Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[orogenicman]

Are you trying to suggest the universe has no affect on a closed system ?

The universe IS a closed system.



No. Humans, for instance, are genetically LESS complex than their ape cousins, the chimpanzee. I can cite many other examples, if you like.



It is irrelevant. On a planet that is NOT a closed system, organisms can become more, or less, complex. Natural selection makes no requirement that an organism be more complex than its predecessor. The only requirement is that any modification result in offspring having a survival advantage over its predecessors. If that advantage means that it becomes LESS complex, that's what happens.

I don't believe evolution ever happened the way they currently teach. I believe small changes happens within in a family but not enough to account for all the different organisms that has ever existed.

And that's because you are illiterate on the subject. There is a cure for your ailment. Take some biology classes.

Does a closed system ,the universe. Have an effect on an open system such as the earth ?

I always get a chuckle when Evolutionlists try to make the argument of similarity between the chimp and human and I quickly point out the differences. I would have earlier but did not have my pc. I was on my phone. While 18 pairs of chromosomes are very similar, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show differences. Genes and markers are not in the same order. Y chromosome are different sizes and many of the markers do not line up.
Scientists have also found non random regions that correspond with insertions in the human line.

And yet the differences amounts to a mere 4% of their respective genomes. And that means that we share 96% of our genome with chimpanzees, more than with any other species.

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes chimps have 24. I am well aware of the explanation of two small chromosomes fusing in the chimp. Chimps have around 23 kilobases same as other apes. That is 1,000 dna base pairs. Humans are very different having much shorter telomeres 10 kilobases long.

I have taken many classes in science, not just biology.

You probably should ask for a refund from your teachers, because, damn.

 

[orogenicman]

I don't know but I think you guys are wasting your time. Going from an amoeba to a microbiologist, I would say according to your theory you do have an arrow pointing towards complexity.

How can an organism get less complex and survive it's environment ?

You need to quit using a cycle of an organism as your argument ,that is a bad analogy.

And yet microbiologists, like all human beings, have fewer genes than a grape. Again, complexity is not a requirement for survival. Human beings require fewer genes than a grape, and yet we have survived just fine, thank you very much.

So how do you explain how we evolved from other organisms ? oh and thanks for refuting your own argument that humans and chimps are related through genetic similarity.

Erm, I did no such thing. You are confused.

We evolved from other organisms exactly the same way every other organism evolved, through natural selection, though we also had a hand in our own evolution as well.

 

[orogenicman]

Does the universe have an effect on the supposed open system earth ?

Sorry I just noticed I said a closed system.

How is the Earth a closed system when all that energy (from the sun) is streaming into it from elsewhere?

I said in an earlier post that was a typo. I am still not convinced the earth is an open system but for the sake of argument, my question still stands.

The earth doesn't require you to be convinced. It isn't about you.

 

[orogenicman]

Darwinism is a belief system..like religion...a very fundamentalist group of zealots for the most part..

Ah yes, the science is a religion argument. How quaint.

No not science,only some theories.

If you truly believe that, then you don't understand scientific theories.

 

[orogenicman]

it seems more the domain of darwinist..not all science

Except that Darwinism is not the same as the theory of evolution. Except that the theory of evolution is one of the most accepted scientific theories (accepted by virtually all scientists in all walks of life), and one of the most successful scientific theories of all time. I'm sorry if you didn't get the memo.

Of course it is, you just added supposed mechanisms. Have you heard of Neo Darwinism ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

Darwinism originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, including concepts which predated Darwin's theories, but subsequently referred to specific concepts of natural selection, the Weismann barrier or in genetics the central dogma of molecular biology.[1] Though it usually refers strictly to biological evolution, the term has been misused by creationists to refer to the origin of life and has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution which have no connection to Darwin's work. It is therefore considered the belief and acceptance of Darwin's, and his predecessors, work in place of other theories including divine design and extraterrestrial origins.[2][3]

The meaning of "Darwinism" has changed over time, and varies depending on its context.[4] In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a shorthand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection.[5]

The term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in April 1860,[6] and was used to describe evolutionary concepts in general, including earlier concepts such as Spencerism. Many of the proponents of Darwinism at that time, including Huxley, had reservations about the significance of natural selection, and Darwin himself gave credence to what was later called Lamarckism. The strict neo-Darwinism of August Weismann gained few supporters in the late 19th century. During this period, which has been called "the eclipse of Darwinism", scientists proposed various alternative evolutionary mechanisms which eventually proved untenable. The development of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s, incorporating natural selection with population genetics and Mendelian genetics, revived Darwinism in an updated form.[7]

While the term has remained in use amongst scientific authors when referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been argued that it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.[5][8] For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of Gregor Mendel,[9] and as a result had only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity. He naturally had no inkling of yet more recent developments and, like Mendel himself, knew nothing of genetic drift for example.[10]

 

[orogenicman]

Its funny watching these evolution fundamentalist resort to posting inane pictures when their THEORY is questioned..equally as amusing as when they say that the other simple does not understand what a theory means in scientific terms and that it is even greater than a fact..but for some reason when it come to scientific theories that may cause ripples in their rigid belief system this high regard for theory seems to diminish

What's funny is that you believe that there is a question about whether evolution occurs or is a valid scientific paradigm. It does occur, and is a valid scientific paradigm. The only people who question it don't understand it or are afraid of what it implies. That is the simple truth of the matter; whether or not you believe it is is irrelevant.

The better term would be micro-adaptations not evolution.

There are two forms of evolution: Microevolution and macroevolution.

The following article gives a succinct description of both.

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

 

[orogenicman]

Your point ?

You asked,
How can an organism get less complex and survive it's environment ?
Do you have head trauma?

It is a small endangered species .there are many ways to take this point on. I will simply ask you how do you know that this species is not just a victim of a bad trait passed on or it got less complex ?

'Regressive Evolution' In Cavefish: Natural Selection Or Genetic Drift

Feb. 16, 2007 — "Regressive evolution," or the reduction of traits over time, is the result of either natural selection or genetic drift, according to a study on cavefish by researchers at New York University's Department of Biology, the University of California at Berkeley's Department of Integrative Biology, and the Harvard Medical School.

Previously, scientists could not determine which forces contributed to regressive evolution in cave-adapted species, and many doubt the role of natural selection in this process. Darwin himself, who famously questioned the role of natural selection in eye loss in cave fishes, said, "As it is difficult to imagine that eyes, although useless, could be in any way injurious to animals living in darkness, I attribute their loss wholly to disuse."

The research appears in the most recent issue of the journal Current Biology.

Cave adaptations have evolved in many species independently, and each cave species can be considered a replicate of the same evolutionary experiment that asks how species change in perpetual darkness. This makes cavefish a rich source for the examination of the evolutionary process.

In this study, the researchers examined the genetic basis of regressive evolution in the eyes and pigmentation of Mexican cavefish. To do so, they mapped the quantitative trait loci (QTL) determining differences in eye and lens sizes as well as the melanophore--or pigment cell--number between cave and surface fish. These QTL represent genes where new mutations arose in cave populations. To better understand the genetic basis for regressive evolution, they focused on two alternative explanations for regression: natural selection, in which beneficial DNA mutations become more common over time, and genetic drift, in which the frequencies of these mutations can rise or fall over time due solely to statistical variation.

Their results suggested that eyes and pigmentation regressed through different mechanisms. Mutations in cave populations that affected eye or lens size invariably caused size reductions. This observation is consistent with evolution by natural selection and inconsistent with evolution by genetic drift. By contrast, mutations in cave populations that affected pigmentation sometimes caused increases instead of decreases in pigment cell density, consistent with evolution by random processes and genetic drift.

Allaying Darwin's doubts about the role of natural selection in eye loss, the researchers suggest that the high metabolic cost of maintaining the retina is the source of selection against eyes in the cave. By contrast, no such great cost is associated with pigmentation--thus, the two traits regress for different reasons.

 

[eots]

This guy Nails it...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyxUwaq00Rc]David Berlinski?Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hollie]

This guy Nails it...

David Berlinski?Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions - YouTube

Actually, no. Berlinski is just another cult member of the Disco’tute.



#24: David Berlinski

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here: Disco. ?tute: Evolution is a ?terrifying cripple,? ?bang[ing] its crutches through…Hell? ? Thoughts from Kansas (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

 

[eots]

This guy Nails it...

David Berlinski?Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions - YouTube

Actually, no. Berlinski is just another cult member of the Disco’tute.



#24: David Berlinski

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here: Disco. ?tute: Evolution is a ?terrifying cripple,? ?bang[ing] its crutches through…Hell? ? Thoughts from Kansas (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

you really are a zealot and a conspiracy theorist aren't your interesting how much like you this editorial blog uses nothing but empty ad hominem attacks and strawmen as your main argument without actually addressing directly any of his views...

 

[eots]

This guy Nails it...

David Berlinski?Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions - YouTube

Actually, no. Berlinski is just another cult member of the Disco’tute.



#24: David Berlinski

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here: Disco. ?tute: Evolution is a ?terrifying cripple,? ?bang[ing] its crutches through…Hell? ? Thoughts from Kansas (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

thanks for posting this its priceless..the comparative level of intellect between your crass blogger and David Berlinski speaks volumes on the issue

 

[Hollie]

This guy Nails it...

David Berlinski?Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions - YouTube

Actually, no. Berlinski is just another cult member of the Disco’tute.



#24: David Berlinski

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here: Disco. ?tute: Evolution is a ?terrifying cripple,? ?bang[ing] its crutches through…Hell? ? Thoughts from Kansas (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

you really are a zealot and a conspiracy theorist aren't your interesting how much like you this editorial blog uses nothing but empty ad hominem attacks and strawmen as your main argument without actually addressing directly any of his views...

I can see you're infuriated that anyone would challenge your posted youtube video.

Screeching about a zealot and a conspiracy theorist is really pointless and only serves to define your having no argument to present.

 

[Hollie]

This guy Nails it...

David Berlinski?Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions - YouTube

Actually, no. Berlinski is just another cult member of the Disco’tute.



#24: David Berlinski

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here: Disco. ?tute: Evolution is a ?terrifying cripple,? ?bang[ing] its crutches through…Hell? ? Thoughts from Kansas (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

thanks for posting this its priceless..the comparative level of intellect between your crass blogger and David Berlinski speaks volumes on the issue

You have a need to further yet another conspiracy theory.

How strange that Berlinski has associated himself with the Disco'tute. These frauds have a demonstrated pattern of phony claims.

Very strange how frauds and conspiracy theorists seem to find common ground.

 

[Hollie]

This guy Nails it...

David Berlinski?Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions - YouTube

Actually, no. Berlinski is just another cult member of the Disco’tute.



#24: David Berlinski

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here: Disco. ?tute: Evolution is a ?terrifying cripple,? ?bang[ing] its crutches through…Hell? ? Thoughts from Kansas (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

thanks for posting this its priceless..the comparative level of intellect between your crass blogger and David Berlinski speaks volumes on the issue

Yeah, it is priceless. Your hope to further conspiracy theories by promoting such frauds as Berlinski and the Disco'tute is worth pointing out.

 

[eots]

Actually, no. Berlinski is just another cult member of the Disco’tute.



#24: David Berlinski

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here: Disco. ?tute: Evolution is a ?terrifying cripple,? ?bang[ing] its crutches through…Hell? ? Thoughts from Kansas (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

you really are a zealot and a conspiracy theorist aren't your interesting how much like you this editorial blog uses nothing but empty ad hominem attacks and strawmen as your main argument without actually addressing directly any of his views...

I can see you're infuriated that anyone would challenge your posted youtube video.

Screeching about a zealot and a conspiracy theorist is really pointless and only serves to define your having no argument to present.

I find it equally interesting how you and your blogger both like to characterize anyone challenging your theories as being "angry" when in fact ..it is your blogger spewing out the name calling and obvious anger and David Berlinski who engages in a calm reasoned debate...you like to call others conspiracy theorist but almost every rebuttal of yours suggest some conspiratorial motives for all that question your theory..its intresting to see how seems to mirror the behavior of christian fudamantalist

 

[eots]

Actually, no. Berlinski is just another cult member of the Disco’tute.



#24: David Berlinski

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here: Disco. ?tute: Evolution is a ?terrifying cripple,? ?bang[ing] its crutches through…Hell? ? Thoughts from Kansas (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

thanks for posting this its priceless..the comparative level of intellect between your crass blogger and David Berlinski speaks volumes on the issue

Yeah, it is priceless. Your hope to further conspiracy theories by promoting such frauds as Berlinski and the Disco'tute is worth pointing out.

lol..See ya did it again....

 

[Hollie]

you really are a zealot and a conspiracy theorist aren't your interesting how much like you this editorial blog uses nothing but empty ad hominem attacks and strawmen as your main argument without actually addressing directly any of his views...

I can see you're infuriated that anyone would challenge your posted youtube video.

Screeching about a zealot and a conspiracy theorist is really pointless and only serves to define your having no argument to present.

I find it equally interesting how you and your blogger both like to characterize anyone challenging your theories as being "angry" when in fact ..it is your blogger spewing out the name calling and obvious anger and David Berlinski who engages in a calm reasoned debate...you like to call others conspiracy theorist but almost every rebuttal of yours suggest some conspiratorial motives for all that question your theory..its intresting to see how seems to mirror the behavior of christian fudamantalist

A "calm, reasoned debate", does not indicate that Berlinski has anything valid or factual to offer.

I think your need to believe in conspiracy theories colors your ability to operate in the rational world.

Maybe if you actually presented evidence instead of just floating conspiracy theories....

 

[Hollie]

thanks for posting this its priceless..the comparative level of intellect between your crass blogger and David Berlinski speaks volumes on the issue

Yeah, it is priceless. Your hope to further conspiracy theories by promoting such frauds as Berlinski and the Disco'tute is worth pointing out.

lol..See ya did it again....

lol. You're befuddled.

Floating conspiracy theories won't help when you're arguments are as baseless as your conspiracy theories.

 

[eots]

Yeah, it is priceless. Your hope to further conspiracy theories by promoting such frauds as Berlinski and the Disco'tute is worth pointing out.

lol..See ya did it again....

lol. You're befuddled.

Floating conspiracy theories won't help when you're arguments are as baseless as your conspiracy theories.

what conspiracy theory is that ?...you seem obsessed with conspiracy theories...it makes any reasoned discourse impossible

 

[orogenicman]

This guy Nails it...

David Berlinski?Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions - YouTube

Actually, no. Berlinski is just another cult member of the Disco’tute.



#24: David Berlinski

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here: Disco. ?tute: Evolution is a ?terrifying cripple,? ?bang[ing] its crutches through…Hell? ? Thoughts from Kansas (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

Indeed. His arguments are about as insane as the looney stuff that Pat Robertson spews. He claims that evolution is not real because women don't have tails. He also has no known record of his own contribution to the development of mathematics or of any other science for that matter.