? That, for you nonscience people, is the debate. I wish I could shake each and everyone of these people who question evolution and support I.D. and tell them that. "WE ARE THE SCIENTISTS. YOU TRUST US TO DISCOVER THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION OF LIFE, THE UNIVERSE, AND EVERYTHING. TRUST US, EVOLUTION IS REAL!" We make the rules to cover our asses, to double-check, reproduce results, verify each and every little things before we let the public have at it and summarily boil it down to "this causes cancer," "that makes us fat." When I.D. fails as a theory because it cannot be experimentally proven even once let alone many times, they get upset. Morons.
God, he even drags poor Francis Crick out of the grave to poke fun at him for maintaining his constant vigilance over his coworkers to be ever mindful that all is evolved, not designed. Of course, Behe must think this a grand fucking joke. Crick, the purist scientist of the Watson-Crick pair, is dead, unable to tell this wannabe that he's off track while Watson remains to spread a very different gospel. We miss you, Francis. And Behe missed the mark with the Crick reference. DNA is his fucking answer to why the cell can seem like a machine--because the blueprints are right there.
Oh, what's that? I'm sorry, you say that there's no way parts of the cell machinery could have evolved without other parts because alone the parts don't work? Have you ever considered that, in the billions of bases not used in our DNA, there might be an explanation? The Human Genome and Proteome Projects ring a bell? Did you swallow the bullshit (I'm leaning towards 'yes') about them being finished? What kind of no-talent ass clown are you?
Worse, he--not the evolutionists but he makes it impossible to reconcile God and science. I believe in God, and I believe he works in mysterious ways. Behe lacks imagination even as he hints at these awesome powers of a creator--it has to be direct interference, the creator has to be right there. Years of religious questing, asking why a benevolent God would let bad things happen, why he wouldn't rescue even the faithful, and people still don't get it? God doesn't intervene in your life, he doesn't step in and make things happen by rolling up his sleeves and putting that person there, another person somewhere else. So why would he go, "Hmm, I think the cell calls for a MAP Kinase right about...there!"? Isn't it much more elegant and befitting a creator to have him set the spark to primitive molecules that formed RNA, protein, and, eventually, DNA as a result?
Sigh. Some people.
Lastly, here is my response to Behe, in a letter to the Times, much more elegantly restrained, I fancy, than the above rant.
To the Editor:
Re "Design for Living" (editorial Feb. 7)
In selling his doctrine of intelligent design, Michael Behe
denigrates scientists who adhere to the theory of evolution as much
as he imagines I.D. is assailed by them.
His supposedly clear definition of design is marred and
unscientific. Science demands reproducible experimentation to
validate a theory; by its very nature and even with Behe's
explanation, intelligent design can never be tested let alone
reproduced.
Evolution notwithstanding, intelligent design must be exposed as
fraudulent popular notion masquerading as science. Behe even admits
that it is the public opinion that he preferences over the majority
of his peers. Lest he or we forget, public opinion once decided the
world was flat, too.
In other news, it's too hot today in the lab. This is making me cranky as I'm already dehydrated from the wine last night. I don't need this today.
First, the reason I am grinding my teeth at work.
Son of a bitch.
This guy teaches? This man. Him, the author, is responsible for the education of young minds in the field of biology? He believes in INTELLIGENT DESIGN OVER EVOLUTION AND HE IS TEACHING!? Oh, he has a very intelligent, snarky, 'aren't I so smart, I can stay calm while I rip science a new one' attitude and explanation, and, I admit, it's a tough sell, especially to the audience of The New York Times. More power to him, that he thinks he can convert.
Tough break, though, seeing as he's selling the same horse shit the religious right nutjobs are spewing only hidden in elegant, restrained, researched argument. He has a line, the famous, 'if it walks like a duck...' in his op-ed. I got news for you, Behe. If it looks like shit, smells like shit, and has the same consistency as a logical argument, guess what? It's SHIT!
He basically ignores fundamental principles of science to sell I.D. while referencing articles so as to draw an inference that science itself is undecided. Newsflash: we're not. We're ten, maybe fifteen-to-one decided for evolution. The only question there is punctuated or gradual? That, for you nonscience people, is the debate. I wish I could shake each and everyone of these people who question evolution and support I.D. and tell them that. "WE ARE THE SCIENTISTS. YOU TRUST US TO DISCOVER THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION OF LIFE, THE UNIVERSE, AND EVERYTHING. TRUST US, EVOLUTION IS REAL!" We make the rules to cover our asses, to double-check, reproduce results, verify each and every little things before we let the public have at it and summarily boil it down to "this causes cancer," "that makes us fat." When I.D. fails as a theory because it cannot be experimentally proven even once let alone many times, they get upset. Morons.
God, he even drags poor Francis Crick out of the grave to poke fun at him for maintaining his constant vigilance over his coworkers to be ever mindful that all is evolved, not designed. Of course, Behe must think this a grand fucking joke. Crick, the purist scientist of the Watson-Crick pair, is dead, unable to tell this wannabe that he's off track while Watson remains to spread a very different gospel. We miss you, Francis. And Behe missed the mark with the Crick reference. DNA is his fucking answer to why the cell can seem like a machine--because the blueprints are right there.
Oh, what's that? I'm sorry, you say that there's no way parts of the cell machinery could have evolved without other parts because alone the parts don't work? Have you ever considered that, in the billions of bases not used in our DNA, there might be an explanation? The Human Genome and Proteome Projects ring a bell? Did you swallow the bullshit (I'm leaning towards 'yes') about them being finished? What kind of no-talent ass clown are you?
Worse, he--not the evolutionists but he makes it impossible to reconcile God and science. I believe in God, and I believe he works in mysterious ways. Behe lacks imagination even as he hints at these awesome powers of a creator--it has to be direct interference, the creator has to be right there. Years of religious questing, asking why a benevolent God would let bad things happen, why he wouldn't rescue even the faithful, and people still don't get it? God doesn't intervene in your life, he doesn't step in and make things happen by rolling up his sleeves and putting that person there, another person somewhere else. So why would he go, "Hmm, I think the cell calls for a MAP Kinase right about...there!"? Isn't it much more elegant and befitting a creator to have him set the spark to primitive molecules that formed RNA, protein, and, eventually, DNA as a result?
Sigh. Some people.
Lastly, here is my response to Behe, in a letter to the Times, much more elegantly restrained, I fancy, than the above rant.
To the Editor:
Re "Design for Living" (editorial Feb. 7)
In selling his doctrine of intelligent design, Michael Behe
denigrates scientists who adhere to the theory of evolution as much
as he imagines I.D. is assailed by them.
His supposedly clear definition of design is marred and
unscientific. Science demands reproducible experimentation to
validate a theory; by its very nature and even with Behe's
explanation, intelligent design can never be tested let alone
reproduced.
Evolution notwithstanding, intelligent design must be exposed as
fraudulent popular notion masquerading as science. Behe even admits
that it is the public opinion that he preferences over the majority
of his peers. Lest he or we forget, public opinion once decided the
world was flat, too.
In other news, it's too hot today in the lab. This is making me cranky as I'm already dehydrated from the wine last night. I don't need this today.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-07 06:02 pm (UTC)Hope your letter gets published. I'll look for it.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-07 06:11 pm (UTC)Here to cheer you up....
Date: 2005-02-07 06:16 pm (UTC)I died of laughter.
Re: Here to cheer you up....
Date: 2005-02-07 07:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 12:56 am (UTC)If there were intellegent design, why would our genome have so much junk DNA, and remanants of RNA in certain proteins?
(Did you take Zubay's Origins of Life class? You woulda liked it!)
no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 05:41 am (UTC)Man, I should use titles like that for my rants, too.
Hope you enjoyed the U2 albums. (Note: There was no hidden agenda behind them or anything. Sometimes I just burn CDs for people.)
no subject
Date: 2005-02-09 04:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-09 01:45 am (UTC)Oh, and premise 3 is just false; premise 4 is an argument from lack of other explanation, which commits multiple logical fallacies that any real scientist or even instructor should be able to see right through in a heartbeat.
Design is "obvious" because we're a bunch of creatures that do design and are specialized and socialized to observe it. So much that we see it all the time even when it isn't there. Or has he never looked at clouds?
no subject
Date: 2005-02-09 05:19 pm (UTC)So, if we're making new theories on the creation of the world that don't have to be remotely backed up by anything besides, "It could have happened because we can't prove it didn't", then I would like to present the following theory:
The entire world was crapped out of Melvin the Giant Interstellar Carrier Pigeon on his way to deliver a message to the Great Ether. Proof: Life is shit.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-09 07:42 pm (UTC)