Self-Published Genius #26: The Dentist

We have another fine addition to our series about Self-Published Geniuses, where we bring you news of authors with a vanity press book in which the author claims to have made paradigm-shattering discoveries, and announces his work by hiring a press release service.

This author’s press release is issued by an outfit we’ve encountered before. It’s called PRWeb, which “gets your news straight to the search engines that everyone uses, like Google, Yahoo and Bing.” Their Pricing page reveals that their “Basic Package” costs $99. That’s probably what we’re looking at.

The press release is titled New Book Offers Groundbreaking Insights Into the Validity of Evolution. And it has a sub-title: Dr. Stephen T. Blume Shows That Evolution is Really an “Evo-illusion”

Wow — groundbreaking insights! And the author has “Dr.” in front of his name. Who is this man? At the end of the press release we’re told:

Dr. Blume is a dentist who graduated from the University of Southern California. The courses he took at USC were more than enough to provide him with a master’s degree in biological sciences. Sparked by his visit to the Field museum, Dr. Blume began a research project on evolution, which he kept track of on his blog, http://www.evillusion.net.

Very impressive. He had enough courses “to provide him with a master’s degree in biological sciences”? Does he actually have such a degree? We’re not told. That’s okay; we don’t need to know. Let’s find out about the contents of the book. The press release says, with bold font added by us:

For a very long time, Author Dr. Stephen T. Blume was an enthusiastic devotee and supporter of evolution. However, a visit to the Field Museum in Chicago in 2002 changed all of that. Dr. Blume wound up rejecting Charles Darwin’s theory as he discovered a new outlook on living nature and the universe.

A visit to the Field Museum of Natural History turned his life around? What happened — a bad experience in the bathroom? He doesn’t say, but we’re told:

He shares these insights with readers everywhere in his new book, Evo-illusion.

You’ll have to buy the book to find out what went wrong at the museum. Speaking of the book, we always want to confirm that it’s published by a vanity press. That’s not difficult in this case, because at the end of the press release it says:

For more information on self-publishing or marketing with Xlibris, visit http://www.Xlibris.com.

Okay, we’re solidly on track. We’ve got a creationist dentist, and we’re learning about his self-published book from his press release. Everything is falling into place. Let’s read on:

Evo-illusion tells a fascinating story of biology, astronomy, physics, particle physics, and other sciences that would certainly interest any person who reads it, no matter what their position is on evolution. It takes readers from the beginning of the universe to the emergence of the first living cells on Earth, the coming of the first multi-cellular organism, and then to the formation of modern organisms.

M’god — the ambitious sweep of this book is truly amazing! We continue:

Dr. Blume uniquely utilizes thought experiments that the readers can easily do, which allow them to figure what may and may not have happened during the early steps on the pathway to the formation of the first living cells and multi-cellular organisms.

Thought experiments! Why didn’t we think of that? Of course — that’s the way these things should be done. Here’s the last of it:

For readers interested in exploring new horizons, Dr. Blume’s work will definitely provide a unique perspective towards the study of life’s origins. Evo-illusion promises to enrich and broaden minds with a rich infusion of scientific knowledge and critical thinking.

But wait — we’re not done yet. We found the book’s listing at Amazon: Evo-illusion: Why IID Trumps ID and Evolution. Intriguing title. What’s “IID”? The press release doesn’t tell us.

We had to know, so we went to the author’s website and learned that IID stands for his theory of Ingenious Invention and Design, but we have no idea what that means. Hey — the book has no reviews at Amazon yet. Well, it’s new. Universal praise is sure to come.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

101 responses to “Self-Published Genius #26: The Dentist

  1. This Dr Blume premolar genius’s toothsome offering is another incisor, the biting use of which cretinists will give their eyeteeth for. In fact, they’ll drill it like a root canal. While such canine gnawing does nibble at one’s patience, a molar’s reflection may at first leave you feeling a bit bicuspid. When you realise just how masticated these self-styled tooth seekers are, you’ll fang your maw for those braces you got in your youth.

  2. Gird you loins, Curmy, for the adventure of your intellectual life!! You can read, for free, at least parts the first couple of chapters of this moron’s book at the Amazon website. In Chapter 2, starting on page 18, he describes his infamous visit to the Field Museum.
    The drivel is strong with this one.

  3. Con-Tester, I eschew puns.

  4. I’ve taken enough college classes to be a book critic. I haven’t actually read this Dentist’s book, but after a couple thought expiriments, I’ve concluded the book is a complete waste of time.

  5. @ waldteufel: Gad, you did have to direct my attention to those preview pages at Amazon, didn’t you?

    Well, I refuse to suffer alone and, within the limits of fair use, must inflict a short quotation therefrom. It’s from a passage about his ‘Road to Damascus’ moment when our intrepid dentist, previously in thrall to vile Darwinist propaganda, had an epiphany while viewing a fossilised skeleton of a T. Rex in a museum:

    Why didn’t the T. rex’s arms (or any other part of the T. rex for that matter) evolve in the three million years that it roamed the Earth? T. rex’s arms were so stubby it couldn’t even clap. …[snip]… Wouldn’t it only be natural that the better T. rex grapplers would evolve larger arms? After all, survival of the fittest should result in gradually larger arm length. Shouldn’t the longer-armed individuals survive over the shorter-armed versions?

    Two points of interest should be noted here:

    [1] It seems to me that an absolute prerequisite for being a self-published lone refuter of the Theory of Evolution is to have absolutely no understanding of the Theory in the first place

    [2] Dinosaurs went extinct because they were unable to applaud one another’s achievements.

  6. Why did T. rex have small arms? Well it may have been because he had such a big head and short neck. Other therapods (meat-eaters) that had smaller heads and longer necks had longer arms. All of this may be involved in what is now called Evo-Devo, where evolution occurs by the changes in the development of the organism beginning in the embryonic stage. To make some changes you have to trade-off other features. This may be what happened in T. rex. As far as natural selection is concerned, T. rex could do without longer arms and use his huge jaws and impressive foot long teeth to much on anything he wanted to. Talk about the 800 lb. gorilla in the room, how about the 7 ton T. rex.

  7. Biokid and the dentist ask: “Why did T. rex have small arms?”

    Because it wasn’t intelligently designed.

  8. Charles Deetz ;)

    Because it wasn’t intelligently designed.

    Set and match to SC.

  9. Man Mountain Molehill

    There’s something about the convergence of dentists, self-publishing, and newly-discovered laws of nature.
    I found a book in a used book store in Harvard Square that was self-published by a dentist in New Jersey. He had, by dint of page after page of number crunching discovered that there is a cube/square law relation between a planet’s orbital distance and period. He was VERY annoyed that this was being kept secret by the international science cabal. Of course, this is well known as Kepler’s third law, and I remember doing the proof as an exercise in first year calculus. oops…

  10. @Man Mountain Molehill, Do you perchance remember the name of the book and its author? I feel like frying a few more brain cells today. :)

  11. Ceteris Paribus

    The press release says: “The courses he [Blume] took at USC were more than enough to provide him with a master’s degree in biological sciences.”

    Sure enough, check out the USC Dept of Biological Sciences, and they do have a program called the “Progressive Masters Degree in Molecular Genetics and Biochemistry.”

    The “progressive” part is that USC allows junior and senior level biology courses to apply toward a Master’s degree. So just about anyone who manages to get two years of biology and/or chemistry under their belt by their Junior or Senior year could legitimately claim what Blume is claiming.

    To actually get the MS degree “Students spend a fifth year completing their graduate coursework, which includes a substantial research component.”

    Yeah, “substantial research component”. Emphasis on “substantial”. That’s why god invented graduate students; to spend long hours in a lab doing the repetitive, mindless, solitary, and never ending tasks that you can’t hire a fully human being to do for more than a week before seeking more rewarding employment at the local port-a-pottie franchise.

    And at USC they don’t even give a stipend to these MS Bio grad students – the website clearly explains that these students must pay their regular tuition. At least Blume appears to have been smart enough not to take USC up on its offer.

  12. Given this guy and Don McLeroy, all I can say is that you people must all be anti-dentites. ;-)

  13. retiredsciguy

    “He had enough courses “to provide him with a master’s degree in biological sciences”? Does he actually have such a degree? We’re not told.”

    And he stuck his fingers in enough mouths to be called a dentist, even though his golf score is higher than his IQ.

    T. Rex had short arms because he didn’t need long arms. Efficient use of resources. Judging from this guy and McLeroy, dentists don’t need much brain power.

  14. retiredsciguy

    I should add that he’s a pretty good golfer.

  15. So just another person that thinks ‘thought experiment’ means ‘making things up’?

  16. To add to what Chris said, it’s amazing how many people think “thought experiments” provide evidence for anything. Most people don’t understand that Einstein’s “thought experiments”, while they had an elegance to them that science craves, didn’t provide the hard evidence that science requires. That would take many actual experiments (you know, collecting data, performing analysis) that science, real science, requires. Einstein’s “thought experiments” on space and time didn’t mean diddly until some actual experiments provided evidence that they were, in fact, correct.

  17. “You’ll have to buy the book to find out what went wrong at the museum.”
    His site will do. I quote from the website:

    “I wondered why those tiny arms on their magnificent T. Rex fossil didn’t evolve a lick in millions of years.”
    From the same page:

    “The formation of the universe was due to a near infinite number of Dumb Luck steps that occurred, one after the other in perfect order, strength, and configuration, which produced a universe and planet that could support life as we know it. Then life on that planet appeared from some completely unknown but natural source.”
    That’s some good solid teleology (plus the connected blunders). It doesn’t stop here, so I recommend everyone to read that site. At least you won’t have to read the book then. One other highlight:

    “On the other hand, a run of the mill natural entity, Natural Selection et al, through its supernatural talents, slowly produced all of unimaginable living nature. The supernatural exists in both camps.”
    As far as my limited knowledge goes this is a new one. The final blow is hard hitting:

    “One admits that it does, the other does not.”
    Yup, we evillusionists are toilet-believers.
    Really, read that page. It has a completely new and original definition of Natural Selection:

    “Natural selection is the process whereby one organism is able to kill and consume another organism due to some genetic/mutational advantage the predator has over the prey.”
    Yup, killing and consuming is a supernatural phenomenon.
    He won’t let us forget he is a dentist. So he gives us this gem:

    “How did the upper teeth evolve to exactly match the lower teeth like perfect puzzle pieces, specially when different gene pathways formed upper teeth and lower teeth?”
    Trust me, this is only a tiny part of the brilliant insights this true genius has to offer.

  18. BREAKING NEWS!!!

    I have had my own Epiphany, and one every bit as profound as Dr Blume’s, and I can now answer the question that posed by dentists, chiropractors, and realtors that has utterly baffled scientists, to wit: “Why did T. rex have small arms?”

    Well d’un, people… I mean, c’mon on, it’s bleedin’ obvious!

    To preserve himself from the stain of the Sin of Onan!!!

  19. And lo! A little Googling of “Dr. Stephen T. Blume” shows that our ground-breaking (or at least, wind-breaking) scholar dentist has form! The following is from the TalkOrigins Archive Feedback for August 2006: you’ll need to scroll down to find Blume’s correspondence (and Larry Moran’s response), as follows:

    Dr. Stephen T. Blume’s Letter to TalkOrigins

    My biggest problem with your writings is that your simplistic “either-or” thinking kills any intelligent discussion of evolution. You think that if a person is “anti-ev”, he must believe in Noah, Adam and Eve, and a 6,000 yr. earth. Creationists, as ridiculous as their ideas are, attack evolution so successfully because there are so many major holes and impossibilities in the theory. Try doing a mind experiment and see if you can come up with heart evolution. Draw the steps on a sheet of paper. In actuality , there are no possible intermediate evolutionary steps to a heart system; or eyes, or birds and eggs. A half heart would yield a dead (no) animal and no ev. ID does not require a religion and isn’t biblical. That the universe has a purely scientific intelligence somewhere is probable, and I think necessary for development of species. So, quit trying to make it look like everyone that thinks ev is a crock look like fools. There may just be more possibilities than eve and creat.

    Response by Prof. Larry Moran

    Dear Dr. Blume,
    We don’t need to make it look like everyone who attacks evolution is a fool. They do a good job all by themselves.

  20. The dentist: “You think that if a person is “anti-ev”, he must believe in Noah, Adam and Eve, and a 6,000 yr. earth. Creationists, as ridiculous as their ideas are…”

    As foolish as they make themselves look, I have to agree 100% with the dentist, in that far too many critics of ID/creationism shoot themselves in the foot at every opportunity. It may be convenient, but dead wrong and self-defeating to sloppily suggest that any given evolution-denier is (1) a YEC, or (2) doesn’t “understand” evolution. In most cases they turn out to be not YECs, and usually understand evolution better than the average nonscientist who accepts it. As I say, they know just enough to effectively misrepresent it to most people.

    Once these people take their message public, usually starting with a letter to the editor or (more recently) online comments, they have “been around” enough to see that there is zero evidence for a young earth or “independent origin of kinds.” That’s even if they honestly still think that the evidence for evolution is “weak.” But they are learning to play the game of “don’t ask, don’t tell. what happened when, just keep the focus on ‘weaknesses’ of evolution – and of course how acceptance of it is the root of all evil.”

    The dentist is clearly not a YEC, and probably accepts common descent too. But his political allegiance to the big tent prevents him from devoting “equal time” to criticizing the “creationism” that he admits is “ridiculous.” A term I have heard to describe these budding snake oil peddlers is “pseudoskeptic” – one who claims to have “no dog in the fight” but obsessively roots for one dog to lose while merely ignoring the other.

  21. Ha, I went to the Field Museum a few weeks ago and the Hall of Evolution is fantastic. A journey through time. In the Cambrian room they have three screens set up running one of those aquarium computer screen savers, you know the one where all the fish swim around. Only it ain’t fish! It’s all the Cambrian critters: trilobites scurring around, thingies floating and swimming and other thingies crawling. It was super duper! I stood there for 30 minutes like a slack-jawed dentist just staring at all the thingies.

    As for t-Rex, they’ve got Sue! Full size. It appears that the arms didn’t grow much on the t-Rex, thus, the juveniles had longer arms. (better for the sinning, nudge, nudge) Perhaps arms were more useful for the kiddies and not so much for the adults.

  22. I suspect the dentist author was predisposed for creationism. Doing a simple web search I find that the T-Rex arms were only small in proportion to its body, capable of bench pressing 400 lbs each, and pound for pound 3x stronger than human arms. They could have been used for mating, grabbing prey so it could bite the head off, and possibly to pick itself up after toppling over. It is also absurd he is claiming to have the equivalent of a master’s degree. If he was so close he could go back and get it. And if you don’t have it don’t mention it, seems like obvious resume padding. I’ve always thought human teeth display how they evolved from simple teeth (oops… was that a thought experiment?). Molars seem almost obvious that they are composites of 4 or so simple teeth. It seems to me he is ignoring a lot to render his thesis.

  23. Frank J maintains

    It may be convenient, but dead wrong and self-defeating to sloppily suggest that any given evolution-denier is (1) a YEC, or (2) doesn’t “understand” evolution. In most cases they turn out to be not YECs, and usually understand evolution better than the average nonscientist who accepts it.

    I’ll concede most of your first point–that is, not to assume without specific evidence that a given ‘evolution-denier’ is a YEC–but I’m not persuaded by your second–that such folks ‘usually understand evolution better than the average non-scientist who accepts it’. That is, unless your real point here is that there is a significant body of folks who, having duly sat through High School biology, have some nodding acquaintance with ToE and no particular interest in or quarrel with it, but also no real understanding. It just ain’t something of interest to them, so no big deal.

    But my continuing impression (I haven’t been keeping a data log on this, though one could do so) is that a terribly common denominator of the works of these self-publishing Galilean paragons who claim to have developed a world-view shattering ‘refutation’ of ToE are unlikely to have even read Darwin, still less likely to have read a modern University level text on the topic (and related topics), and can be virtually guaranteed to have never read a scientific research periodical of any relevance.

    Dr. Blume is as fine an example as any of this, IMHO. From the excerpts above, can there really be any question that his ‘refutation’ is of anything other than his own weird and garbled mish-mash of some half-remembered High School bio and journalistic breeziness when it comes to science topics–and thus, nothing to do with ToE?

    Consider: I do not believe in the religious doctrine of Transubstantiation. I may be right or wrong in so not believing, but if asked, I could set out my reasons for my convictions on this. But you should expect, were I to do so, that I should give an accurate account of what the doctrine of Transubstation entails, and you would also be entitled to think me an ignorant idiot if I made claims along the lines of “transubstantiation cannot be true because it encourages young people to become vampires.”

  24. The Curmudgeon quote-mines Frank J:

    … I have to agree 100% with the dentist …

    Yeah, okay. All I can say is: Drill, baby, drill!

  25. Megalonyx: “But my continuing impression (I haven’t been keeping a data log on this, though one could do so) is that a terribly common denominator of the works of these self-publishing Galilean paragons who claim to have developed a world-view shattering ‘refutation’ of ToE are unlikely to have even read Darwin, still less likely to have read a modern University level text on the topic (and related topics), and can be virtually guaranteed to have never read a scientific research periodical of any relevance.”

    On that you are probably correct about the dentist, and for all others at his stage of “evolution” from rank-and-file denier to full-blown pseudoscience peddler. But the latter, especially the handful at the DI, do read everything they can about evolution, for the sole purpose of learning to better misrepresent it. So everything they say will “naturally” come across ad a gross misunderstanding. But all of these people are so fully invested in misrepresenting it for “the cause”, that nothing, including a greater understanding than all the evolutionary biologists put together (if that were even possible), would make them admit that they were wrong.

  26. retiredsciguy

    From Dr. Stephen T. Blume’s Letter to TalkOrigins (dug up by Megalonyx):

    “ID does not require a religion and isn’t biblical. That the universe has a purely scientific intelligence somewhere is probable, and I think necessary for development of species.”

    ID doesn’t require a religion?? Can’t our very insightful dentist realize that the belief “that the universe has a purely scientific intelligence somewhere” is a religious belief in itself? And that as an explanation of origins, it suffers from the same fatal flaw as creationism: “Who designed and built the Intelligent Designer?”

  27. retiredsciguy puts up a poser:

    “Who designed and built the Intelligent Designer?”

    … and more importantly, “Did they go about it intelligently?

    Jokes aside, it’s curious how this perfectly legitimate ontological question always gets dodged (usually with a flimsy rhetorical ruse à laHe exists eternally, outside of time” as if that actually meant or explained anything). The ironic hypocrisy of this position is of course how it purports to address certain ultimate ontological questions by opportunely inventing an ontology for its own ends. I’ve never understood how anyone can put forward such a contrived bit of malarkey as an ostensibly serious argument.

    If you’re going to argue like that, why on earth add all those contrived mystical-teleological BS encumbrances!? Far simpler, far more humble and far more intellectually honest to argue that the potential has in some essential sense always existed for the universe and life to come into existence, and to leave it at that. Christopher Hitchens once made the parallel point that if you wish to argue from a general deistic position to a specific theistic one, “you have all your work still ahead of you.”

  28. :eek: Doggone WordPress really needs a “Preview Comment” facility. It’ll cut down on unmatched HTML tags. :eek:

  29. Con-Tester complains:

    Doggone WordPress really needs a “Preview Comment” facility.

    I know, and it grieves me. But we’ll have to do the best we can with what we have.

  30. @Megalonyx:

    If your “transubstantiation” example is meant to suggest that anti-evolution activists are unlikely to fake ignorance for fear of being considered “idiots” I have one word: Behe. These people, unlike you and I, and even most rank-and-file evolution-deniers, do not care one bit how idiotic they look to that tiny minority that is mainstream scientists. And many of them might actually want to be portrayed as idiots. Because then they just have to trot out a little scientific jargon, and if they’re skilled enough in debate tactics, stump a “Darwinist” (or just recycle that classic Dawkins “silence” from 1997), and they have won the sympathy of ~90% of the people. That’s how the scam works. Behe had his “head handed to him” at Dover and did not blink, much less sweat. My guess is that he was not only aware of all those papers that refuted his argument, but even expected that they’d be brought as evidence. Yet to this day, almost no one I talk to has ever heard of Behe or the Dover trial.

  31. Con-tester:”Jokes aside, it’s curious how this perfectly legitimate ontological question always gets dodged (usually with a flimsy rhetorical ruse à la “He exists eternally, outside of time” as if that actually meant or explained anything).”

    Of course it gets dodged, but more importantly why do we ask it in the first place? These activists would much rather show evasion of that question (ultimate causes aren’t testable anyway) than of the questions that would really clue people in on the games they play. The questions that we really ought to be forcing them to answer or evade, need to start with: “According to your alternate ‘theory’ how many years has life existed on earth?” and “According to your alternate ‘theory’ do humans share common ancestors with other species?”

    In most cases they’ll try to weasel out of it, and drag the “debate” back to “weaknesses” of “Darwinism.” Under no circumstances let them! As wrong as they are about those “weaknesses” and as tempting as it is to correct them – never mind that they have been corrected 1000s of times – it gives them exactly what they want, and often a bonus of more facts and quotes to mine to further mislead their audience. If they do offer vague answers or pretend that those questions are unimportant, remind them that some anti-evolution activists have given clear answers. E.g. Michael Behe, who fully concedes “~4 billion years of common descent.” If they appear to disagree with that, ask if they ever challenged him directly, and if not why not. Conversely, if they seem to agree with Behe, ask if they ever challenged YECs directly. If the audience is representative of the general public – i.e.. not one hand picked by the activist – then most will see the activist, not you as the one trying to fool them.

  32. Psst: You can use an HTML Editor plug-in to preview your posts. You have to do a little cut-and-paste, but it’s generally worth the effort.

  33. Frank J observes (sagely and parenthetically):

    “ultimate causes aren’t testable anyway”

    Quite so. I raised the ontological aspect as yet another front on which the committed godiot is not shy to shirk rigour and engage in intellectual subterfuge.

    I have debated several cretinists and IDeologues of various stripes, including theologians and their students, apologetes and preachers of the Dutch Reformed & Calvinist traditions. In none of those debates did I feel that my opponent was anything less than thoroughly, even immovably convinced of the position they were defending. That is to say, I never felt that my opposite number was insincere about what they were espousing, and that they were concerned about furthering a hidden agenda for their own nefarious aims. (Needless to say, this says exactly nothing about the quality and/or integrity of the methods they are willing to deploy in defence o their views.)

    This may well be different with your Discoveroids. I just find the conspiracy angle on their part a somewhat irregular chunk to swallow.

  34. Lycopene Aficionado ( ;) ), my browser’s Firefox. :P

  35. Fact: Water contains oxygen. Fact: Humans breath oxygen.
    Hypothesis: Humans should be able to breath water.
    Thought Experiment: Imagine a human underwater breathing.

    Hypothesis proved!

  36. Con-tester: “This may well be different with your Discoveroids. I just find the conspiracy angle on their part a somewhat irregular chunk to swallow.”

    I would not even call the DI’s “big tent” strategy a “conspiracy.” I think they are genuinely in fear of moral collapse (I am too but that’s another story, and I disagree 100% with their “solution”). They are like parents telling fairy tales to children, desperately afraid that they might find out the truth – especially the internal contradictions within Biblical creationism. And yet they are confident, even cocky enough, to occasionally let slip admissions of common descent or even that (Dembski’s words) ID can accommodate all the results of “Darwinism.” Ronald Bailey got their number in 1997, fully 2 years before the Wedge document was leaked.

    As for the deniers you debated, did you keep the topic on what their “theories” claim regarding the chronology of life, and which “kinds” do or do not share common ancestors? And if so did they make it clear that they reach their sincere conclusions based on a convergence of independent evidence, not on prior influence from scriptures, and/or “weaknesses” of “Darwinism”?

  37. retiredsciguy

    Frank J correctly asserts,

    The questions that we really ought to be forcing them to answer or evade, need to start with: “According to your alternate ‘theory’ how many years has life existed on earth?” and “According to your alternate ‘theory’ do humans share common ancestors with other species?””

    These would qualify as “Frequently Unanswered Questions”, or FUQs. When IDers successfully weasel out of answering them, their debate adversary has been FUQed.

  38. “this perfectly legitimate ontological question always gets dodged …”
    Another question that always gets dodged – but isn’t asked too often either – is how an immaterial intelligent designer is supposed to interact with our material world.

  39. Apologies for the delayed response. My time zone is GMT+2.

    Frank J asks:

    ‘As for the deniers you debated, did you keep the topic on what their “theories” claim regarding the chronology of life, and which “kinds” do or do not share common ancestors?’

    As much as possible but you no doubt know how slippery the deniers can be. Keeping them on track in the hope of a halfway consequent debate taxes ones patience, and I suspect they may actually know and exploit this. It always seems to me that they’re significantly less troubled by any inconsistencies or contradictions in their own narratives than we who make a point of standing on the side of reason are.

    Also, such debates invariably begin with an inordinately ignorant public broadside fired at evolution, ham-fistedly conflated with abiogenesis, and sometimes Big Bang cosmogony too. The attack is full of straw, unsustainable-but-suitably-contrived twaddle and put-on righteous bluster. That is to say, the challenge always originates with a denier’s attempt to discredit those well-established ideas. Rarely, if ever, is the initial challenge directed at the deniers to validate their claims because those who accept those ideas are content to leave the deniers alone in their delusions as long as they keep them to themselves, and only react when they don’t. In that way, the debate already puts the defender on the back foot from the start.

    ‘And if so did they make it clear that they reach their sincere conclusions based on a convergence of independent evidence, not on prior influence from scriptures, and/or “weaknesses” of “Darwinism”?’

    No, they will cite reams of scripture and vomit up common and long-refuted cretinist canards. Their primary aim is clearly only to discredit, if not eradicate, current scientific consensus on those origins questions. Potential false dilemma aside, the ulterior motive is that their mystical folderol should then automatically fill the gaps they intend thereby to create.

    MNb writes:

    ‘Another question that always gets dodged – but isn’t asked too often either – is how an immaterial intelligent designer is supposed to interact with our material world.’

    Yes, that’s closely related to dualism’s so-called Interaction Problem. “Mysterious ways” or “omnipotence” are the usual pseudo-answers — that is, when s/he who was asked that question actually grasps it. That apart, a blank stare is also very common.

  40. @Con-tester
    Thanks. That’s one of the best reasons I have seen that one should never debate an evolution-denier (or any science-denier) one-on-one, or in the standard debate format that gives pseudoscience the level playing field that it has not earned. Especially if one lets the denier choose the format and audience – as all anti-evolution activists do.

    But it’s also one of the best reasons that one should politely challenge deniers in the presence of fence-sitters, and show how they evade questions, bait-and-switch concepts (evolution vs. abiogenesis, the fact vs. the theory of evolution, etc.) and try to play “heads I win tails you lose” word games (sometimes innocently, sometimes not). Most audiences, unless hand-picked by the denier, understand and accept that an alternate “theory” must be supported on its own merits, not “weaknesses” on the existing one, especially “weaknesses” that are sought and fabricated specifically to promote unreasonable doubt. Of course those same audiences are not impressed by accusations of “lying for Jesus.” Which are completely unnecessary and counterproductive, however accurate they may be in some cases.

    I rarely accuse anti-evolutionists of outright lying, even when I’m convinced that they do not personally believe a word they’re saying (no more than I accuse parents of lying when they tell their children fairy tales). But when they have the audacity to claim that “Darwinists” are “afraid” to debate, that’s almost always an outrageous, pre-meditated lie.

  41. retiredsciguy

    Frank J: “But when they have the audacity to claim that “Darwinists” are “afraid” to debate, that’s almost always an outrageous, pre-meditated lie.”

    Of course, the answer is — “Science is not a matter of debate. If it’s not supported by observation, it’s not science — no matter how convincing the debater may be.”

  42. @retiredsciguy

    That’s true of course, and most nonscientists would agree, if stated that way. Yet most people act as if that’s not the case. They compartmentalize. They want to be “sold” on something, no matter how poorly it is supported on its own merits. The real “debate” in science is to take one’s own hypotheses, state them clearly, and test them on their own merits, not “weaknesses” of anything else – even real weaknesses, as opposed to the deliberate misrepresentations of evolution by peddlers of doubt. So the full answer to the accusation that were “afraid” to “debate” is “We’re not and here’s why, but you are, and here’s why.” The exact same applies when we’re accused of promoting “censorship.” It’s not enough to show that we don’t, we must to be more forceful in showing how they do.

  43. stevebee92653

    Thanks for all of the effort expended discussing my book. And me. Unfortunately you waste more time on me than what I have to say, which is typical of evolution supporters. I have a hard time understanding the supreme confidence of evolution believers like you folks, since evolution can’t account for even simple tubes (blood vessels and ducts) forming in microsteps. Or the Krebs cycle, or human consciousness and intelligence, or sacs (bird lungs and bladders), or photosynthesis, or, or or… In fact evolution can’t account for any biological system forming in microsteps, and there aren’t even any imaginary pathways, but your overconfidence is undaunted. You are able to overlook these and pretend like they don’t exist, and you rudely demean anyone who questions and wonders. Why? I wish I knew. But I was able to do the same for many years (except for the rude demeaning part) so in a sense I can understand.
    Regarding the big deal made out of my vanity publishing, the only way to get a first book published is if vanity publishers are used; unless the writer is famous, which I am not, fortunately. When you people who rag on vanity publishing write a book and get it published by Simon and Schuster, then make a big deal. Otherwise you might want to shut it on that one. By the way, questioning is NEVER pseudoscience. It’s good science. When the art of questioning and being skeptical is destroyed, it is the end of good science. I am sorry to say I have just about never observed a single evolution believer who has spent a moment questioning evolution. That is sure the case here with your supportive commentors; everyone is in lockstep. Which is good for evolution, and bad for good science.
    Regards
    Stephen T Blume DDS
    Author of Evo-illusion

  44. Thanks for visiting us, Stephen.

  45. stevebee92653 asks:

    “Why? I wish I knew.”

    Because the plausibility of your alternative “explanation” for the features whose origin you wonder about is a whisker from zero, owing to a total lack of either evidence or coherence. Your only tactic consists in attempts to discredit naturalistic accounts and ignoring/sidelining mountains of extant evidence for same, all the while not offering anything of substance.

    That’s why.

  46. stevebee92653 [Dr. Stephen T. Blume] claims

    …evolution can’t account for even simple tubes (blood vessels and ducts) forming in microsteps. Or the Krebs cycle, or human consciousness and intelligence, or sacs (bird lungs and bladders), or photosynthesis, or, or or… In fact evolution can’t account for any biological system forming in microsteps, and there aren’t even any imaginary pathways…

    I’m afraid you’re going to have to clarify your point here, particularly your use of the term ‘microsteps.’ I suspect—but please do correct me if I am wrong in this suspicion—you are regurgitating here a widespread creationist confusion about Darwin’s concept of small, incremental changes, supposing (incorrectly) that such would yield (to use your own example) “half a heart,” a non-functioning absurdity.

    Is that your genuine understanding of the Theory of Evolution?

  47. stevebee92653

    The trap went snap. Exactly as predicted, you glazed over the fact evolution can’t account for any biological system forming in microsteps. Your “mountain” isn’t even a molehill.
    My book discredits a fake, which is what evolution is. BTW, in answer to a commenter above, I don’t do the same with religious explanations because they aren’t forced upon children in public school science classes. If they were, I would go after them with the same zeal. Religious explanations are so absurd the book would only need to be a pamphlet.
    The explanation I offer is fact: we humans aren’t close to a plausible answer for this puzzle.

  48. I see, so you’re much more interested in setting traps than in doing cogent science.

    Why am I not surprised? :mrgreen:

  49. stevebee92653 [Dr. Stephen T. Blume] refuses to answer a simple question (“Is that your genuine understanding of the Theory of Evolution?”) preferring instead to continue with his solipsistic intellectual onanism.

    My question was genuine, Dr. Blume. Your response is pathetic.

  50. stevebee92653

    Quoting somebody who obviously dislikes me and what I have to say is “pathetic”. I have made numerous YT vids, a blog on the subject of over 40 pages (evillusion.net), and written a 290 page book on the subject. This isn’t the MO of someone who won’t answer questions. If you have an intelligent respectful question of me, I will be happy to respond in kind. If you want to be inane and ask me what my understanding is of evolution, try Wikipedia. Small incremental steps is how evolution is theorized. It’s your own belief system. I don’t expect to make many more comments here, as discussion usually goes the way yours has.

  51. Galileo had verifiable observations and a reasoned account of the mechanisms that produced them. That is why the orthodoxy had to capitulate (even if the stodgiest part of it took three centuries to do so). You, Steve, have neither of those things in any meaningful quantity. And, huffy departure notwithstanding, as long as you continue not to acknowledge and address that eminent obstacle, the overwhelming majority of working scientists will simply — and rightly — for the largest part ignore altogether your trivial yapping at the periphery.

    It’s just a thought, though.

  52. stevebee92653 [Dr. Stephen T. Blume] responds

    If you have an intelligent respectful question of me, I will be happy to respond in kind. If you want to be inane and ask me what my understanding is of evolution, try Wikipedia.

    Why is it ‘inane’ to ask you for your understanding of evolution, and why isn’t it inane for you to direct me to Wikipedia? I’m not playing games, though it would useful if you could offer the same assurance; let’s try again, shall we?

    Your original post here made a number of assertions (e.g. “evolution can’t account for even simple tubes (blood vessels and ducts) forming in microsteps”) which, prior to addressing, I sought clarification from you, particularly around your term “microsteps.” From your previous writings, quoted in earlier posts on this thread, I had the impression—and specifically asked you to correct this impression if I was wrong—that you had a singular meaning of “microstep” that might explain some of the assertions that I did not find intelligible. For example, in your correspondence (previously noted) you wrote:

    Try doing a mind experiment and see if you can come up with heart evolution. Draw the steps on a sheet of paper. In actuality , there are no possible intermediate evolutionary steps to a heart system

    Really? No ‘possible intermediate evolutionary steps’, according to your ‘mind experiment’? Perhaps you can defend this assertion with a critique of the NCBI paper Evolution of the heart from bacteria to man (the abstract is available without subscription at that link). That’s just one, high-level article (many, many, many more available); even more to your specific assertion that “evolution can’t account for even simple tubes (blood vessels and ducts)”, you might try Science Daily’s article, Scientists Unlock Evolutionary Secret of Blood Vessels. You may disagree with the research therein or elsewhere—and an eager world awaits your incisive critique and evidence to support it—but your assertion “there are no possible evolutionary steps” at least needs some qualification, probably about the efficacy of ‘mind experiments’, and/or your ability to conduct them.

    So my suspicion remains that by “microsteps” that you mean some sort of IKEA step-by-step engineering guide for building a modern organ from flat-pack components rather than a genuinely evolutionary process. Please feel free to explain if my impression here is wrong; so far, you have only managed to re-enforce it.

  53. stevebee92653

    I asked the reader to take out a pencil and do HIS OWN THINKING in figuring out possible steps to the formation of blood vessels. You glazed over that and you smugly did what all evos do. You referred me to articles written by people who have no idea but who are able to fool you with huge words and imaginary science. (This suggests that may have happened…the appearance of yaya improved the…. perhaps allowing primates to…..) You didn’t read and evaluate the articles yourself. You proudly list them as evidence that I should accept. Why don’t you evaluate them yourself? Why do you need my evaluation? Don’t you have a pencil and paper? I ask people to think on their OWN. You do what all evolutionauts do. You let other people fool you into thinking they know. You will continue doing that for the rest of your life. Few can escape the evo-indoctrination that they have suffered. I did escape. You cannot, if odds mean anything. These are nothing but telling samples of the fake mountains of evidence touted by evolution. BTW, I’ve read and evaluated more evo-peer reviewed papers than I can count. Many evaluations are on my website. I suggest you get in the habit of critiquing using your own thinking before posting one of these as evidence that “helps you”. These papers are all the same. They fool people with big words and complexity. Over and over.
    Your mountains of evidence:
    “But vertebrates evolved closed circulation systems designed to more effectively carry blood to organs and tissues. Precisely how that happened has remained a clouded issue.
    In addition to suggesting that acquisition of UNE-S has a role in the establishment of the closed circulatory systems of vertebrates…”

    Me: “In addition to suggesting that acquisition… ” Ergo: he has no idea. Typical rhetoric of a evo-fooler.

    “The appearance of Chordata and subsequently the vertebrates is accompanied by a rapid structural diversification of this primitive linear heart: looping, unidirectional circulation, an enclosed vasculature, and the conduction system…
    A later innovation is the parallel circulation to the lungs, followed by the appearance of septa and the four-chambered heart in reptiles, birds, and mammals. With differentiation of the cardiac chambers, regional specialization of the proteins in the cardiac myocyte can be detected in the teleost fish and amphibians.”

    Me: Kind of a combination of an anatomy lesson, and description of the assembly of a car on an assembly line. “A later innovation was doors. Then the appearance of automatic starters was an advantage that made starting the car easier which lead to…”

  54. @ stevebee92653Thank you, Dr. Blume!

    The scales have now fallen from my eyes—no, the scales have been ripped from my eyes by your meticulous, closely-reasoned, and evidence-buttressed post, above, and my sight is now restored!

    You have led me (fool though I was) through the arduous but worthy path away from my former “evo-indoctrination” and into the light of your insight! How could I have been so blind? How could I miss the monstrous fraudulence of so many thousands of “scientists” with their concocted mumbo-jumbo and lies? In mitigation, I can only plead that the forces of Darwinian Darkness are powerful and ubiquitous—but no matter, for I have now (thanks to your kind and patience tutelage) escaped their fell clutches!

    One small problem remains for me, however. I had been aiming at a career in science—but that, of course, was before you helped me see what a bogus bunch of bologna that is! Still, il faut manger, and I must have an income from somewhere. And, doing MY OWN THINKING about this, I have now decided to pursue a career in Dentistry!

    Of course, undertaking standard training in that field is long, expensive, and (frankly) a tad tedious, and moreover would expose me to some measure of evo-illusionary claptrap from which I have so recently been freed, but– with your shining example before me—I realise there is no need for that expenditure of time, effort and treasure: I have a pad of paper, a pencil, and MY OWN THINKING as my infallible guide.

    And by golly! Within 20 minutes I had already managed, by means of a flowchart of microsteps and a handful of simple mind experiments, to conclusively illustrate that there is no possible way for microscopic bacteria to be in any way responsible for caries, dental or otherwise, despite the false claims to the contrary by tens of thousands of dental “professionals”! And here’s the mind experiment to prove it: we are told, by ‘experts’, that oral bacteria (so tiny they cannot be seen with the eye) infest our mouth, feeding on tiny food particles and excreting ‘acid’ that somehow “dissolves” tooth enamel—the hardest substance in our bodies! But if that were true, how can bones (composed of calcium, like teeth, but lacking the benefit of an even harder layer of enamel) possibly remain intact after burial? A decomposing corpse supports vastly greater numbers of bacteria than a living mouth and must therefore produce gallons more ‘acid’, so why aren’t human bones (softer than teeth) rapidly dissolved in record time? Q.E.D.!

    Of course, the ADA, BDA, and Big Pharma is working behind the scenes to suppress my paradigm-shattering discovery here—but no matter, I shall persevere, like you and Galileo. The world needs to know how it has been hoodwinked by its dentists, and protect itself from the true cause of dental caries (malevolent gamma rays beamed at Earth from the planet Gingivitis) by means of the tin-foil mouth guard I have patented and selling over the internet at $29.99 + $5 shipping ($1 discount if you give my website a Facebook Like).

    I remain deeply in your debt, Dr. Blume. I wish you all success with your book—and look forward to your forthcoming publications. There’s some pretty screwy stuff around Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, and GUT (Grand Unified Theory) that needs attention, when you get a chance…

  55. Top Secret text of a translated message simultaneously intercepted by SETI researchers, the National Security Agency, Homeland Security, and the American Dental Association.

    To: His Supreme Imperial Majesty, planet Gingivitis
    From: Sentinel Station Number Nine
    Subject: Megalonyx, planet Earth

    Supreme One, somehow, one of those Earth creatures has figured out part of the invasion and domination plans we have been faithfully executing. He has done this by means of thought experiments — the most effective method of scientific research ever devised. We must either advance our invasion plans and launch immediately, or else Megalonyx and all others who use thought experiments — particularly a certain creationist dentist — must be abducted and probed.

  56. Good stuff Mr. Curmudgeon and Mr. Megalonyx. You are really clever writers; and demeanors like almost all evolutionauts. I really mean that as a compliment. I am jealous of both of you, as you know for certain how all of living nature formed. Me? I just don’t know, and I realize that fact. You are both far superior to little ole’ dentist/vanity writer me. Keep working with that pencil and paper. When you two intelligent people do find the pathway non-intelligent evolution took to form the first tubes and sacs, please let me know. I will post your pathways on my blog (www.evillusion.net) and in the next version of my book. See, unlike you, I do have an open mind. In fact I will dedicate an entire page to your pathways to tubes and sacs if you like. What could be more fair and open minded. Additionally there are other pathways that I would like to know about that I’m certain you will be able to easily solve, as you are intelligent, and evolution just isn’t. So this should be easy for you. High scientific IQ’s like yours will be able to figure out the absolute non-intelligence of evolution and its pathways every time. Any other pathways you come up with can go on my blog as well if you have the courage to bring them over. Above all, until you two intelligent people figure out the pathways evolution MIGHT (yes I will accept a MIGHT) have taken to form tubes and sacs, let your thoughts and beliefs be determined by majority rules. It’s always worked in the past, so why not now?
    It was tough getting the vast majority of people to believe that the Earth circles the sun. Evolution will be tougher. It will take hundreds of years before science will realize what absolute bulls**t evolution really is. It’s likely none of us will be around when that happens so you will never know. But it will happen. Thanks for the fun and expending so much effort on me and my book.
    Bye :-D
    BTW, sorry, I’m not a “creationist” as your autopilot thinking concludes. Mr. Curmudgeon, you should try to follow your own rules for this blog.

  57. Ah, moderation! The open minded objective scientific evolutionauts need to moderate (censor) anyone who disagrees with them. HAR HAR HAR That really amazes me. But actually not. What a laugh.

  58. stevebee says: “Ah, moderation! The open minded objective scientific evolutionauts need to moderate (censor) anyone who disagrees with them.”

    You should have conducted a thought experiment before leaping to that conclusion. The moderation was automatic, due to some language used in your prior comment. As you can see, with that fixed, your comment is otherwise in place.

  59. I suppose “evolutionauts” is not demeaning.

    Also, with “evil-lution” so overused, and “evo-illusion” now taken, I’m going to coin the term “evo-LOSE-tion.” See what I did there? (hint: evolution = loser.)

    Check mate, evil loser illusionists. Check mate.

  60. stevebee92653

    Mr. Curmudgeon. I appreciate that and my rag is withdrawn. I can’t imagine what language I posted that would bring a moderation. I have a blog myself and none are moderated unless there are a lot of URL’s which denotes junk.
    To Mark: “Evolutionaut” is a term I coined because y’all hate the term “evolutionist”. I haven’t yet found what y’all like to be termed, so I coined evolutionaut which is a combination of evolution and astro-naut. The -naut means traveler, which isn’t the least bit demeaning. You should have done a thought experiment before complaining.

  61. I prefer heliocentrist, gravitationist, or plate tectonist, though heliocentronaut, graviationaut, or plate tectonaut will do just fine, too.

    If you can honestly say that you do not mean the term ‘evolutionaut’ as demeaning, I apologize. But, because you used a part of ‘astronaut’ in your portmanteau, I can hardly help feeling that you imply I don’t have my feet planted on the ground or that I’m a little spacey merely because I accept evolution. You already said I’ve fallen for the “illusion,” so it’s not a huge jump from there to space cadet.

  62. stevebee92653

    Argonaut, aquanaut, astronaut…..evolutionaut. You should be proud, not upset. I think it’s a pretty good term. I really don’t get why evo-supporters are so adamant about not being called “evolutionists”. After all, what is so demeaning about -ist? You call Biblicals “creationists”. Is that meant to be demeaning? I have been sternly corrected by evolutionauts when I referred to them as “evolutionists”. I frequently asked how I should refer to them. I never got an answer. Ergo, “evolutionaut” was born. Obviously I still get complaints.

  63. Oh those tricky WORDS! They have fooled us AGAIN!

    Dr. Blume would do well to stay away from libraries, I hear those places are just chock-full of those sneaky letter-conglomerations.

  64. Dr. Blume writes:

    You referred me to articles written by people who have no idea but who are able to fool you with huge words and imaginary science.

    I propose a simple contest: Post a single sentence containing one of those huge words that fools Dr. Blume. There will be two winners, one for the most letters, and another for the most syllables. Winners to receive one free jar of Curmudgeonite.

    I’ll start. “Dr. Bloom showed up to defend his book, but his theories were defenstrated by Con-Testor and Megalonyx.” :-)

  65. Can I enter? Here is my application:
    Of the phosphomalate pathway, which they had eliminated, they write: “…IT COULD BE ARGUED, however, that the feeder P-malate COULD HAVE PLAYED SOME ROLE in earlier metabolism; and thus it IT COULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE. It is, in fact, HIGHLY UNLIKELY that some ancient metabolic pathway involving such a compound has vanished without trace (although the original pathway has been lost, such an intermediate COULD HAVE BEEN to other purposes); however, it CANNOT BE STRICTLY DISCARDED and thus, although UNLIKELY, phosphomalate and the [alternative] Krebs cycle structure…MIGHT BE FOUND IN SOME paleospecies as a case of paleometabolism.
    Source at: http://www.evillusion.net. p. 5 I sure hope I win!

  66. Me too, I think some rationality in your diet would do you good. There are some good words there, but it’s not a single sentence. Play by the rules, please.

    I don’t see what is so confusing here. They seem to have eliminated the phosphomalate pathway (whatever that is) as an agent of something (you don’t include that). They are discussing how this result fits in with other results, and the implications for (presumably) the evolution of the Krebs cycle, which is quite typical for the discussion section of any scientific paper. I know very little about biochemistry, but the meaning is perfectly clear. The only problem I see here is that your Caps Lock key seems to be broken.

  67. The meaning is perfectly clear? Surely you jest. Try this thought experiment:
    I, the author of Evo-illusion, wrote a paragraph in my book like this favoring my point of view. What would you and the evolutionauts at this site be writing about me? We both know. I would be a laughing stock, and deservedly so.

    This peer reviewed paper, part of the “mountain of evidence for evolution” doesn’t qualify as absurd. You don’t need to know biochem to realize that. You are intelligent enough to comprehend how the writers of this paper are trying to fool the reader into thinking they’ve discovered the evolutionary pathway for the Krebs cycle. This paper is often cited by evo-science (Example: renown evo-illusionist Dr. Ken Miller) as evidence for the evolution of the Krebs cycle. It’s a perfect example for what I am saying in my book.
    Since I am the only entrant in your contest, do I win?

  68. When y’all get tired of StevieBee, lemme know and I’ll stop it. But if you still find it entertaining, I’ll let him go on.

  69. stevebee92653

    Hey Mr. Curmudgeon.
    I invited you over to my blog, and offered you a complete page to let me know how wrong I am about evolution’s pathways for making tubes and sacs. The offer stands. It will forever. I offered this even though you chose to do your rather embarrassing attack on me on this page. Embarrassing because you have no idea what my point of view is in my book. Now you show your thanks by threatening to censor me? What kind of fairness, openness, and good science is that?
    I never block unless people repeatedly attack me personally, and/or use repeated bad language. (They usually go together.) But even then I give them plenty of rope before I do. I haven’t censored one single person on my blog.
    But I don’t blame you for bringing up censoring me. This certainly lets me know the truth about your “moderation” of my earlier comments.
    Anyway, don’t bother “stopping it”. This is my last entry here. If anyone wants to rag on me, or what I have to say, or actually discuss objective science, you are welcome to do so at my blog, (www.evillusion.net). You won’t be censored, I promise.
    This has been fun. Otherwise I wouldn’t do what I do. Reading your treatise on me was really entertaining. So thanks for that. I do feel honored that you would expend so much effort on me.
    Regards
    Steve

  70. Dr. Blume, would you please answer whether you got the Master’s Degree or just did partial coursework towards it?

  71. Clean-up on Aisle Four! A creationist has crapped all over this blog.

    The creationist portrays his own vast ignorance of anatomy (esp. comparative anatomy), genetics, paleontology, etc. as evidence that evolution is a hoax. The creationist imagines a single pathway by which an eye (or heart or feather or flagella) could form, out of the 100 trillion pathways possible, then pronounces that, since that one pathway seem implausible to a scientific ignoramus, thus all the others must be impossible too. Darwin is doomed!

    The creationist then lies through his teeth, portraying himself as having encyclopedic knowledge of the scientific literature, when he hasn’t read nor understood a lick of it.

    Stephen Blume: “I have a hard time understanding the supreme confidence of evolution believers like you folks, since evolution can’t account for even simple tubes (blood vessels and ducts) forming in microsteps. Or the Krebs cycle, or human consciousness and intelligence, or sacs (bird lungs and bladders), or photosynthesis, or, or or… In fact evolution can’t account for any biological system forming in microsteps, and there aren’t even any imaginary pathways, but your overconfidence is undaunted.”

    This is a lie, but the creationist assertions are :

    1. I, an ignoramus, looked at one pathway by which an eye (or heart or flagella, etc.) could evolve, and it looked implausible to an ignoramus with no knowledge of comparative anatomy, molecular biology etc.

    2. If one pathway looks implausible to an an ignoramus with no knowledge of comparative anatomy, molecular biology etc., then the other the other 99 trillion 999 billion 999 million 999 thousand and 999 must also be impossible.

    3. If one pathway looks implausible to an an ignoramus with no knowledge of comparative anatomy, molecular biology etc., then no scientist in the relevant field has published an article on the subject.

    4. There is no need for me to ASK QUESTIONS or search the scientific literature (from 3).

    5. There is no need for me to do a phylogenetic analysis or comparative anatomy, nor look at functional structures in juvenile/larval forms that have intermediate structures, nor look in the fossil record (from 3.)

    6. A Magic Man dunnit (from 4 and 5). Take the rest of the week off!

    In this case, the creationist’s ignorance is laughable.

    Recall that Dr. Blume’s great “Revelation” that evolution is false came from his epiphany in the Field Museum looking at T. Rex‘s ARMS:

    Stephen T. Blume: “Why didn’t the T. rex’s arms (or any other part of the T. rex for that matter) evolve in the three million years that it roamed the Earth? T. rex’s arms were so stubby it couldn’t even clap. …[snip]… Wouldn’t it only be natural that the better T. rex grapplers would evolve larger arms? After all, survival of the fittest should result in gradually larger arm length. Shouldn’t the longer-armed individuals survive over the shorter-armed versions?”

    As Curm has pointed out, if this is true, it would prove dinosaurs were NOT intelligently designed. But every paleontologist knows this is crap!

    Carpenter and Smith, 2001: “Although proportionately the forelimb [of Tyrannosaurus rex] is very small, the mechanical advantage reveals an efficiently designed force-based system (vs. a velocity-based system) used for securing prey during predation. In addition, the M. biceps is shown to be 3.5 times more powerful than the same muscle in the human, the straight, columnar humerus provides maximum strength to mass ratio to counter the exertion of the M. biceps, and the thick cortical bone indicated bone selected for ultimate strength. Such mechanical adaptations can only indicate that the arms were not useless appendages, but were used to hold struggling prey while the teeth dispatched the animal. Tyrannosaurs rex was therefore an active predator and not a a mere scavenger, as has been suggested. [Carpenter, Kenneth; Matt Smith (2001). “Forelimb Osteology and Biomechanics of Tyrannosaurus rex”. In Darren Tanke and Kenneth Carpenter. Mesozoic Vertebrate Life. pp. 90–116]

    Blume’s great moment “revelation” was due to his own ignorance– he didn’t bother to even peek at the scientific literature– but he portrays himself as having encyclopedic knowledge of the science literature!

  72. Diogenes, I see you’re still lugging your lantern, intent as ever on finding an honest man… ;)

  73. I would be a laughing stock, and deservedly so.

    You reject science in favor of whatever you happen to think up. You have a thought experiment with nothing in its favor, versus a robust system of thought based on evidence and experimentation with more than 500 years of demonstrated success. You imagine that supporters of evolution are some sort of scientific conspiracy arrayed against you (I checked your site), and despite a seemingly adequate education you can’t actually read a scientific paper. Are you sure you aren’t a laughing stock already? Because the evidence strongly supports this conclusion.

    Now the good news: Your longest highlighted word “available” has fewer letters than “defenstrated” but ties for number of syllables, and that qualifies you for a prize. The Curmudgeonite is on the sidebar, scroll up a bit and help yourself. Enjoy! :-)

    Too bad you didn’t opt for “paleometabolism” instead, and walk away with a double helping. Lord knows you need it.

  74. Let me focus a moment on the Krebs cycle. Stephen T. Blume has portrayed himself as having encyclopedic knowledge of the scientific literature which he never searched nor even looked at; and on this basis he grandly announced that no scientist has ever shown a step-by-step pathway by which the Krebs cycle might evolve! How rich!

    What’s hilarious is that even ID proponent Michael Behe admits that metabolic pathways can evolve step by step, and he even says he wrote that clearly in his anti-evolution book, Darwin’s Black Box! (Note that the Krebs cycle, aka citric acid cycle, is the classic example of a metabolic pathway.) Behe, a biochemist (not a dentist) says he wrote clearly on that point– why didn’t Stephen Blume understand it?

    Stephen T. Blume claiming encyclopedic knowledge of the science literature: “I have a hard time understanding the supreme confidence of evolution believers like you folks, since evolution can’t account for even simple tubes (blood vessels and ducts) forming in microsteps. Or the Krebs cycle [snip] or, or or… In fact evolution can’t account for any biological system forming in microsteps, and there aren’t even any imaginary pathways…”

    Now compare Blume with anti-evolutionist Michael Behe. Background: In this snippet, Behe is opposing evolutionist Ken Miller– Miller tried to refute Behe by pointing out that many of the systems claimed to “Irreducibly Complex” (IC) by Behe were not in fact IC. Miller did this for several, but that included the Krebs cycle, aka citric acid cycle: Miller shows that it could indeed evolve step by step, therefore it is not IC.

    Behe disagrees with Miller, NOT by saying “the Krebs cycle IS TOO Irreducibly complex”, but rather by saying, to paraphrase, ‘I never claimed Krebs was IC in the first place, because EVERYBODY KNOWS metabolic pathways, like the Krebs cycle, CAN EVOLVE STEP BY STEP, and I WROTE THAT CLEARLY IN MY ANTI-EVOLUTION BOOK.’

    Michael Behe vs. Ken Miller: “The second and more important point is that, while the [Ken Miller's] paper [on the Krebs cycle] is very interesting, it doesn’t address irreducible complexity. Either Miller hasn’t read what I said in my book about metabolic pathways, or he is deliberately ignoring it. I clearly stated in Darwin’s Black Box metabolic pathways are not irreducibly complex (Behe 1996) (pp. 141-142; 150-151), because components can be gradually added to a previous pathway. Thus metabolic pathways simply aren’t in the same category as the blood clotting cascade or the bacterial flagellum. Although Miller somehow misses the distinction, other scientists do not. In a recent paper Thornhill and Ussery write that something they call serial-direct-Darwinian-evolution “cannot generate irreducibly complex structures.” But they think it may be able to generate a reducible structure, “such as the TCA cycle (Behe, 1996 a, b).” (Thornhill and Ussery 2000) In other words Thornhill and Ussery acknowledge the TCA cycle is not irreducibly complex, as I wrote in my book.” [Michael Behe, ARN: Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature:Response to Critics]

    Geneticist Larry Moran has written several times on the step-by-step evolution of the citric acid cycle; see, for example, here: http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/12/torley-defense-of-irreducible.html.

    Why didn’t dentist Blume acknowledge the work on this topic– while at the same time portraying himself as having ENCYCLOPEDIC knowledge of molecular biology, comparative anatomy, paleontology, etc.?

  75. Why didn’t dentist Blume acknowledge the work on this topic …

    Because Dr. Blume is a duck.

    That is, according to a careful thought experiment I just performed, which involved a video with a duck in it, I conclude that Dr. Blume is a duck, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. I think so.

  76. stevebee92653

    Diogenes:
    for a complete analysis of Dr. Miller’s paper on irreducible complexity from a guy that: “portrayed himself as having encyclopedic knowledge of the scientific literature which he NEVER SEARCHED NOR EVEN LOOKED AT.” :-D
    http://www.evillusion.net p. 5 #11

  77. @Diogenes, RE: Education — From what I read on Blume’s site, I’m pretty sure it’s partial coursework, and much of that at the undergraduate level AFAICT.

  78. Steve Blume,

    Do not waste my time again. The link you pointed me to has no instances of Miller, Krebs, citric or cycle. In that post you blather on tediously about the defintion of religion, philosophy etc. and tedious ad hominem attacks on real scientists.

    The evidence on your moronic blog shows clearly that:

    1. You have NO response to the fact that even anti-evolutionist Behe admits metabolic cycles can evolve step by step; but you said the reverse. You ignored the post by Prof. Larry Moran.

    2. You are indeed an ignoramus who portrays himself as having an encyclopedic knowledge of the science literature that you have never even skimmed, much less REFUTED; and

    3. Your epiphany about the “weakly” arms of T. Rex was based in your own ignorance of paleontology. Again, YOU DID NOT SEARCH THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE BEFORE SHOOTING OFF YOUR MOUTH.

    You got no response. We’ve seen your kind 1000 times before: Homer Pyle with an ego the size of Mt. Everest. Don’t waste my time again.

    — Diogenes

  79. And furthermore, Blame never answered my question about whether he had a Master’s degree.

    His moronic website us all about global warming denial and fraudulent accusations about climate scientists faking their data. In fact, after Climategate not one scientist had to change even one data point– not even one data point was shown to be inaccurate. You’re the fraud, Blume– disgusting little fraud, eaten up by envy.

  80. The web site also has a “time cube” feel to it. SC would probably enjoy it immensely.

  81. Diogenes writes> ” We’ve seen your kind 1000 times before: Homer Pyle with an ego the size of Mt. Everest. ”

    I would allow that this is the first time we have seen these features in a duck.

  82. Of course I meant Gomer Pyle; I wage war against both creationism and autocorrect.

  83. I wage war against both creationism and autocorrect.

    No wonder you’re taxed. Autocorrect is anathema to creationism.

  84. Our dentist friend never answered whether or not he had a Master’s. Simple frapping question…

  85. @Diogenes: THere is a very long thread titled “Why stevenbee is wrong” at rationalskepticism.org, where Blume has been entertaining them for years.

    I found no further evidence of his education past the self-written claim from the About-the-author page of his book:
    “The courses he took at USC were more than enough to provide him with a master’s degree in biological sciences.”

    A comment on the single 5-star amazon review points out that as of the time of the post, not even one copy of the book has been sold, and therefore the review is likely a sockpuppet (which he is apparently well-known for).

  86. @ Tomato Addict: Thanks for link rationalskepticism.org re: our dentist friend. A little quick googling on “stevebee92653″ shows the guy has a pathological need for attention, and has been doing his schtick for years. Awfully pathetic stuff; guess he wandered over here because he’s running out of folks to indulge his sad little needs.

    Surprised, though, that he doesn’t try the religious forums, they would give him plenty of attention. Unless, of course, his whole ‘I’m an ex-evolutionist but not at all religious’ persona is just more of his bull-puckey (as would seem pretty evident), or perhaps he does do some attention-whoring on such sites, but under a different sock-puppet name.

    Who knows? Who cares? Not one to waste any more time on.

  87. TA: good detective skills. I am accumulating examples of creationist fraud at Amazon via sock puppets.
    — Diogenes

  88. On further investigation (Google) I’ve concluded the amazon reviewer, Karsten Pultz of Denmark, is real, as a comment from the YouTube account of ThePultzFamily complimented an anti-Darwinist video about CS Lewis. The videos of ThePultzFamily show a real family.

  89. I do not doubt that Doctor Duck has his own sad little following, but I think his 15 second of fame have already passed.

  90. Hey Mr. Curmudgeon. I have set up a page for you so you can teach me the physical steps to the evolution of blood vessels and ducts. Tubes are incredibly basic biological systems, so they should be no challenge to you whatsoever. If you can come over and give me a rational physical pathway to the evolution of tubes, I will take all of my stuff down, and remove my book from amazon and barnes and noble. I will bow to you. My mind is very open, and I await excitedly for your response. The offer (and page) will remain open permanently, so you can teach me any time that is convenient for you. What could be more fair? What’s more, you won’t be censored on my blog like you threatened to do with my writing here. The link:

    http://evillusion.wordpress.com/a-page-for-the-sensuous-curmudgeon-the-evolution-of-tubes/

  91. Oh this is rich:

    BusyBee writes: “Please don’t refer me to “peer reviewed papers”. Do your own study, and give me your own explanations using any and all of the research that you deem necessary to answer my question.”

    This, from the guy who does “thought experiments.”

  92. Tomato Addict exclaims: “Oh this is rich”

    You actually read through that entire comment?

  93. I followed the Internet-Tubes all the way to his site! Turns out it’s right across the street from timecube.com.

  94. So here is my thought experiment:

    A simple amorphous sponge-like creature eats by filter-feeding, pumping water through its body. Having “holes” to allow flow of water is advantageous, and over time the holes develop into tube-like structures. Viola!

    I’ll give him a few days to take him junk down from Amazon, like he promised. :-)

  95. Tomato Addict says: “I’ll give him a few days to take him junk down from Amazon, like he promised.”

    I think the better course is to ban him, as he has dared me to do. I don’t think we’ll miss him.

  96. I know where to find him if I want to play. Send him down the tube.

  97. Cardinal TA quotes Busy Bee:

    “Please don’t refer me to “peer reviewed papers”. Do your own study, and give me your own explanations using any and all of the research that you deem necessary to answer my question.”

    I would have responded, “Since computers are even simpler than all biologic structures, I want your response to be from a computer you built yourself. No using something bought from the store. I want you to create your own CPU (should be easy… some sand and copper, a bit of heat, some tin foil and acid), motherboard (more sand, copper, heat, and acid, plus maybe some solder), and connections to the Internet (LOTS of copper). The monitor will be even more fun, but the keyboard should be a piece of cake.
    We await your response. That’s it. We just await your response.”

  98. @ Cardinal Gary: Long ago I got to hand-wire a PDP-8 for a computer engineering class. Hours and hours of wire-stripping and wrapping, and there was no CRT, just a box with light, toggle switches, and a rheostat to control the clock speed. Quizzes involve the instructor bending a pin when you were out of the room, and you had 20 minutes to identify the problem and correct it. To this day I can spot cold-solder joints from 3 feet away. I think it was the last year before they switched over to simply plugging chips in a board.

    Oh, and doctor Blume, links in posts trigger SPAM filters, and Curmie has to go clear out the tubes to get them running again. Didn’t you know?
    Besides, shouldn’t you be busy taking down your web site? After all, I did meet every condition you stipulated.

  99. Epilogue: Dr. Blume now claims that he is God. I guess that shows us.

  100. Tomato Addict informs us: “Dr. Blume now claims that he is God.”

    It’s always good to know your place.

  101. May ToE be true in every way imaginable. May more links or irrefutable alternative theories regarding the gaps be postulated. For all our sakes.

    The day will come when our souls will abhor even the words ‘Peer Review’.