Original. Student reported. Your daily dose of Right-minded news and commentary from across the nation
Prof Leads Students In ‘Praise Darwin’ Chant, Defends Actions As ‘Moral Duty’

A University of Connecticut anthropology professor who angrily confronted a group of evangelical demonstrators in a profanity-laced tirade before leading students in a “Praise Darwin” counter-protest chant has defended his actions as morally justified.

“It was my moral duty to become outraged,” Professor James Boster told NBC Connecticut on Friday, just a few days after a video of the confrontation was posted on YouTube. It quickly went viral. (Video posted below.)

In the 2-minute video, Boster gets nearly nose to nose with a demonstrator holding a sign that reads “Evolution Is A Lie” and yells “bullsh*t, bullshi*t, you are full of ignorance and lies,” among other comments.

Later in the video, which does not show what originally set the professor off, Boster rallied a small group of students to join him in a counter protest.

“Praise Darwin,” he called out.

“Praise Darwin,” the students replied in chorus, their arms raised.

“Your place in the divine pattern of life, tree of life, where you feel your spiritual kinship not just with your fellow humans but also with your fellow mammals…” Boster continued. “We are all bonded together in that great spiritual web … that understanding will nurse you and sustain you.”

Boster told NBC Connecticut that the protestors denigrated the ethnicity and sexuality of some students in the vicinity, and that’s what enraged him. He also said the protestors’ claim that evolution is false did not actually bother him. He insisted he was trying to “engage them as cast members” in the “drama” he said he was “creating.”

Peter Wolfgang of the Family Institute of Connecticut told NBC Connecticut he has a problem with “the professor proselytizing the students for a particular spiritual philosophy.”

Last year, an assistant football coach at UConn was forced to resign after the university publicly decried his recommendation that “Jesus Christ should be in the center of our huddles.”

“UConn came down on him like the wrath of God,” Wolfgang said.

The University of Connecticut has issued a statement regarding Boster’s actions, saying “everyone has the right to exercise free speech on our campuses.”

The statement also condemned the confrontational nature of Boster’s profanity-laced comments, saying the school expects professors to “act in a way that promotes civil discourse and to express themselves respectfully.”

Boster told NBC Connecticut that he is in “deep trouble” and that the dean has “summoned him” to his office.

According to the popular website “Rate My Professors” – which college students often use when choosing classes – Professor Boster is not very popular, and it’s not unheard of for him to get animated in his classroom, either.

Many said he “rants” often, and gets “side-tracked” in class.

“He rambles in class and almost never talks about the material. He’s always off on a tangent,” one student wrote.

“Terrible teacher but incredibly easy class,” another said.

One even insisted that students can periodically skip class, and that the TA was more informative than the professor.

His overall quality rating is a 2.5 out of 5, along with his “helpfulness” and “clarity” ratings. His “easiness” rating is a 3.4 out of 5.

Watch the video:

College Fix contributor Andrew Desiderio is a student at The George Washington University.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

About the Author

Add to the Discussion

  • Edward Swot

    Prof. Boster, an anthropolgist, is fighting for his job. His livelihood is evolution.

  • Jessica J

    Quack, quack, quack.

  • bonzai

    Thin skinned, dishonest, and double standards. Just another day in the leftist dystopia.

    • Joseph Muldoon

      I don’t give a rat’s ass for this prof. He seems pretty immature. That said, the fact remains that accepting the facts of evolution is not being liberal, it’s being rational. Right wingers are making a huge tactical error in politicizing science and especially in framing the acceptance of well established science such as evolution as ‘liberal politics’. It’s incredibly backward. It may go over well in Kentucky and the Bible Belt but the rest of the world sees you as someone who just walked off the set of Deliverance.

      • Chapmac

        once you see “science”used to pummel somebody for not buying flapdoodle, the intellectual superiority of people wearing lab coats and talking in absolutes becomes evident.

        • Joseph Muldoon

          Calling evolution “flapdoodle” and denigrating “people wearing lab coats” doesn’t really do much to offset the impression that the religious right seem like they walked off the set of “Deliverance”.

        • Joseph Muldoon

          Well first of all, i haven’t defended the professor here; I think he’s an ass. But so is the science denying fundy he was screaming at.

          That said, denying evolution and other well established science attracts idiots to and scares smart people away from the GOP. If you don’t appreciate the GOP or religious people being perceived as people who walked off the set of “Deliverance” you might want to avoid calling evolution “flapdoodle”.

  • demsaredelusional

    “Praise Darwin,” he called out” He has actually proven what I have known for a long time: Evolution is a religious belief.

    • Gullthrope

      Only if praise is fixedly attached to deities. Actually, praise is an attachment of a virtue which you can show your neighbors, admired, or others that have done something that is praise-worthy. I think that he was utilizing sardonic theatricality not channeling the dead.

      • Joseph Muldoon

        Maybe he was, or maybe he’s just an ass. Evolution is firmly established regardless.

    • Joseph Muldoon

      It’s telling that you express your belief that evolution is false by comparing it to religion. Very telling indeed.

      Obviously your faith is in crisis.

  • Only politically correct speech is free speech.

  • Guest

    Conduct yourself with dignity….. damn

  • Evan T Spurrell

    What a moron

  • waybackrie3
  • Andy Fox

    As a conservatolibertarian I have been a proponent for legalizing drugs. After watching this guy, I think, “what has he been smoking; I’m scared. Maybe I need to rethink this.”

  • J Spurlock

    Kind of hard to praise Darwin’s stand on evolution, isn’t it?
    Since, at the time of his death, Darwin had begun to renounce the theory,
    based on all of the flaws he himself had found in it.

    • Joseph Muldoon

      Darin never recanted evolution. This is a myth peddled by toothless rednecks and snake handlers.

      But even if he did it would be irrelevant since the theory has been so overwhelmingly confirmed.

  • Joseph Muldoon

    The anti-science attitude is one of the things that destroyed the GOP. This professor may be an asshat but evolution is one of the foundations of modern science and arguably the most thoroughly tested and confirmed ideas in the history of science. Denying it makes you look like an extra from the film “Deliverance”.

    • DD

      This is a distortion of what most people of faith believe. Few people deny evolution entirely, but they also don’t see that it explains away all of the obvious evidence of design in nature and the universe.

      Yes, the creationist protestors were wrong, but so are fanatics like this professor. Neither fairly represents what the majority on either side of this debate believes.

      • Joseph Muldoon

        There isn’t any “obvious evidence” of design in nature and the universe.

        • DD

          No, been looking at the cold hard facts which have helped me to see past the status symbol of smug secular fundamentalism.

          In any case, that is where the argument is. Distorting the other side’s views is politics not scientific inquiry.

          • Joseph Muldoon

            Let’s hear your “cold hard facts”.

          • DD

            You’ve heard it all before and you have your firm beliefs about why you feel it is not true. Why rehash evidence and arguments that are not going to convince you?

          • Joseph Muldoon

            A cowardly response. You don’t know what I’ve heard. I think you are simply afraid to see your “cold hard facts” exposed as neither cold not hard not factual.

          • DD

            What are the chances of life just having happened on its own? Taking everything into account.

          • Joseph Muldoon

            Well a god would be a form of life that just happens on its own; you apparently have no problem with that.

            In any event, what you are angling at here is essentially an argument from ignorance (you can’t imagine life coming into existence without a god, so there must be a god). This is a fundamental logical fallacy, a form of the god of the gaps fallacy.

            I do think the question of how the whole phenomenon of life, at least life as we know it, came about is a profound mystery. I have a physics background and am well aware of how unlikely a universe capable of supporting life as we know it is. I could write volumes on this subject.

            Of course at the same time most of the universe is unsuitable for life as we know it and even the tiny part that is capable of supporting life as we know it will not be capable of doing so for most of the history of the universe. This does not appear to be a universe made for life as we know it.

            I’m not opposed in principle to the concept god but none of the ones asserted to have written books for humans are even remotely plausible.

          • DD

            “a form of the god of the gaps fallacy”

            No, sorry but “god of the gaps” brought up by secularists refers to aspects of nature that we have no theory about yet. For example, we don’t understand Alzheimer’s disease yet that does not mean we can claim “god did it or a demon did it.”

            By contrast, intelligence cannot be created by something that is not intelligent. It is not logically possible as even Dawkins admitted when he suggested life had been planted here by space aliens…rather than admitting there might have been a god. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abugiGHOHg0

            “I’m not opposed in principle to the concept god but none of the ones asserted to have written books for humans are even remotely plausible.”

            Maybe those books were not written for you or for I. They were written for primitive peoples 1000s of years ago, yet they contain profound insights on the universe. If God were to speak to someone at that time, how else would He speak?

            “I have a physics background and am well aware of how unlikely a universe capable of supporting life as we know it is. I could write volumes on this subject.”

            You sound similar to a fairly well known astronomer I was talking to a while back. He was an atheist and glumly predicted that we were likely alone in the universe. I think this ignores this possibility of dimensions other than the 3 we live in, but I guess that is another topic.

          • Joseph Muldoon

            I see a pattern here where religious people try to disparage evolution or a secular world view by describing it in religious terms. You do it here by referring to “secular fundamentalism”. It’s very telling. You never see skeptics disparage science denying religious types by framing their religious views in scientific terms.

          • DD

            Oh yes, you never see secularists attacking and disparaging “religious types.” You’re right, I must have been “drinking the Intelligent Design Kool Aid” 🙂

          • Joseph Muldoon

            You’re being deliberately disingenuous here. I never said you don’t see secularists attacking and disparaging religious types, I specifically said you never see them disparage science denying religious types by framing their religious views in scientific terms. In other words they don’t try to mock their religion by suggesting it’s really science. Religious zealots however routinely attempt to disparage evolution or in your case “secularism” by describing it as religious.

          • DD

            “you never see them disparage science denying religious types by framing their religious views in scientific terms.”

            Your point is completely irrelevant because of a false assumption: this is not religion versus science as I’m sure you smugly believe. It is a belief system based in a disbelief in God versus one that believes in God: “atheist zealots” versus “religious zealots.” Guess what, the scientific evidence points more toward God than away.

          • Joseph Muldoon

            You are terribly confused. Evolution is science, not religion. A religious person who tries to disparage evolution and says it’s false by saying it’s a religion obviously is telling us more about what they think about the plausibility of religious beliefs than they realize (i.e. they are inadvertently admitting they equate “religious” with implausible).

            You also seem to hold religious beliefs in low regard. So low in fact that you can’t bring yourself to admit that belief in god is a matter of religious faith not scientific evidence. You refuse to present this evidence for obvious fear it will be easily refuted (I suspect your ‘evidence’ is likely Discovery Institute Intelligent Design nonsense but perhaps you’d surprise me with something more serious).

          • DD

            “Evolution is science, not religion.”

            Natural selection is science, just like intelligent design. The belief that natural selection alone explains all life in nature is a religious or at least metaphysical belief, not science.

            “You also seem to hold religious beliefs in low regard.”

            There is religion that is a set of practices in how someone worships God, but someone’s belief about nature and the universe has nothing to do with religion.

            “I suspect your ‘evidence’ is likely Discovery Institute Intelligent Design nonsense but perhaps you’d surprise me with something more serious”

            Your mind is a terrible thing to waste.

          • Joseph Muldoon

            Intelligent Design isn’t science. Science makes testable predictions. Name one testable prediction made by Intelligent Design.

            Religion involves not only acts of worship but also beliefs that are not supported by evidence (indeed religious beliefs often run contrary to evidence).

            Natural selection, along with random mutation, are the mechanisms by which species evolve. It’s not intended to explain “all life in nature” but how life evolves. We don’t know precisely how life arose from non-life but there is compelling evidence that it originated from self replicating proteins. To say that the origin of life requires an ‘Intelligent Designer’ or that ‘intelligence can only come from intelligence’ is not science, it’s religion masquerading as science using god of the gaps reasoning.

          • DD

            “Intelligent Design isn’t science. Science makes testable predictions.”

            Name me a testable prediction of evolution or paleontology.

            “Religion involves not only acts of worship but also beliefs that are not supported by evidence”

            This is nonsense, at least with respect to Christianity. Christians are encouraged to look at the evidence, blind faith is for atheists.

            “originated from self replicating proteins.”

            Saw that failed experiment. It’s like getting chocolate chip cookies from random bits of sugar.

            “Natural selection, along with random mutation, are the mechanisms by which species evolve. It’s not intended to explain “all life in nature” but how life evolves.”

            True, but each mutation must confer an advantage in order for this logic to work. What happens when a development requires 20 or 30 mutations simultaneously in order to confer an advantage?

          • Joseph Muldoon

            You aren’t as intelligent as I gave you credit for. There are tons of successful predictions of evolution and paleontology; here are just a few (and I want to see at least one falsifiable prediction of Intelligent Design from you):

            Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.

             

            Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was “inexplicable” and that the lack might “be truly urged as a valid argument” against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.

             

            There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.

             

            Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.

             

            Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don’t overlap. The “Cretaceous seaway” deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.

             

            Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.

             

            Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.

             

            Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.

             

            In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig’s fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found – the cynodont therapsids.

             

            It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can’t tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.

          • DD

            These are not really testifiable predictions. They are exactly the same as what intelligent design does, trying to fit the evidence of what has already happened into a theoretical paradigm. Intelligent design does this with for example the Cambrian explosion in which present forms of life happen all of a sudden after most of the time that life has existed on earth, exactly as one would “predict” with intelligent design.

          • Joseph Muldoon

            Nonsense. Evolution has made successful predictions about things which should be found in the fossil record and in genes BEFORE they were found. That’s called predictive power and it’s what makes it science; it’s what evolutionary biology has that ‘Intelligent Design’ lacks. I’m still waiting for you to name one prediction of Intelligent Design. The Cambrian Explosion was not predicted by Intelligent Design. It was known about it long before there was such a ‘theory’.

          • DD

            What they found in the Cambrian explosion could be “predicted” by intelligent design. This is no different than evolution “predicting” that certain types of fossils will be found. Both are post hoc analyses of what happened. The only difference is that one you like and one you don’t like. There are other examples in intelligent design but let’s examine this on a micro level.

          • Joseph Muldoon

            You’re either dishonest or just not very bright or perhaps in a profound state of denial. The Cambrian Explosion was not predicted by Intelligent Design; it was known about for centuries before the idea of Intelligent Design existed. It’s post hoc.

            On the other hand I provided you with a long list of predictions of evolution; things which were not yet known nut predicted would be found if evolution were true. They were. This is not post hoc and if you continue to say it is you are just making yourself look foolish or dishonest or worse. Evolution has in fact made more successful predictions than any other scientific theory. It is the foundation of modern biology.

            Intelligent Design is actually not at all compatible with the Cambrian Explosion. Considering virtually all of the species around at the time of the Cambrian Explosion are extinct it wouldn’t have been a very intelligent or competent designer. Moreover many of the species in Cambrian Explosion fossils are evidenced through both the fossil record and genetics to have evolved into other species.

            Still waiting for one testable prediction of Intelligent Design.

          • DD

            I’m not going to lower myself to your level by trading barbs and insults. I’m still waiting for “testable predictions” that are different from those in intelligent design.

          • Joseph Muldoon

            You are a liar. As is clear to anyone perusing this thread, you’ve been given numerous testable and tested predictions made by evolution. You have yet to provide a single testable prediction made by Intelligent Design. You have utterly embarrassed yourself here; your silence speaks volumes.

          • Joseph Muldoon

            I wrote:
            “Religion involves not only acts of worship but also beliefs that are not supported by evidence”

            You responded:
            “This is nonsense, at least with respect to Christianity. Christians are encouraged to look at the evidence, blind faith is for atheists.”

            My current response:
            You’re not winning any points here by continuing to frame science and skepticism (or here atheism) in religious terms and pretending that a religious faith (Christianity) is based on evidence. You clearly aren’t comfortable acknowledging the most basic distinction between science and religion, which is that the former deals with evidence and the latter by is predicated on blind faith. You can’t defend religion except by pretending it’s something it’s not; something more like science. Your faith is in deep crisis obviously.

            I wrote:
            “originated from self replicating proteins.”

            You responded:
            “Saw that failed experiment. It’s like getting chocolate chip cookies from random bits of sugar.”

            My current response:
            Inane strawman om your part. I referred to no experiment failed or otherwise. I assume you have the Miller experiment in mind because creationists like to bash it. I’m not talking about the Miller experiment (which was hardly a failed experiment btw). I don’t know how life began. Nobody does. To say therefore god or an ‘Intelligent Designer’ did it is god of the gaps reasoning whether you care to acknowledge it or not; it’s called an argument from ignorance.

            My point with respect to replicating proteins is that based on what is known and a considerable body of evidence, the most reasonable inference is that what we call life emerged via natural processes from self replicating proteins. At its base after all that is essentially what life is; self replicating proteins.

          • DD

            “You’re not winning any points here by continuing to frame science and skepticism (or here atheism) in religious terms and pretending that a religious faith (Christianity) is based on evidence.”

            I’m not trying to win points, just state the truth. Christianity and atheism are both the same category of beliefs about the world. I never said that science is the same though I suppose the same process of belief in a theory and then falsification is similar. It’s just the way we humans are hard wired.

            “Your faith is in deep crisis obviously.”

            Um, no. My faith is solid because it is based on evidence. I examined the evidence for the Christian faith and found it compelling. All of us who are Christians have also found evidence in our every day lives of miracles and answered prayers that reinforce our faith. Yes, we worship a living God and you can too.

            “At its base after all that is essentially what life is; self replicating proteins.”

            All macaroons are made of sugar and flour too, I think. It doesn’t mean that if somehow these ingredients could form by natural forces that macaroons could just happen too. Even the smallest single cell organization is incredibly complex as I’m sure you know.

          • Joseph Muldoon

            ‘Christianity and atheism are both the same category of beliefs about the world.”

            That’s simply not true. That’s like saying believing in Bigfoot or the abominable snow man is in the same category of not believing in them. The former involves an assertion that something actually exists whereas the latter does not. The onus of proof is on the one making a positive claim to knowledge; therefore the one who states there is a god is obliged to prove it. The atheist is no more obliged to prove there is no god than you are obliged to prove there is no Bigfoot ( assuming you don’t believe in Bigfoot). Moreover, being an atheist does not mean being committed to the notion that it is not possible that there is a god; it is simply the absence of belief in god in the absence of compelling evidence of one.

            I have already made clear I don’t dismiss the possibility of god. Of course before one can meaningfully discuss the possibility of the existence of a god one must first discuss what they mean by “god”. None of the gods alleged to have written books for humans are remotely plausible.

            In another post you suggested that the Bible is written such as it is because that was the best way to speak to prescientific ancients. This is a very weak argument; a better apologist would have avoided essentially conceding as you did that the Bible is really better suited to pre-scientific ancients than ourselves.

            In any case, the suggestion that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god couldn’t have expressed itself in a more timeless manner strains credulity. For example god could easily have dictated to the ancient Biblical writers all sorts of things whose meaning would only become clear centuries later in the light if scientific and mathematical discoveries. It’s not as if the Bible did not and does. It still contain all sorts of things that people don’t understand. There would be far fewer skeptics today and life would be a lot easier for religious apologists if the Bible were full of unambiguous citations of specific mathematical and scientific knowledge not available to ancients. It isn’t; instead it reads precisely as one would expect a book written by ignorant ancients to read. [As to the thousand plus other ways the Bible is full of errors and inconsistencies I refer you to the writings of Dr. Bart Ehrman.]

            “I never said that science is the same though I suppose the same process of belief in a theory and then falsification is similar.”

            You are engaging in being self deception here at best. Science and religion don’t work at all in the same way; most Christians who are also scientists readily admit this (see the writings of biologist Dr. Frank Miller or human genome researcher Dr. Francis Collins for examples). Christianity does not subject its core articles of faith to scientific scrutiny and if its claims are so scrutinized by others and found wanting, Christians do one of two things, neither of which could be called falsification. The more theologically flexible or liberal Christians will reinterpret scripture in such a way as it can be reconciled with the newly scientific facts of nature. The more theologically inflexible Christians will simply refuse to accept the new scientific facts of nature (that’d be you). Neither option allows for the possibility that scripture got it wrong. It is therefore nothing like the scientific method.

            “Um, no. My faith is solid because it is based on evidence.”

            You’re speaking in contradictory terms; if the core doctrine of Christianity was predicated on evidence it wouldn’t require faith. Of all the believers I have ever encountered online, I have never met one who was more clearly conflicted about the veracity of their religious beliefs or more obviously in the midst of a deep crisis of faith. You obviously have looked at the way religion supports its claims and the way science supports its claims and have found religion sorely lacking and wish it were more like science, so you simply tell yourself it is! The only way you have found to buoy your faith commitments in the face of evidence to the contrary is to deny the inconvenient evidence and insist that Christianity is a sort of science based on empirical evidence rather than a religion based on faith. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence (or in the conflicted language of scripture, the ‘evidence’ of things unseen and ‘substance’ of things wished for). Things unseen aren’t evidence and things that are wished for have no substance.

            “I examined the evidence for the Christian faith and found it compelling. All of us who are Christians have also found evidence in our every day lives of miracles and answered prayers that reinforce our faith.”

            Well, let’s hear it then. Do your part in “the great commission”. You may not convince me but perhaps another. You won’t do it though because you know your ‘evidence’ is not compelling and you would further embarrass yourself. I predict you will bail out of this debate, lol.

            “All macaroons are made of sugar and flour too, I think. It doesn’t mean that if somehow these ingredients could form by natural forces that macaroons could just happen too.”

            You’re not making any sense. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Inferring from the basic similarity between the simplest life forms and the non-living self-replicating proteins that the latter gave rise to the former is hardly akin to expecting macaroons to self-assemble from their ingredients. However, if we must talk in terms of your ridiculous macaroon analogy, if you already witnessed the macaroon ingredients self assemble, and also witnessed some of these ingredients come together to form things similar to macaroons, it would then be reasonable to infer that macaroons can self assembled. [Of course this is a piss poor analogy for self replicating proteins and life, but it is after all your analogy,]

            “Even the smallest single cell organization is incredibly complex as I’m sure you know.”

            Ah, so it must have been designed. God of the gaps again. *face palm*

          • Joseph Muldoon

            You wrote:
            “True, but each mutation must confer an advantage in order for this logic to work. What happens when a development requires 20 or 30 mutations simultaneously in order to confer an advantage?”

            You obviously don’t understand anything about evolution. It is absolutely not the case that every mutation must confer an advantage for evolution to work. Evolution involves both random mutation AND natural selection. Natural selection wouldn’t be necessary if all mutations conferred an advantage; natural selection refers precisely to the process by which mutations that confer some advantage tend to he passed on whilst those that do not aren’t. You’re using arguments that even most creationists realized were lame 15 years ago.

          • DD

            “natural selection refers precisely to the process by which mutations that confer some advantage tend to be passed on whilst those that do not aren’t.”

            Yes, that’s right. So in my example, how did something that requires say 20 different mutations to “work” happen?

          • Joseph Muldoon

            You really are incredibly confused. In saying “yes that’s right” about the quotation above you are (apparently unwittingly) acknowledging that your prior assertion that the logic of evolution doesn’t work because most mutations are harmful was utterly incoherent and demonstrated that you really have no understanding of evolution whatsoever.

            The idea that 20 or more useful mutations must all appear simultaneously in order for evolution to work has been utterly demolished. You also must be reading dated Intelligent Design material from the pee-Dover Trial days; Intelligent Design supporters (what ‘s left of them) generally don’t use these arguments any more because they’ve been so thoroughly and publicly demolished.

            Darwin himself anticipated this sort of objection in Origin of Species gave a classic example with the evolution of the eye. More recently this argument was famously demolished by biologist Frank Miller at the Dover ID trial in which he responded to Michael Behe’s argument that a mousetrap was “irreducibly complex” and thus its constituent parts were all useless by themselves by demonstrating that the parts could all have a different but entirely useful function, either alone or working together, prior to the mousetrap being fully put together. Even more devastating to ID was the fact that mousetrap analogy aside, the constituent parts of the bacteria flagellum of the cell which was so central to Behe’s ID argument and to which the mousetrap was intended as an analogy were proven to have had a useful function in the cell.

  • DD

    This professor has a right to be make a fool of himself.

  • Joseph Muldoon

    If that thar evolushin whar trues, it wood bee in the Bible a pace. But it ent on account of its all lies straight from the pit of hell, jes like the big bang theorah and embryos.

    • DD

      Glad to see you sticking with the facts and not mocking 🙂

      • Joseph Muldoon

        I never said I would abstain from mocking those that deserve mocking. One can present facts and still make fun of those toothless science deniers.

  • Chapmac

    Try living with the trendy faculty fascists- who decide who is hired and fitted and who gets tenure and who doesn’t and you have to become adept at predicting what their next fetish will be before you run afoul of them.

  • Chapmac

    This guy can go n like that for 50 minutes-and he’s used to having a captive audience. The proper response is laughter.

  • bcmugger

    Communists suck.