The Discovery Institute has fired a second post at me and my National Geographic article on evolution. I've updated my post to explain why they're shooting blanks.
In the comment thread, some people asked why I was wasting time dealing with this stuff. The reason is simple: if I don't show why these attacks are baseless, some people may assume there's some truth to them. And since I put a fair amount of work into this article, I want to do my part to set things straight. Since the Discovery Institute does not see fit to put a comment thread on their "Evolution News and Views" site, this is the next best place for me to go about this.
Comments
If you want a good laugh then try listening to Casey's arguments on the Discovery Institutes podcast. Its easy to find on itunes - so long as you type in the appropriate search term.
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/2831/creationismpp3.jpg
Posted by: MartinC | November 17, 2006 7:59 AM
This is only loosely related to your particular post, but...
I just wanted to thank you for the work you do. You write about life science in a way that's informative and interesting, and comprehensible to a non-scientist. I enjoy reading your posts.
Posted by: Star | November 17, 2006 9:42 AM
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | November 17, 2006 10:45 AM
As others have said, it's a tiresome and tedious task, but someone's gotta do it.
I'm just glad that it's someone with your writing skills and your talent for locating and intertwining deft examples.
Thanks, Carl!
Posted by: Steviepinhead | November 17, 2006 2:59 PM
Perhaps it's not so strange how IDists focus (again) on the genetic similarities in their arguments about 'common design', but seem to forget (ignore? sweep under the rug?) the 'plagiarized errors' refutation. what intelligent designer would copy boo-boos from one lineage to the next?
Posted by: djlactin | November 17, 2006 11:24 PM
Star and Steviepinhead speak my mind. Thank you, Carl.
Posted by: David B. Benson | November 18, 2006 4:10 PM
The lack of acceptance of comments at "Evolution News and Views" fits right in with their attitude toward publishing in peer-reviewed journals. They simply can't stand honest, evidence-based criticism.
Posted by: mark | November 18, 2006 4:32 PM