The Voodoo You Do So Well
by Try and delete this john.
In what he claims is his last article on the evolution Jupiter king has made the bold claim that evolution is voodoo science. The origin of this term and I assume the criteria Jupiter used to make this declaration is from the book by Robert L Park in which he lays down seven rules for detecting voodoo science (which is his snarky way of saying science which he does not really think is science.)
The seven rules are as follows (I copied the list off Wikipedia so the wording might not be perfect.)
- Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists.
- Discoverers claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress the discovery.
- The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the signal.
- Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim.
- True believers cite ancient traditions in support of the new claim.
- The discoverer or discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream scientific community.
- The discovery, if true, would require a change in the understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.
Now I am not an internationally respected physicist but I have to admit I see a problem with it right off the bat. Rules number five and seven contradict each other somewhat in the sense that something cannot be to new or too old but the reality is that every once in a while we come across something that drastically redefines our understanding of the world and our place in it and I think everyone who believes we live in a heliocentric solar system would agree with me. The same goes for rule five because every once in a while we lose something that has been known for hundreds of years only to regain it again at a later date.
On the whole they are sound rules to go by on a day to day basis with rule three being the most important I would say but the important thing to remember is that these are not hard and fast rules but guidelines designed to help.
Liked it
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Post CommentRobert
On June 9, 2009 at 2:02 am
Dear Jamie, I actually was interested in this article,
Thanks for the critique, I’m sure John had a laugh. Evo is still Junk science.
As far as creationism goes Science cannot experiment on God.
Anyway, I remember John asking for contructive criticism,
Good try though I see you have a hard time refraining from the use of certain language.
Robert
On June 9, 2009 at 2:06 am
P.S. the theory of Evo IS ancient,as ancient as greek paganism, Darwin just made it popular.
P.S.S from Robert
On June 9, 2009 at 2:18 am
Number 7 is not referring to someone having to change the UNDERSTANDING of the laws of nature, but rather to have to change the laws of nature themselves, (making new ones up) if you’re going to quote Parks’ criteria, do us a favor and get it right
Robert's point is
On June 9, 2009 at 2:29 am
The laws of nature are set, if a person has to resort to coming up with new ones rather than using real ones,that’s when it becomes voodoo science
To Jamie
On June 9, 2009 at 2:39 am
Gravity,real. Heliocentricity, real.
Dogs giving birth to non-dogs over millions of years, NOT real. Yet evolutionists want people to believe in that.
If a frog becomes a prince instantly we know it’s a fairytale, but if it supposedly happens through mutation over “millions of years” it’s more plausible? Give me a break.
#7 should read
On June 9, 2009 at 2:47 am
The discovery,to be true, would require a change in the fundamental laws of nature.
To Jamie Again
On June 9, 2009 at 3:02 am
Jamie you said “these books were not published in peer reviewed science journals” NO book is published in a science journal, books and science journals are separate things.
Anyway the books have been reviewed and one review even called bones of contention an eye opener.
P.S.
On June 9, 2009 at 3:06 am
for his readers interested in the book bones of contention,to read it yourselves it is by Marvin Lubenow
Robert
On June 9, 2009 at 3:15 am
It’s your page and on YOUR page you can use the language you want, but John has every right to moderate where HIS pages are concerned and you have no reason to complain.
You are free to disagree with John (or anyone else you so wish)
Answering Jamie
On June 9, 2009 at 3:40 am
“what is with the frog to prince analogies they make no sense but you people seem to love them”
Actually Jamie, your beloved evolutionists seem to love them, they’re the ones that think people evolved from non-humans yet it seems you’re finally admitting that the notion of humans coming from non-humans makes no sense
jamie mullen
On June 9, 2009 at 4:04 am
Of course humans EVOLVED from non-humans but the concept of a frog turning into a human is a gross misrepresentation of evolution and it only betrays youre lack of understanding for even the basic concepts of evolution. And yes robert I do have a right to complain because the only reason john gave for deleting my comment was that it was not constructive (which is subjective) which is hypocritical because there are many comments on johns articles that are not constructive and I expect to get the same treatment as everyone else.
Suggestion
On June 9, 2009 at 4:05 am
Jamie you said “nowadays the majority of people even religious people believe in some form evolution “
do you know the majority of people? NO, so you make an ASSUMPTION with the above statement but unless you know the majority of people I would suggest refraining from such assumptions.
to Jamie
On June 9, 2009 at 4:13 am
The frog to prince thing is what is called MOCKING,hence why I said “give me a break”
I was mocking the idea that one organism could become a totally new organism. (In general,though frogs becoming human was the example I used)
I understand that evolutionists think mutations over time can make a new kind of animal different from itself, there are variations, but one organism becoming a totally new organism is ridiculous.
Question
On June 9, 2009 at 4:17 am
can I ask a ? Jamie, if everything “evolves over time” then what did organisms do before their immune systems were “evolved”?
Robert
On June 9, 2009 at 4:29 am
John has said on a number of comments that critiques are fine, but he does have a right to delete anything that is “spamming” in nature,from you or anyone else, and has said he would freely act on that right,
He has critics and knows it, but unless something is constructive or at least contributing to the overall conversation rather than just showing personal disdain then John has every right to delete it
Robert
On June 9, 2009 at 4:34 am
P.S. you make reference to a “fossil record” but the only thing you can tell from a fossil is that THAT organism died, you cannot tell if a fossil ever had descendants
jamie mullen
On June 9, 2009 at 5:05 am
http://www.scienceray.com/Biology/Microbiology/What-is-Mutation-and-How-Do-Mutations-Occur.772727 I would read this if I were you.
Question
On June 9, 2009 at 5:08 am
You assume?
You know a fossil died,you can tell many things, what it was,what it ate, etc. but I think Robert’s point was you can’t tell if it ever reproduced.
(though pregnant things such as turtles have been found,which were by the way pregnant with turtles)
No fossil is evidence for evolution, a fossil is dead, period.
to Jamie
On June 9, 2009 at 5:16 am
I read it Jamie, nobody is disagreeing with you in the fact that mutations do occur,they do not however create a totally new organism, there are different variations of animals (cats for example) but they still are cats. There may be siamese cats etc but they are still cats
A ? on mutation
On June 9, 2009 at 5:24 am
“The disadvantages of mutation are: a) it causes physical deformities. b) It causes genetic diseases.”
“Polydactylity is an example of a physical deformity found in humans but it is harmless. Individuals with such a condition have an extra finger on the hand or an extra toe”
How is having an extra finger or toe not a problem?
If you’re missing your big toe for example, you get thrown off balance, having excess or lack of anything is not a beneficial mutation,
“Gene mutation gives rise to genetic diseases such as color blindness, albinism, hemophilia and retinoblastoma”
And how are these not a detriment?
Robert
On June 9, 2009 at 5:29 am
Jamie, if mutations are harmful (which they are according to the above article) you’re not helping your case much
JohnKing
On June 9, 2009 at 6:01 am
I stand by my article Jamie,even though I can see you have an issue with it.
That’s all I have to say, and I will pray for you despite our disagreements.
jamie mullen
On June 9, 2009 at 6:41 am
Robert can you not read? Of course some or even most mutations are either harmful or benign but a minority of them cause an animal to better survive in it’s enviroment causing them to procreate and pass on said mutation and after a million years or so this happens a few times wich leads eventually to the creation of new species. I can see how you people might have a problem with scientific theories regarding the beggining of the universe which is more at the forefront of scientific knowledge but I do not understand how this basic law of nature is so hard to grasp.
Robert
On June 9, 2009 at 6:54 am
A new species is not a new Animal, there are different species of bear,(but it remains a bear) different species of fly,(but they remain flies) different species of apes (but they remain apes) etc. Variations within a kind may cause different species of a particular animal but it never creates an entirely new animal, that is the point we’re making.
Question
On June 9, 2009 at 7:14 am
If my environment required me to grow a tail, could I? or Wings? (Wings would be bloody great actually I would not need to drive)
JohnKing
On June 9, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I concede that MICRO-EVOLUTION (Variations) do occur, that’s why you get different breeds of dogs but they are still dogs, MACRO-EVOLUTION (the changing of one animal to a completely new animal) does NOT occur, a dog will always produce dogs no matter how many breeds of dogs there are.
the term Micro-evolution is simply a fancy way of saying variation
XXElleXX
On October 4, 2009 at 1:48 am
Science itself has no conclusions one way or the other about how the world was created. Science is a method for finding out what truth is, not a conclusion about the truth. Evolution is the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms. “The line between foolishness and fraud is thin. Because it is not always easy to tell when that line is crossed, I use the term voodoo science to cover them all: pathological science, junk science, pseudoscience, and fraudulent science.” – Dr Robert Park..I would say that VOODOO SCIENCE can rightly be called “Skepticism For Dummies.” It makes a mockery out of New Age thinking and pseudo-science without using the kind of technical jargon that sometimes alienates lay-people.