Roger Ebert, Defender of Evolution

Roger Ebert, Defender of Evolution

There are 479 comments on the The Panda's Thumb story from Apr 4, 2013, titled Roger Ebert, Defender of Evolution. In it, The Panda's Thumb reports that:

As we reflect upon the amazing body of work left behind by this giant of the movie scene, readers of the Thumb should know that Roger Ebert was a passionate defender of science, and of evolution in particular.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Panda's Thumb.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#404 May 8, 2013
Skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>I like this summary, which indicates that science isn't driving the train:
Bruce Nussbaum
Good Intentions:
How Big Business and the Medical Establishment Are Corrupting the Fight Against AIDS
Good Intentions is a tale of vaulting ambition, greed, and hubris set against the tragic backdrop of AIDS.
Bruce Nussbaum takes us behind the scenes to reveal how America's top scientists are at the center of a triangle of power. He shows how the National Institute of Health allied with the drug company Burroughs Wellcome, secretly helped by the FDA, to steamroll a thirty-year-old drug, AZT, into becoming the only approved treatment for AIDS.
An old-boy network of powerful medical researchers dominates in every disease field, from AIDS to Alzheimer's, Nussbaum reports. They control the major committees, they run the most important trials. They are accountable to no one. Despite the billions of taxpayers' dollars that go to them every year, there is no public oversight. Medical scientists have convinced society that only they can police themselves.
Business Week senior writer Bruce Nussbaum follows the money trial from the billions appropriated by Congress through a network of government laboratories and into the profit statements of Burroughs Wellcome. This is an inside look at how politics, science, and big business are bungling the fight against AIDS.
(The Atlantic Monthly Press, New York, 1990)
http://duesberg.com/viewpoints/index.html

Wow. 1990. I remember 1990..... vaguely.

The problem is that the real world of science is like a ship moving through the ocean. Just being a little off course becomes a bigger issue and more glaring with each passing day. When wrong assumptions are in the mix then the ship of science gets off course. After awhile things start to break down. Science tries to fix it, but it won't stay fixed. Eventually someone says the obvious (at the right time), position is measured and a course correction is made.

You can see the progress of science in the ever shorter time it takes to figure out that science is off course and that a correction needs to be made. This used to take hundreds of years, but by 1900 hundred that had been cut to decades. Michelson–Morley (1887) sounded the alarm that science was off course and Einstein rectified it a couple of decades later.

By 2000 that was down to years, on average.

By 2005 we actually saw a scientific hypothesis (genetic entropy) refuted weeks BEFORE the official release of the "supporting" book.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#405 May 8, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
In maths an axiom is self evident isn't it?
No. There are wild guesses that are taken as axioms to see what conclusions develop from them.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#406 May 8, 2013
Isn't Shubee Doo from Richardson, Tx. That is not all that far from McKinney, Tx.

All right children, tonight's extra credit assignment is to go on Topix and tell everyone how great I am.

Funny, when I Googled Shubee, the Google Images page was loaded with mug shot pictures of different people. I don't know if one of these was Shubee, but from the looks of them, it is up for grabs.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#409 May 8, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for this. Looks like a person can pick Shubee Doo out of a line up just from a single phone call. Pastor McGill got Shubee right fromt he get go. Self important and I would add "legend in his own mind."

The psychological terms is 'grandiosity'. It can be a symptom of delusional disorder, mania, paranoia, and some forms of schizophrenia. In shubee's case he may have run the table.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#410 May 8, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
Pastor McGill got Shubee right fromt he get go.
You’re really scrapping the bottom of the barrel with the testimony of Mr. McGill.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/Walter_McG...

But that’s certainly much better than the slime underneath the barrel.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#411 May 8, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You’re really scrapping the bottom of the barrel with the testimony of Mr. McGill.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/Walter_McG...
But that’s certainly much better than the slime underneath the barrel.
You mean that Eugene character. I could not agree more.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#412 May 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice post. I think you are hard on Sanford, but not unjustifiably so. He was a top notch scientist. It is a shame he became infected with religious bias.
That said, I think you absolutely right when you say that he "thinks lying to save western civilisation is OK".
Spot on.
I am hard on Sanford because he should have known better. In terms of throwing his integrity out the window for the greater good of "lying to save western civilisation", he reminds me of the intellectuals who supported fascism in the 30's because they saw it as the only strong defence against communism.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#413 May 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I was not serious. I was just playing our little friend.
Yet those accusations against Duesberg were made seriously by others.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#414 May 8, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>No. There are wild guesses that are taken as axioms to see what conclusions develop from them.
You have just described Sanford's GE work perfectly.

And since his conclusions fail to match reality, his wild guesses were obviously wrong.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#415 May 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Please. One of you is enough.
heheh. Why are those who label themselves "Skeptic", never actually Skeptics? So far we have had one Shubee acolyte and one Skeptic who thought he had proven that God does not exist by playing word games.

The dogmatists protest too much!
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#416 May 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
You have just described Sanford's GE work perfectly.
Sanford proposed an actual experiment to test his only disputed axiom. However, only a fool would pretend that small random misspellings and shuffling of words in books might improve textbooks or that incremental modifications of code in any computer program might evolve superior operating systems.

Remember, I believe that the fantastically improbable can happen. But that's no argument for the belief that small incremental changes to a blueprint could eventually transform a bicycle into a starship.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#417 May 9, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You’re really scrapping the bottom of the barrel with the testimony of Mr. McGill.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/Walter_McG...
But that’s certainly much better than the slime underneath the barrel.

Just more evidence that you are fruitier than a nut cake.

Just a reminder, your CHURCH filed a RESTRAINING ORDER on you!

When my clients feel bad about having a mental illness I tell them about you and they feel much better.

"At least I'm not THAT crazy!".

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#418 May 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am hard on Sanford because he should have known better. In terms of throwing his integrity out the window for the greater good of "lying to save western civilisation", he reminds me of the intellectuals who supported fascism in the 30's because they saw it as the only strong defence against communism.

Well, those are not shoes I would like to walk in either.

Most people are products of their environment. There where a number of psychosocial experiments done that demonstrate that normal people will follow normative behavior no matter what that behavior is.

In one experiment the subject was supposed to administer increasing electrical shocks to another subject whenever they got an answer wrong. No actual shocks were given, but the subject followed the increasing protocol even when the "shocks" were at levels that could have been fatal had it been a real shock!

In another study subjects were put in a simulated prison situation with some subjects being given the role of 'guard' and others were assigned the role as prisoner (random assignment). Even though everyone knew this was a role play the guards became increasingly sadistic and the prisoners increasingly passive. The simulation had to be stopped because the 'guards' were rendering punishments that could have been physically or psychologically dangerous.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#419 May 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet those accusations against Duesberg were made seriously by others.

Yes, they have. His study went over the line of ethics and he would not admit failure. He could never get such an atrocious study approved in the U.S. No Human Experimentation Review Board would ever approve something like that. Even in the cases like the early aspirin studies on heart disease were stopped because the effect was so great they could not ethically continue the study and deprive patients of such a potentially life saving drug.

So, while "murder" may be an unreasonable assessment for Duesberg, biased, unprofessional, unethical, negligent, fraudulent.... all apply and are, I think, an appropriate assessment of his "research".

However, the fact that he was willing to try a real experiment to try to prove his beliefs does indicate he did, honestly, believe his own thesis. This, in a sense, puts him at a level above the creationist/IDers who know they will find no evidence for their nonsense.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#420 May 9, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Sanford proposed an actual experiment to test his only disputed axiom. However, only a fool would pretend that small random misspellings and shuffling of words in books might improve textbooks or that incremental modifications of code in any computer program might evolve superior operating systems.

Since no one contends that, what is your point?

Only a fool would pretend that "small random misspellings and shuffling of words in books might improve textbooks or that incremental modifications of code in any computer program might evolve superior operating systems." is the same thing as genetic evolution.

[QUOTE who="Shubee"]<quo ted text> Remember, I believe that the fantastically improbable can happen. But that's no argument for the belief that small incremental changes to a blueprint could eventually transform a bicycle into a starship.

Really? Actually, this would seem rather easy to do. It would take a lot of blueprints, but I can see this happening.

There is a clear link between bicycles and airplanes (even ignoring tangential evolution to cars and then flying cars...).

It does not seem like it would take that much.... Bicycle, motorbike. Motorbike with fins for aerodynamics,.......

Race cars use wings for downforce to keep grip on the road. An Indy Car, at speed, could fly if it was upside down.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#421 May 9, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You’re really scrapping the bottom of the barrel with the testimony of Mr. McGill.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/Walter_McG...
But that’s certainly much better than the slime underneath the barrel.
What are you doing under that barrel anyway. Don't you have a class to mislead.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#422 May 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The psychological terms is 'grandiosity'. It can be a symptom of delusional disorder, mania, paranoia, and some forms of schizophrenia. In shubee's case he may have run the table.
I think you are correct in your diagnosis.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#423 May 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean that Eugene character. I could not agree more.
That is who I thought he was talking about too.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#424 May 9, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>What are you doing under that barrel anyway. Don't you have a class to mislead.
Yawn. Boring! Do you ever have a clue?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#425 May 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Science can only disprove theories
No, not really. It was once believed that science refuted the particle theory of light. Then wave theory reigned for hundreds of years. That long reign came to an end. Modern science has returned to the particle theory of light.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr renee 31,254
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Regolith Based Li... 150,951
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Regolith Based Li... 13,263
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 hr ChristineM 197,307
News RANT: Is "global warming" today's version of th... Wed bearings 2
Another "gap" gets closed May 24 MIDutch 1
Christianity and why its wrong + evolution debates May 21 Zog Has-fallen 15
More from around the web