Bob Ellis opens this posting as:
I used to believe in evolution…until I realized it was 5% science wrapped in 95% conjecture and guesswork masquerading as “fact.”
The whole bogus article is here.
My reply which will almost certainly be binned as Ellis has a habit of doing with people he cannot best (Freedom of Speech only seems to go one way: his) follows below.
Hi Bob, perhaps you would be good enough to explain in more detail where you get your figures of: "5% science wrapped in 95% conjecture and guesswork masquerading as “fact.”"
I would agree that evolutionary biology doesn't know everything, but 95% seems very definite figure. The accompanying picture and video (for instance) lists a bunch of things that have precisely nothing to do with biology - creation of the universe, how, when and why the solar system formed are just four examples.
How the first life came about (in scientific terms) is called abiogenesis and that's only loosely connected with biology; it is more often associated with biochemistry. As is the development of RNA and DNA into life.
We know the age of the Earth very accurately; we know the age of the universe to within a few 10s of thousands of years too. We know how the solar system cam about and we know why water is the way it is only on Earth and no other planets in our system...
None of these things are guesses - they have excellent and verifiable scientific proofs. And again, not one of these examples belongs under Neo-Darwinian evolution. The video above about sexuality is almost 100% wrong, too.
It proves that the writer was ignorant of the entire subject and has tied evolution up with astrophysics, geophysics, developmental biology and probably a whole bunch of other disciplines I could and would be happy answer most of these questions - but I'm guessing you wouldn't believe me.
I admire anyone who doesn't agree with accepted science - that's a valid perspective, but you can only do this if you know all the facts.
Ellis knows me of old - so that will go against me - others may want to attempt to get a published response, but don't hold your breath. Ordinarily, I don't bother with this ultra-conservative excuse for a human, but that was just too bloody much.
======= UPDATE ======
OK, I've lost it this time! ;-)
This time he's going to have to put up or shut up because he won't silence me and I'll be damned if he's going to force his sh*t down the throats of good people.
The kicker is at the end and it's aimed right for his (enormous) ego. I do hope he takes up the challenge - but if he does not, we can hold him up as a lying, deluded coward.
Bob, thank you for patience, I will admit that mine is about at an end.
In the interests of transparency, I note that you are a professional author - or journalist, perhaps? I don't make much of a distinction - but I have worked as both.
I have much to discuss with you and defend the remarks I have made; in the face of blinding ignorance and perfunctory rudeness with which you defend your scientifically untenable position.
For instance, I didn't imply gravity is responsible for the formation of stars - I SAID IT WAS.
We don't really know what causes gravity (yet) the best theories lie in the realm of quantum physics that are above my pay grade.
You say (I've edited the sarcasm for brevity): "How does disorganized matter attain enough mass to cause enough gravity to organize the matter into a solid form?"
I'm sorry Bob, but you're exposing your ignorant hatred very well here. You simply don't understand the most basic idea of gravity, do you? You think you do, but if you bothered to learn from people who know about this stuff (Newton was a creationist, as I have pointed out before) you would know that every single atom - even a single atom of hydrogen has mass - so it has gravity. It's so simply my seven year old daughter gets it!
That's how. Gravity may be weak but its range is tremendous - how the hell do you think the most distant planet (now Neptune as pluto got demoted) keeps its perfect orbit around the sun? Do you really believe that it's held there with supernatural string?
It's about 2.8 billion miles away in your money. Yet gravity packs such a punch that it is unable to get away. Our entire galaxy orbits a supermassive black hole at its center: and that's light years away - the entire thing is 100,000 light years across; and yet every piece in the wonderful cosmic dance is held together by the weakest force in nature.
You knowledge of the scientific method is so blinded by your belief that it's turning you into a fascist denier.
Much of what you claim is based on pure ignorance buoyed by your own self-belief that you have all the answers.
You know why I don't comment on your political posts? Here's a clue - because know less about the American political system than you know about neo-Darwinian evolution. Which by your version essentially means that I know volumes.
The funny thing is; no properly qualified scientist I know - and I know a fair number - would ever claim to know everything. Science is constantly reexamining what we know.
Now, I guess you must be pretty fed up of my battering you with questions and demanding reasoned answers - which you have so far refuse to give - so here's an idea.
As you'll have noticed I post all of these comments to my Facebook account for all to see: so even if you chose to exercise your right to not post these, they can be read anyway. As it is, I just don't know how many reasoned responses from other writer you have binned.
So here's something for you to consider. We take this discussion fully public - where no one has the option to delete anything just because they can't get their head around it.
You have two options (this post will appear on Facebook and elsewhere in time).
You come out from behind that censor wall and debate with the scientists, atheists and everyone else including believers in a level playing field.
You can, of course, delete this remark from AC, as is you're stated right and pretend the glove was never thrown.
But then how does that make you look?
Think hard about that one.
I'd say that would make you look like a coward - and as much as disagree with you, I don't think you're a coward.
Which is it?
But then, I wouldn't necessarily call that atheism, maybe more like nontheism?
You are deciding who is a real atheist. Is that really so hard to see? The fact that the words are actually synonymous is irrelevant in this case. You wanted them to to mean something different.
No, I am noting a difference and defining it. I don't wish to equivocate two distinct things. It's rather common in philosophy to define what you're talking about and separate distinct ideas.
It is also not my distinction, the same idea is described in Wikipedia with the terms "strong atheism" and "weak atheism" used.
Pardon, I didn't use the right term.
To use wikipedia's terminology, active disbelief would be strong atheism, while passive lack-of-belief would be weak atheism.
They are all still atheism
And we are both human, but I am distinct from you and the difference between us has significance.
Wait, your post was just stating the obvious? That no two people are exactly alike? Why did you bother than?
I bothered because clearly further explanation is necessary for you.
I noted the difference between two categories of atheists. You stated that they are both still atheists. I used a metaphor to illustrate that just because two things fall into the same category does not mean that the distinction is without meaning.