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.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#62 Apr 12, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Don't you think mathematicians are qualified to research topics of interest as part of their own investigations of the lower sciences?
No. But research and investigation are not part of Eugene Shubert's repetiore.(shrug)
Shubee wrote:
Frankly, I can barely remember anything about the one course I took in biology.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#63 Apr 12, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>There are many physicists that accept Hilbert's view of Einstein. I agree with them. Also, there is no question that Roger Ebert falls in the category of the first demon's message. I accept the first angel's message. As for Darwin, I agree with Dr. David Berlinski. Darwin's postulates barely passes the threshold of being an anecdote.
Berlinski's chief weapon is pomposity smeared over inaccuracy like rotten lard over moldy bread. He does not make a single factual statement that refutes Darwin. 50,000 differences between a whale and a cow? That is numerology, not mathematics, nor science. What a joke.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#64 Apr 12, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Don't you think mathematicians are qualified to research topics of interest as part of their own investigations of the lower sciences?
Lacking an empirical component, mathematics is not a science.

Its merely a set of tautologies that may be usefully employed by real science at times.

The final arbiter in science is not the equation, but the observation that determines whether the equation applies.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#65 Apr 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Berlinski ... does not make a single factual statement that refutes Darwin.
When Berlinski explains the emptiness of Darwinism, isn't he essentially saying that there is nothing to refute, just a lot of just-so stories?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#66 Apr 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
50,000 differences between a whale and a cow? That is numerology, not mathematics, nor science.
Just consider it to be Berlinksi's invitation for him to explain how he derived that number.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#67 Apr 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Lacking an empirical component, mathematics is not a science.
If we're willing to accept how the majority of accomplished investigators of nature have defined science, then I think we'll find that dictionary.com has acquired a perfect synthesis and lists the correct order of lesser meanings:

science
noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
Chimney1 wrote:
The final arbiter in science is not the equation, but the observation that determines whether the equation applies.
Dr. Peter Duesberg points out that the science you believe in is a dog and pony show and a self-fulfilling prophecy. That confirms that he is a true scientist and that you are a dupe of pseudo-science.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#69 Apr 12, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> If we're willing to accept how the majority of accomplished investigators of nature have defined science, then I think we'll find that dictionary.com has acquired a perfect synthesis and lists the correct order of lesser meanings:
science
noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
<quoted text>Dr. Peter Duesberg points out that the science you believe in is a dog and pony show and a self-fulfilling prophecy. That confirms that he is a true scientist and that you are a dupe of pseudo-science.
You forgot to mention the fact that Doucheberg is an HIV/AIDS denying whacko.

Too bad that you have no real evidence to support your claims.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#70 Apr 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot to mention the fact that Doucheberg is an HIV/AIDS denying whacko.
Too bad that you have no real evidence to support your claims.
Dr. Peter Duesberg doesn't deny HIV or AIDS. My claims are supported here: http://everythingimportant.org/AZT/

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#71 Apr 12, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Dr. Peter Duesberg doesn't deny HIV or AIDS. My claims are supported here: http://everythingimportant.org/AZT/
Duesberg denies that HIV causes AIDS.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jun/15-aids-...
Elohim

Branford, CT

#72 Apr 12, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Dr. Peter Duesberg doesn't deny HIV or AIDS. My claims are supported here: http://everythingimportant.org/AZT/
Superman saves the world. My claims are supported here: http://www.dccomics.com/superman
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#73 Apr 12, 2013
MikeF wrote:
Duesberg denies that HIV causes AIDS.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jun/15-aids-...
I deny that too. The evidence is overwhelming that AIDS has nothing to do with HIV except for an arbitrary circular definition.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#74 Apr 12, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>Superman saves the world. My claims are supported here: http://www.dccomics.com/superman
Jesus is the true superman but you are welcome to believe unquestionable fantasy.
Elohm

Branford, CT

#75 Apr 12, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus is the true superman but you are welcome to believe unquestionable fantasy.
Wrong. As clearly stated on the website, Clark Kent is the true Superman.You are welcome to believe in your fantasy.

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

#76 Apr 12, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I deny that too. The evidence is overwhelming that AIDS has nothing to do with HIV except for an arbitrary circular definition.
Now I think you're just plain lying. Seriously, the complete opposite occurs of what you just claimed.

From: http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/hiv13a.ht...
With regard to Koch's postulates, Duesberg has argued that the following criteria must be met to show that HIV causes AIDS

1. The microorganism must be found in all cases of the disease.
2. It must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture.
3. It must reproduce the original disease when introduced into a susceptible host.
4. It must be found in the experimental host so infected.

It is now apparent that:

1. Virtually all AIDS patients are HIV-infected
2. HIV can be isolated from virtually all AIDS patients, as well as in almost all seropositive individuals with both early- and late-stage disease
3. Laboratory workers accidentally infected with concentrated purified HIV have developed AIDS
4. HIV has been isolated from these individuals
What cases have you ever heard of that had a person develop AIDS without HIV? If that is possible there would have to be an abundant number of examples to show a correlation NOT tied to HIV.

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

#77 Apr 12, 2013
Elohm wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong. As clearly stated on the website, Clark Kent is the true Superman.You are welcome to believe in your fantasy.
Complete bull. Clark wears glasses, Superman doesn't. Seriously, just do a Google image search and you'll see thousands of examples!
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#78 Apr 12, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Duesberg denies that HIV causes AIDS.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jun/15-aids-...
That makes him a courageous, free-thinking genius. All you can do is just quote conventional pieties and complain when others aren't following the herd. You obviously aren't even qualified to debate the topic.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#79 Apr 12, 2013
llDayo wrote:
<quoted text>
Complete bull. Clark wears glasses, Superman doesn't. Seriously, just do a Google image search and you'll see thousands of examples!
LMFAO!! Have a great weekend.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#80 Apr 12, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>That makes him a courageous, free-thinking genius. All you can do is just quote conventional pieties and complain when others aren't following the herd. You obviously aren't even qualified to debate the topic.
I'm not? Pretty ballsy coming from an unemployed middle school math teacher.

He's not courageous. He's a wacko - just like you.
Tyler in Space

Manchester, MD

#81 Apr 12, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>That makes him a courageous, free-thinking genius. All you can do is just quote conventional pieties and complain when others aren't following the herd. You obviously aren't even qualified to debate the topic.
Courageous is debatable, but free-thinking and genius? As IlDayo pointed out, AIDS is literally confirmed to be caused by HIV. Duesberg's hypothesis, in addition to being completely illogical, failed utterly to turn up any sort of sound science. Remind me again where somebody managed to prove that the particular drug he implicated wears down the immune system...? What again is the running theory for why AIDS is so rampant in third world countries...? Why do blood transfusions from HIV patients cause the recipient to develop AIDS...? And how, exactly, did America manage to cut down AIDS so drastically in our country by acting on an incorrect theory...? There are so many enormous holes in this HIV denialism it's frankly hard to believe that any rational person would buy into it--which does explain why so many irrational people do, if nothing else.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#82 Apr 12, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>When Berlinski explains the emptiness of Darwinism, isn't he essentially saying that there is nothing to refute, just a lot of just-so stories?
Shubee wrote:
I have never claimed to be an expert in biology. Frankly, I can barely remember anything about the one course I took in biology.
(ahem)

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 min dirtclod 163,669
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 8 hr Paul Porter1 78
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Thu Chimney1 141,315
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) May 19 Kathleen 19,031
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) May 18 SoE 178,597
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) May 18 MADRONE 1,870
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) May 15 emrenil 1,243
More from around the web