Respectful Insolence

…like this (explanation here):

Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor
Michael Egnor

I tried to resist going along with the crowd and even now feel a bit dirty, but, hey, if it’s good enough for Bora, Skeptico, PZ, and many others, it’s probably good enough for me. I agree: Teach the controversy!

In any case, my challenge remains to Dr. Egnor to explain how the design inference (of “intelligent design”) has been “of great value” to medicine and medical research, complete with specific examples.

Not that I expect he’ll ever answer the question, or even attempt to. He can’t, because ID hasn’t helped medicine in the least.

Instead of responding, all Dr. Egnor’s done is rehash one of the most mind-blowingly dumb things he’s said about bacterial resistance to antibiotics in an even more mind-blowingly idiotic manner, which MIke handled so that I don’t have to. And, of course, several of the links above demolish Dr. Egnor’s pontifications on not just bacterial resistance to antibiotics but to his other “egnorant” statements about evolution.

Comments

  1. #1 George
    March 22, 2007

    While the whole Dr. Egnor affair is disturbing, there is a bit of fascination with just how the denial of truth (and perhaps deliberate lies) drags one so far into the depths. It is a feedback system that perhaps begins with a small turbulence in their religious faith that they choose to mend by denying a bit of truth. Then the whole thing spins out of control and into lunacy.

  2. #2 Pascal Leduc
    March 22, 2007

    I wonder how he can argue that evolution is not used in medecine yet it is used in Computer engineering

    COEN 432 Applied Genetic and
    Evolutionary Systems (3 credits)
    Prerequisite: COEN 352 or COMP 352. Motivation
    for the use of Genetic Algorithms (GAs). Theory:
    the Schema Theorem, the K‚ÄĎarmed Bandit, the
    Building Block Hypothesis, the Idealized GA and
    comparison of GAs. Methodology: representation,
    fitness and selection, crossover and mutation,
    parameterization and constraints, implementation.
    Applications: function optimization, evolving computer
    programs, optimizing a pattern recognizer,
    system modelling. Identification of classes of
    problems suitable for the use of GAs. Lectures:
    three hours per week.

    applied evolution eat your heart out:p, after all if its good enough to be applicable in computer systems then arguably it must be of some use in medecine.

    from http://registrar.concordia.ca/calendar/pdf/sec71.60.pdf

  3. #3 Melissa G
    March 22, 2007

    I’m hearing “Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor” sung by cartoon mice to the tune of “Cinderelly, Cinderelly”… perhaps the mice are making him a dress for the ball. Perhaps they’re writing the Creationist arguments he’s spouting.

  4. #4 Maronan
    March 22, 2007

    Hey, look! It worked!