NJ Picks a fight with Goodschools

NJ is one of Linda B's buddies.  Under normal circumstances I would not have responded on Goodschools to NJ.  However, because he communicates with one of my previous letter writers, I felt obligated.  As was the case with Linda B., NJ is more into rhetoric and ad hominem argumentation than substance, and when it came time for him to put up or shut up, he scampered away   As always, I include the entire text of his emails verbatim at the end of this article. 

NJ Writes:

Whoa dude, I don’t understand. What is it you are really trying to say?  How could it be possible that your conclusions are correct and the majority of the scientific community is wrong?  What do YOU think drives Science? In your opinion, what is the goal of Science?

NJ--

Goodschools Responds:

When I responded to NJ, I wrote:  "Sorry I took so long to respond.  In short, am I to assume that your question ("What is it you are really trying to say?") was intended in jest?  I think it is obvious what I am "trying to say," In fact, I think I am doing better than 'trying'."  

I really thought he was kidding with me.  Had he read my writings on Goodschools he should have no problem figuring it out. 

I continued:  "You also ask, 'How could it be possible that your conclusions are correct and the majority of the scientific community is wrong?'  The fact is, the (real) scientific community (those who do original research) is solidly on my side, or I on theirs.  Only the educational community has a problem with me.  It is important not to confuse the two."

Had  NJ done his homework, he would have discovered that the majority of the real scientific community and I are on the same page.  At the cost of being redundant, which apparently I have to be to get through to some people, I will repeat a few quotes from those who are inside the scientific community who have comments regarding Darwin:

1.  "Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence." (p.261, Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler and Adler, 1985)

 "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event.  Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle." (p.264)

 "It is astonishing to think that this remarkable piece of machinery, which possesses the ultimate capacity to construct every living thing that ever existed on Earth, from giant redwood to the human brain, can construct all its own components in a matter of minutes and weigh less than 10 - 16 grams.  It is of the order of several thousand million million times smaller than the smallest piece of machinery ever constructed by man." (p.338)

 "The twentieth century would be incomprehensible without the Darwinian revolution.  The social and political currents which have swept the world in the past eighty years would have been impossible without its intellectual sanction. … The influence of the evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative ides for which there is no really hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and the social and moral transformation it caused in western thought, one might have hoped that Darwinian theory … a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth." (p. 358)

2.  "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups.  This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science.  It is useless."  (Professor Louis Bounoure, Former:   President of the Biological Society of Stassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French national Centre of Scientific Research, writing in "The Advocate," March 8, 1984, p. 17)

3.  Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London, writes:  "One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was … it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.  That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. …so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.  Question is:  Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?  I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence.  I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ' I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school.'" (Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981)

4.  "Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities…  Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."  (Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest Special, Winter, 1979, pp.9ff)

5.  "One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator…"  (Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer, Anthropology, Sydney Un Quadrant, Oct., 1982, p.44)

6.  "Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. …  The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs." (Pierre-Paul Grasse, Past-President, French Academy of Science, "Evolution of Living Organisms," Academic Press, New York, 1977, p.8)

7.   Wolfgang Smith, Mathematician and Physicist, Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University, Former Math Instructor at MIT, writing in "Teilhardism and the New Religion:  A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Darwin" (Tan Books and Publishers, 1988, pp.1,2) writes:   "Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. … The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists  are defecting from the evolutionist camp.  It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say. …We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means.  We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."

8.   "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."  (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, 1980)

9.   "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.  In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."  (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian, Physiologist, Atomic Energy Commission.  As quoted in:  "Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, 3D Enterprises Limited, 1983, Title Page)

10.   "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future.  Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."  (Malcom Muggeridge, Well-known Journalist and Philosopher, Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo)

11.   "After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own:  namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."  (Loren Eiseley, PhD., writing in "Anthropology -- The Immense Journey," Random House, NY, 1957, p. 199)

12.   "Natural selection, operating on variations which are random with respect to usefulness, appears a slim force for order in a chaotic world.  …Our legacy from Darwin…has fractures as its foundations.  …It has been said that a weakness of some biologists is persistent physics-envy:  the seeking of a deep structure to biology.  Rest content, is the sensible refrain, with middle-level theories capturing parts of how systems work..” (p. 643, Stuart A. Kauffman, PhD., “The origins of Order,”Oxford University Press, 1993)

13.  The following citations are from I.L. Cohen's "Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probability," New Research Publications, Inc., 1984.  Cohen is a Mathematician, Researcher, a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences, and an Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America.)

"In a certain sense, the debate transcends the confrontation between evolutionists and creationists.  We now have a debate within the scientific community itself; it is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction." (pp.6,7)

"…In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process." (p.8)

"…After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end - no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. …  If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time.  It is choking us and holding us back." (pp. 214-215)

"… every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts.  Darwin was wrong." (p.209)

"… The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science." (p. 210)

His [NJ's] next question was, "What do YOU think drives Science?" 

I thought that a cogent question.  I told him that for the most part, those in the scientific community (those who do original research), are objective, and their motives pure.  That is why they agree with me (or I with them)--we are both after truth.  But that the educational community, on the other hand, is driven more by politics and expediency, than the search for truth. 

His next question:  "What in my [Goodschools'] opinion is the goal of science."  I suggested he check that out in "Webster's Unabridged."  I truly have no problem with Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. 

However, NJ had a problem with my answers.  For the following email, because it is quite long, I will comment on it in segments.

NJ Writes:

Mike, usually when I get into something with someone things flow, but with you I’m even more confused. Hopefully after a few more questions things will start to make better sense.  Let’s take things a step at a time.  A science teacher I had said a good scientist or thinker can explain things to a child, or they are full of s**t.  I’m not saying you are full of it, but whether or not You think ‘it is obvious’ (or to assume
my question was in jest) only says to me you feel you are right.  

Goodschools Responds:

It is clear to me, NJ never studied under a true research scientist.  Had he, he would know that most researchers and great thinkers have no interest explaining anything to a child.   Educators, on the other hand, like everything to be simple, 1-2-3.  And they like to explain "science" to children.   I think what NJ is saying is that he wants everything explained to him as though he were a child. 

NJ Writes:

So let’s back up a second and tell me exactly what you are saying.  That should be easy enough. 

Goodschools Responds:

Certainly it is easy enough, for me.  I have written dozens of articles regarding my views on Darwin.  NJ simply has to take the time and read them.  If he can find errors, great.  But ad hominem attacks don't take the place of analytical thinking.  I asked NJ to read my Review of Darwin's "The Descent of Man" (Descent), and he got all bent out of shape about it. 

NJ Writes:

Also, please describe to me in greater detail what you think makes up the ‘real’ scientific community. 

Goodschools Responds:

Again, in my opinion, real scientists are scholars who do original research.  The educational community, on the other hand, does little original research.  By original research, I mean research centering on original source material.

NJ Writes:

Since Science is the study of reality it’s not composed of just researchers and educators.  Even a 4 year old child knows an apple is an apple, a car is a car and not an apple, and the wind is not a lake or stream.  

Goodschools Responds:

This makes it easier for me to understand how NJ thinks.  In his mind, teachers, students, I guess anyone, has an input into the body of what is known.  My children had vivid imaginations when they were four years of age.  I think NJ is very wrong here.  Scientific research is a serious business.  It should not be left in the hands of four year olds, or even teachers, for that matter. 

NJ Writes:

I find it too unbelievable that science teachers would be stuck following school board rules that would allow lies to be taught as truth when more than any other subject Science is the ultimate study of reality.

Goodschools Responds:

Sorry, NJ, but that is exactly what is happening with regard to Darwin.

NJ Writes:

One more thing; please don’t refer me to a dictionary when you can just tell me what your opinion is.  I highly doubt Webster has an entry for ‘Mike Carrier’. No offense.  I think you know what I mean.

Goodschools Responds:

I am afraid I do not know what NJ means.  I intended no offense.  I simply am willing to defer to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary.  Their view of what science means is correct.  I do not have special meanings for my words:  truth is truth, fact is fact, science is science, and racism is racism.

NJ Writes:

Mike, I've been doing some research.  I found this definition of The Scientific Community: "The scientific community consists of the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions. It is normally divided into "sub-communities" each working on a particular field within science (for example there is a robotics community within the field of computer science). Objectivity is expected to be achieved by the scientific method. Peer review, through discussion and debate within journals and
conferences, assists in this objectivity by maintaining the quality of research methodology and interpretation of results."

What again did you mean by 'real'?

Goodschools Responds:

NJ did not do "some research!"  He looked something up in the dictionary, or on the web, and suddenly he thinks he is a researcher.  THAT IS THE PROBLEM!  NJ is just like Trefil's and Sagans of the world.  They think what they are doing is "research," but it is not.  Original research involves original source material.  NJ did a study, he did not do research.

Now, regarding the result of NJ's study, I find nothing objectionable with his definition.  I think it interesting that, according to his own study, the scientific community is not made up of four-year-olds or teachers.  Wow, what a revelation!

I send NJ another correspondence asking him to do a critical evaluation of my Review of Descent.  I hoped that might help break his mind free from its preconceptions.  He wrote back.

NJ Writes: 

Mike, I thought I’d let you know I’m almost done writing my critique of your review, but unless you answer my previous questions I am not going to send it to you, but I will send it to Eric to post on his website. ( I assume he has written you and told you about his ‘Raging Lunatic Award’ and posting Linda’s correspondence with you?)  Since you clearly do not understand the Scientific Method I have found many errors you have made.  It’s funny that you say ‘rhetoric does not mean a thing’ when that’s most of everything you write. You flaunt ignorance of modern scientific knowledge.

You Flatearthers cannot win.

Goodschools Responds: .

NJ, I'm glad to read you are reading my Review of Descent.  I understand why you would not want to submit it to Goodschools.  If you do, I will be fair.  I will publish it verbatim.  Mike

Goodschools Conclusion: .

I am happy to learn that I am in the running  for the "Raging Lunatic Award."  If it is to be awarded by the likes of NJ and his ilk, I will gladly accept.  That would be an honor. 

As far as his statement the "you [Goodschools types] flatearthers cannot win."  He might be right.  I am not offended that he would refer to me as a flatearther.  I consider that a compliment.  Were he to applaud me, I would worry.  As long as racism remains entrenched in the educational system, I cannot expect anything else from the skin-head fringe.  Remember, this is what Darwin advocates in his Descent (for more info read my Review of Descent).

Darwin exhibited a strong pre-disposition against dark-skinned people, whom he referred to as "savages."  To Darwin, the term "savage" represented an animal, not a real human being--an animal which had a brain smaller than the "civilized" man [read: "white man"]; was less athletic; was weaker; was dumber; cheated more; was not noble; was prone to alcoholism; was not capable of being a genius; smelled badly; represented a different sub-species than "civilized" man, if not a totally different species altogether; had much in common with idiots; and had smaller "brain cases" than did "civilized man."  …And, of course, Darwin's favorite "savage" whipping boys were those whom he called "Negroes."  

That it to say, according to Darwin:

• Negroes were not real humans.

• Negroes were not as athletic as the white man.

• Negroes were weaker than the white man.

• Negroes were dumber than the white man.

• Negroes cheated more than the white man.

• Negroes could not be noble.

• Negroes were not capable of genius (nor were women, according to Darwin).

• Negroes were prone to alcoholism.

• Negroes smelled badly.

• Negroes had more in common with idiots than they did with the white man (a Darwinian "fact" based largely on the relative size of brain cases).

Darwin states these things regarding those he referred to as  "Negroes," but he offers no sound scientific evidence to support his statements.  I say he came into the game with egregious racist predispositions.  I do not understand how any thinking person could go along with that garbage.

All this notwithstanding, I am glad that people like NJ are at least promising to read something besides comic books, and that they are writing to sites such as Goodschools.  But I regret that he is scared to submit his 'review' to Goodschools.    ...How about "NJ Darweeny?"

I am still looking for someone out there, with a modicum of honesty and analytical ability, who would read my review of Descent, and critically analyze it (It is available as a PDF).  If I have made mistakes, I would like to know.  Obviously, NJ, Linda B and the rest of these chat-room buddies are not up to the task.  

What some may not realize, many of the letters I receive are supportive.  For the most part, for one of these letters to get published on Goodschools, it must provide me with a new insight.  ...Not simply tell me how great I am, or how right I am.   I look more favorably on critical letters, than on supportive ones. 

I hope I have not offended anyone by my brash manner in dealing with this letter.  I have found that it accomplishes nothing to treat ignorant people as though what they said made sense.  When someone writes to me with sound critical thoughts, and is able to express them succinctly, I treat that person with utmost respect.  Becky, for instance.  She did a great job, and I respect her thoroughly.  Others have also done an effective job of stating their opinions.  In some cases, I found myself in need of correction.  I do not pretend to be perfect.  But I will not yield to ignorance or racism (I think they are closely related, if not synonymous). 

Would you like to see related letters and my comments?

--Mike Carrier (MA, NYU--Graduate School of Arts and Science)  

 

 

 

 

Whoa dude, I don’t understand. What is it you are
really trying to say?  How could it be possible that
your conclusions are correct and the majority of the
scientific community is wrong?  What do YOU think
drives Science? In your opinion, what is the goal of Science?

NJ--

 

Mike, usually when I get into something with someone
things flow, but with you I’m even more confused.
Hopefully after a few more questions things will start
to make better sense.  Let’s take things a step at a time.
   A science teacher I had said a good scientist or
thinker can explain things to a child, or they are
full of shit.  I’m not saying you are full of it, but
whether or not You think ‘it is obvious’ (or to assume
my question was in jest) only says to me you feel you
are right.  So let’s back up a second and tell me
exactly what you are saying.  That should be easy
enough.
   Also, please describe to me in greater detail what
you think makes up the ‘real’ scientific community.
Since Science is the study of reality it’s not
composed of just researchers and educators.  Even a 4
year old child knows an apple is an apple, a car is a
car and not an apple, and the wind is not a lake or
stream.  Science is not limited by what has been
written about it.
    I find it too unbelievable that science teachers
would be stuck following school board rules that would
allow lies to be taught as truth when more than any
other subject Science is the ultimate study of
reality.
    One more thing; please don’t refer me to a
dictionary when you can just tell me what your opinion
is.  I highly doubt Webster has an entry for ‘Mike
Carrier’. No offense. I think you know what I mean.
NJ

 Mike,
   I've been doing some research.  I found this
definition of The Scientific Community:

"The scientific community consists of the total body
of scientists, its relationships and interactions. It
is normally divided into "sub-communities" each
working on a particular field within science (for
example there is a robotics community within the field
of computer science). Objectivity is expected to be
achieved by the scientific method. Peer review,
through discussion and debate within journals and
conferences, assists in this objectivity by
maintaining the quality of research methodology and
interpretation of results."

What again did you mean by 'real'?

Mike,

I thought I’d let you know I’m almost done writing my critique of your review, but unless you answer my previous questions I am not going to send it to you, but I will send it to Eric to post on his website. ( I assume he has written you and told you about his ‘Raging Lunatic Award’ and posting Linda’s correspondence with you?)  Since you clearly do not understand the Scientific Method I have found many errors you have made.  It’s funny that you say ‘rhetoric does not mean a thing’ when that’s most of everything you write. You flaunt ignorance of modern scientific knowledge.

You Flatearthers cannot win.