Dispatches from the Creation Wars

How Dishonest is Michael Egnor?

You know, I was almost starting to feel sorry for Michael Egnor after the beating he’s taken from so many over the last few weeks. Almost. But not after seeing this stunningly dishonest bit of tripe at the DI blog where he attempts to answer Orac’s challenge to come up with an example of a design inference ever providing insight in biology or the treatment of disease. His answer: Watson and Crick used reverse engineering to figure out DNA, so they were using a design inference. That’s so ungodly stupid it’s not even worth fisking; the only thing one can do is point and laugh.

Comments

  1. #1 Orac
    April 4, 2007

    That’s so ungodly stupid it’s not even worth fisking; the only thing one can do is point and laugh.

    So, in essence, you’re saying I wasted my time last night writing my fisking of it? ;-)

  2. #2 JohnTheStudent
    April 4, 2007

    His argument seems to rest entirely on a poorly worded wikipedia entry. WIKIPEDIA! Don’t get me wrong, I love and use wikipedia, but I know HOW to use it. That is certainly not as the only source, using semantics to back up for a breathtakingly dumb assertion.

  3. #3 spartanrider
    April 4, 2007

    You can point and laugh because you have the necessary education that allows you to.Millions of working class Americans do not have the education that you possess.That does not make us stupid,but it does leave us disadvantaged when confronted with the IDiots.My 10 years of education and a lifelong search for understanding has left me equipped to take on the Hovinds and the Hams of this world,but not this new take on origins.I can take them on philiosophically,but not scientifically.Without people like you,Orac,and PZ Meyers answering these IDiots I at would be at a loss to counter their ramblings.

    When I engage the disciples of this nonsense,I readily agree with with their 747 design inference.Then when I tell them that I see evidence of hundreds of designers they are somehat taken aback.I just can’t see the same designer for the perigrine falcon and the ostrich.The okapi and the platypus most probably were the work of a new designer.It seems that multiple designers doesn’t go down well with them.You don’t have to be a genuis to differentiate a Pollock fom a Botticelli.Keep up the good work.

  4. #4 Steve Reuland
    April 4, 2007

    The part that gets me is the whole “reverse engineering” bit. What the hell did Watson and Crick’s elucidation of the structure of DNA have to do with reverse engineering? I don’t think Egnor understands the concept.

  5. #5 George
    April 4, 2007

    Can you be dishonest by degree???

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.