…and this is a 
I get email
Category: Creationism
Posted on: August 25, 2007 9:00 AM, by PZ Myers
Whoa, this one is a doozy. I dare you — I double-dog dare you — to stay awake through the whole thing.
an open letter biology professor P. Z. MyersDear Professor Paul Myers,
I remain absolutely willing to be convinced of the scientific adequacy of the theory of evolution to explain the phenomenon of speciation.
But as a non-scientist (and someone who always felt he was in a foreign land when studying science in high school) I have never considered myself competent to judge the arguments on both sides of the controversy: evolution versus intelligent design. I mean by this, that I would never consider trying to debate either yourself, or, for example, Michael Behe.
However, I do feel I have a firm grasp of the first person ontological domain of this controversy: viz. what it feels like to be a hard-core Darwinist in the act of opposing intelligent design; how it feels to be a fervent believer in intelligent design challenging the validity of Darwin’s theory.
What I mean by this, Professor Myers is, What is the significance of the psychology that comes into play in the fierceness and intensity of this debate? Because it is obvious to anyone standing on the sidelines (without a bias one way or the other) that individual scientists (and I have to say this is more pronounced on the Darwinian side) feel extremely strongly about this matter. And right there, I would like to know: Have the Darwinists (like yourself) ever wondered what is the evolutionary origin of the vehemence and passion with which you defend Darwin? Personally, were I a true believer in Darwin, I would know: this issue is a scientific one; Darwin has already been proven right; therefore any dispute about this has to be explained by some failure of perception, objectivity, or courage on the other side. Truth, after all, is unbiased.
A proponent of intelligent design (I am speaking as a Darwinist here) must lack some capacity to ‘see’ biological reality as it innocently and emphatically presents itself to the scientist through the brilliant and truthful lens of Darwinian theory. Which means, if I am going to oppose intelligent design, I am first of all going to seek some explanation for why someone (especially a scientist) could possibly believe in intelligent design when I know that a purely disinterested and impartial viewing of the facts makes Darwinian theory irresistible as the best possible explanation for how the different forms of life came into existence.
If my best friend started to believe in intelligent design—and became critical of Darwin--I would want to know, what is it that I know about my friend personally which would make him predisposed to believe in such a theory, when it is obvious, if he were being completely objective (as I know him to be capable of being in other spheres of his intellectual life), he would see how impossible it is to, in all good scientific conscience, believe in a theory which challenges the truth of Darwin.
In other words, Professor Myers, What is it within the individual human being (with identical academic training, with identical knowledge of Darwin’s theory as the Darwinist) which makes him attempt to refute a theory which, as almost every scientist knows, is almost as respectable and uncontroversial as the Theory of Gravity?
But not only this: I would attempt to observe and detect exactly what it is within that person which begins to express itself (that is some sense is abnormal:--some version of wish-fulfillment?) when this topic of evolution versus intelligent design comes up. I want to see what gets triggered in the person who believes in intelligent design such that I can see the psychological or metaphysical moment when they begin to manifest the effect of being deceived.
Now if I don’t seek this causal antecedent, and simply plunge into the polemics of opposing intelligent design (and its supporters), thinking that if I become intellectually aggressive towards and contemptuous of these enemies of science they will be routed*, I am ironically missing the whole point. Because, Professor Myers, the very means I choose within my first person ontology (my subjective experience of how I feel and what it is like to be me, Paul Myers, when these intelligent design people start arguing against Darwin) to defend Darwin will ITSELF become apparent to the opposition. How really confident and certain can Paul Myers be about the Theory of Evolution if he ignores what it is that could be driving a person to oppose Darwin, and instead gets entirely wrapped up in the business of attacking intelligent design theorists? Since, in a fundamental sense, the truth is not in doubt. And if the physical universe could speak, it would tell us this.
Now comes my main observation. It is this: In my reading of this debate it would appear that the people who are arguing for the validity of intelligent design are so confident and trusting in the truth of their theory that they eschew the subjective (we are not talking about creationists here), and what this enables them to do is to see the desperation of the other side in terms of a first person ontological standpoint.
This is THE most serious weakness, unconscious as it must be, in the firm believers in Darwin, that they are so aroused by the threat to Darwin (sincere as they undoubtedly think they are that Darwin is right, that intelligent design is a fatal projection) that they exercise little or no control over the matter of how they appear in their passionate defense of Darwin. The intelligent design people, on the other hand, find that, in their honest contact with the scientific facts as they encounter them, there simply is no need to rev up their first person ontology; the facts speak for themselves. Indeed, I would go much further than this: the real believers in intelligent design have empirically discovered that defending intelligent design seems to be an activity which warrants the support of reality, and since reality appears to corroborate their findings and observations, there simply is no need to become determined by their first person ontology—that is to say, in a defensive or aggressive or outraged manner. They do not feel threatened by Darwin’s theory.
As I said at the outset, Professor Myers, I would not want to unequivocally pronounce who is right and who is wrong in this debate, but I will say that, did I know nothing about the merits of the issue, and was ignorant of the arguments promulgated on both sides, I would, nevertheless, be persuaded that the theory of intelligent design must be a better explanation for speciation than the theory of evolution—and I think you know why.
Because, I would observe that the Darwinists (for the most part) demonstrate in their behavior an almost ontological determination that intelligent design has to be wrong and Darwin right entirely independent of the objective facts of the matter. Certainly this is how most Darwinists are acting in the face of the challenge of intelligent design. And if Darwin’s theory were an unqualified truth, the theory itself would implicitly be there supporting the Darwinist in his battle with his ignorant enemies, and it would be the intelligent design advocate who would be ex hypothesi acting as the Darwinists now act.
Just to be extreme, Professor Myers, I would say that the very intolerance and hostility of the Darwinists to intelligent design is evidence of just how ultimately (and intrinsically) weak Darwin’s theory is. It is of course a beautiful and brilliant theory, but it is being made to do the work of something that has to encompass the entire physical universe and all its details, and it seems an indisputable fact to me, as an outsider looking in, that to the extent to which it cannot rise to this challenge (in other words to the extent to which it is inadequate as an explanation for the existence and multiplicity of physical life) is the very extent to which in defending such a theory, the Darwinist has to become dangerously engaged in his first person ontology. Dangerously engaged in the sense of trying to make a theory fit reality while all the while reality has a secret: Darwin cannot explain me, and therefore if you are going to employ Darwin to explain me, you are going to have to go it alone. I am not going to come to your assistance: therefore, your first person ontology will have to do what I cannot do for you. And that, at some point, is going to start hurting.
Sincerely.
Robert Wood
*“Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.”(author intimately known to yourself: this is his first person ontology speaking)Somebody is seriously overcompensating, aren't they? That's some piece of twisty-turny logic couched in arch and overwrought language. Just a suggestion, Mr Wood: you can't fill a vacuum with pedantry, no matter how much you try to shovel in.
Let me help. I get this argument all the time: "you wouldn't be so angry if the Designists/Creationists/Illuminati/Holocaust Deniers/Second Gunmen/Flat Earthers weren't right!" It's a very silly rationale, and no, writing it in a more longwinded style doesn't help.
There's a simple reason why biologists get pissed off with creationists, and it has nothing to do with a "first person ontology" — it's that we have the hard work, the data, the experiments, the whole dang enchilada of the "objective facts of the matter," and pretentious pissants like Mr Wood think nothing of overlooking their own self-admitted ignorance of evolution to pronounce a verdict based entirely on their half-assed psychoanalysis of the universe. We can see quite clearly (especially in this instance) what it is that drives a person to oppose Darwin (as if ol' Chuck had anything to do with the issue at this point): it is the arrogance of incompetence, the self-satisfied smugness of preening assholes, the sanctimony of pious lackwits, the insufferable stupidity of pompous windbags who think they can rationalize their superstitions by seeking justification in a kind of gasified cold reading.
Your bubble-headed bullshit doesn't bamboozle me, Mr Wood — I think the only person your verbose drivel might persuade is another superficial drone who mistakes diarrhea for depth.
TrackBacks
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
Comments
Mr. Wood you are dismissed...NEXT!
Posted by: Matt | August 25, 2007 9:12 AM
I would observe that the historians (for the most part) demonstrate in their behavior an almost ontological determination that Holocause denial has to be wrong and history right entirely independent of the objective facts of the matter.
I would observe that astronomers (for the most part) demonstrate in their behavior an almost ontological determination that astrology has to be wrong and astronomy right entirely independent of the objective facts of the matter.
I would observe that the doctors (for the most part) demonstrate in their behavior an almost ontological determination that crystal-healing has to be wrong and medicine right entirely independent of the objective facts of the matter.
It's a game the whole family can play.
Posted by: Graculus | August 25, 2007 9:22 AM
Couldn't make more than halfway thru the 4th paragraph.
Posted by: anevilmeme | August 25, 2007 9:22 AM
I read it, and I think that guy is engaged in ontological wankery. What a tosser! Give me a break. "Oh, see, you're arguing, thus you must be overcompensating because you know your case is weak!"
I wonder if he'd think that if he was falsely accused by the police and they locked him up one night in a cell with a few mean guys who wouldn't respect him in the morning? Do you think he'd refrain from arguing his case and wish to be released unharmed because it might show his first person ontology?
Posted by: Brian | August 25, 2007 9:23 AM
Simple answer: we don't like them because they are liars. Is that clear enough? I can't stand these snake oil salesman who use people's ignorance to take advantage of them.
Quit trying to turn this into a cult of personality. I know the evolutionists must do this because they don't have truth on their side. This has nothing to do with not wanting to "debate" them.
Posted by: Unstable Isotope | August 25, 2007 9:24 AM
part way through reading that letter i realised that you could change the names of the sides (darwinists to IDers and vice versa) without changing the the argument (only the point trying to be made). In fact i am fairly certain you could insert the names of any two opposing sides of an argument without changing the surrounding text and it would remain equaly legible. Now i heard someone say recently if your argument can be twisted to make a point about anything, chances are your argument really doesn't actually say much at all (its probly logically invalid, in this case based on the assumptions)[hitchens i beleive].
Posted by: bladescythe | August 25, 2007 9:28 AM
Oh PZ could you close the italics in the quoted text. Thanks in advance
Posted by: bladescythe | August 25, 2007 9:29 AM
Hey, someone forgot to close an italics tag in this post somewhere....
Posted by: Adrienne | August 25, 2007 9:29 AM
I feel all slanty today.
Are we anywhere near 500k yet?
Posted by: Carlie | August 25, 2007 9:37 AM
Wow. Mr. Wood is the most pompous concern troll I have ever read.
Posted by: afterthought | August 25, 2007 9:39 AM
Well.........
At least, the letter wasn't written entirely in Caps.
Posted by: Tony Popple | August 25, 2007 9:39 AM
His argument would be more interesting if there were actually anybody who believes that intelligent design is a better explanation than evolution by natural selection without at the same time believing in a god.
Are there any examples of people who took up with ID whilst they were atheists and still are atheists, or (more logically) only subsequently converted to a religion?; as opposed to people who were religious with a brand of religion which dogmatically requires some form of creationism, and who also subscribe to ID? I very much doubt it.
Darwin cannot explain me That seems to be the nub of his world view; that evolutionary biology (about which he knows nothing) cannot explain anthing so complicated? wonderful? intelligent? as him.
Posted by: potentilla | August 25, 2007 9:50 AM
"It is of course a beautiful and brilliant theory, but it is being made to do the work of something that has to encompass the entire physical universe and all its details"
Darwinism does that? Was he reading the Voyage of the Beagle and taking acid at the same time? If he writes that much about something about which he knows so little, I would hate to read what he writes about something in his area of expertise.
Posted by: sailor | August 25, 2007 9:51 AM
Let's see if this helps.
Sheesh, that's a whole lot of long-winded nothing that bozo sent you.
Posted by: Heather Kuhn | August 25, 2007 9:52 AM
Where is this weeks carnival?
Posted by: E-lad | August 25, 2007 9:52 AM
Was 'ontological' the word of the day? AND NOBODY TOLD ME! ARG.
Posted by: kristen in montreal | August 25, 2007 9:52 AM
That was just awful. A post like this should be put up at about 11:00pm and served with a nice, warm glass of milk...zzzzzzzzzz
Posted by: Matt | August 25, 2007 9:53 AM
Is this whole page meant to be in italics?
Posted by: Matt J | August 25, 2007 9:54 AM
Ooh! A double-dog dare! I can do this, I can really do this...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
Crap, next time I'll let the caffiene kick in first.
Posted by: Jazmin | August 25, 2007 9:54 AM
I see italics starting right after the end of Woods' letter. I think either our browsers or PZ's posting s/w were overwhelmed by the verbose silliness and haven't recovered yet.
But at least he spelled "Myers" correctly.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 25, 2007 9:54 AM
Beyond the stilted language and convoluted logic, what strikes me is that the Intelligent Design creationists get equally angry, if not more so. Moreover, they engage primarily in juvenile public relations stunts and character assassination (eg. their attacks of Judge Jones). If they were, in fact, supremely confident of the truth of their position, they would just lay out the facts and wait for the world to admit to their ineluctable truth. They haven't done that? Of course not, because they have no facts.
Oh, and I found it laughable that the writer claims to be objective and not to favor either side. Sure.
Posted by: Ric | August 25, 2007 9:56 AM
Resisting urge to slam head on keyboard. Resistance is futile!
Posted by: Firemancarl | August 25, 2007 9:57 AM
Robert Wood has elegantly presented the argument that absolutely nothing can ever be wrong. Wrongness is an ontological phenomenon that only exists in the mind of fanatical adherents to the rightness of their own theories, which stand in contradiction to the one for which they postulate wrongness. For this there is no ex hypothesi justification since wrongness is merely a first person ontological standpoint that can never live up to the reality of the universe. Furthermore, since absolutely nothing can ever be wrong it is clear that Mr Wood's argument cannot be either. Q.E.D.
Am I getting close?
Posted by: Frederic Friedel | August 25, 2007 9:59 AM
Buggery. I seem to have the imprint of a keyboard on my face now. Stupid double-dog dares.
Posted by: Spook | August 25, 2007 10:04 AM
I just had a big lunch and a beer... Couldn`t make past the second praragraph.
I`m I the 500.000th guy?
Posted by: Andre | August 25, 2007 10:09 AM
Is it just me, or does this Ed, I mean Robert Wood guy come off as a pompous prick?
I mean, if he actually took the time to examine why "darwinists" so vehemently opposed the efforts of Intelligent Design proponents rather than navel contemplation, he'd know that the Intelligent Design proponents have a) not bothered to do any science, b) are pushing an agenda to fatally wreck the educational system of the country, c) not bothered to do any science, d) can not truthfully explain anything with or about Intelligent Design "theory," and most importantly, e) not bothered to do any science.
Michael Behe genuinely said that the Intelligent Designer literally works in a puff of smoke.
This Robert Wood moron might as well argue about how it's morally right to stone people who wear polyester to death: he couldn't sound anymore pompous or ridiculous.
Posted by: Stanton | August 25, 2007 10:11 AM
PZ,
Quick - send this message to Social Text.
Posted by: Brian | August 25, 2007 10:12 AM
Actually, I had little difficulty staying awake through the whole thing (do I get a prize for that?). Furthermore, I thought it not completely unreasonable: Mr Wood is merely trying to make the point that patience and politeness are a more effective strategy for debating than foaming at the mouth.
Whether or not that is true, or an accurate description of effective arguing tactics, I do agree with him that defenders of science often appear (ahem) overly enthusiastic in their defence of their position, and of their dismissal of their opponents, and that the ID people (moreso than the "mainstream" YEC creationists) give the appearance of calm civility. Claiming that they only want a "balanced treatment" of "both sides" of the issue sounds eminently reasonable. More effectively, it can be said briefly, unlike the scientific position, which requires explaining why the other side's argument is so utterly devoid of evidence as to merit any further consideration.
In other words, Mr Wood is saying that scientists have an image problem, and that the ID people do not. Given that the DI is essentially a PR group, this is no big news to anyone. This image problem arises out of frustration from a different problem, one of communication. As PZ himself has pointed out many times, science requires an attention span: one cannot distil a scientific principle into a thirty-second sound-bite and have it be meaningful. The audience must be interested in the topic, and patient enough to follow the arguments through. Creationism, in all its forms, has a distinct advantage over science in this regard.
What needs to change here, of course, is education. People need to understand what science is, which requires good education from an early age. Of course, that is exactly what the creationists oppose, so improving science education requires going up against the uneducated. It is a vicious cycle, which is itself a frustrating situation to fight. It is all the more frustrating that our opponents seem better able to exploit it than we are.
Posted by: Opisthokont | August 25, 2007 10:14 AM
Yay! I stayed awake! I'm good!!!
He missed ignorance. He really managed to miss ignorance.
In the immortal words of Jack Slater... "Mighty big mistake."
Very simple: such a person does not exist. To be a creationist, one has to be ignorant. And that is what people like Behe have repeatedly shown themselves to be.
Huh? Of course we are.
Nah. They simply make the one stupid mistake: they mistake their ignorance for knowledge. They believe that nobody knows more than them. Therefore they do not bother to learn. Therefore they do not understand why they are treated like astrologers or flat-earthers. And therefore they try to explain the opposition against them by "desperation" and the like.
Wrong. They have encountered a very, very small proportion of the facts they need to know in order to understand why they are wrong.
Learn the objective facts, and then come back.
Nope. It is evidence of just how ignorant the cre_ti_nists -- and you -- are. Hey, try becoming a gravity denier. People would call you a moron. Guess why.
If you can, please explain why. But I bet you can't. Your ignorance just shows again.
Scientists are used to call a spade a spade; not a stick, not a shovel, but a spade. So, when they encounter people who are stupid enough to argue based on their ignorance instead of learning, they will use the words "stupid" and "ignorance" to describe them.
Oh, and, BTW: italics are for scientific names, not for tiny degrees of emphasis.
Posted by: David Marjanović | August 25, 2007 10:18 AM
You win, couldn't make it through. I had it figured out by...oh, say the 3rd paragraph, what he was aiming to say (even with the lack of lucidity). That you even bothered to read the whole thing is a credit to you (unless you're a masochist, in which case its just your nature).
Posted by: Dahan | August 25, 2007 10:22 AM
I think I've proven the existence of the supernatural-- I cannot possibly still be alive to type this comment, having died of boredom after reading that letter. So I must be typing from beyond the grave. Look, I've proven it from an ontological perspective!
Posted by: Melissa G | August 25, 2007 10:23 AM
He has his fact(s) exactly wrong. 'Evolutionists' and 'Darwinists' were far too slow in responding forcefully to the 'Creationists'.
Posted by: Ken | August 25, 2007 10:28 AM
Well, at least it's shorter than those teenagers' Answers in Genesis essays I waded through this week, but he sure blows a lot of words around in his effort to make "exasperation" a problem for evolutionists. I think the well-documented intellectual dishonesty of the IDists is quite enough to explain why evolutionists are fed up with them. We don't have to search for some subtle evolutionary trait.
Posted by: Zeno | August 25, 2007 10:28 AM
"Oh, and, BTW: italics are for scientific names, not for tiny degrees of emphasis."
Kristen smirks, and looks around at the sea of italics above this comment. *Palm2Forehead*
Posted by: kristen in montreal | August 25, 2007 10:30 AM
For this there is no ex hypothesi justification since wrongness is merely a first person ontological standpoint that can never live up to the reality of the universe. Furthermore, since absolutely nothing can ever be wrong it is clear that Mr Wood's argument cannot be either. Q.E.D.
But what if we have 2 different ontogenies? Will they recapitulate phylogeny? I.e.: will 2 wrongs make a right?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 25, 2007 10:30 AM
PZ,
If I drink an entire case of beer before writing you an email, will I get featured as well?
Posted by: The Science Pundit | August 25, 2007 10:31 AM
Stanton sez:
"This Robert Wood moron might as well argue about how it's morally right to stone people who wear polyester to death: he couldn't sound anymore pompous or ridiculous."
Morally right or not, I can remember a time when I would often be stoned and in those days I did indeed "wear polyester to death." Live and learn.
Posted by: Tom Buckner | August 25, 2007 10:33 AM
No. He argues that if you are impatient or impolite, this proves that you are wrong.
This leads straight to comments 23 and 26.
Posted by: David Marjanović | August 25, 2007 10:35 AM
He CC'ed this to other people or published it somewhere...? Seems weird to send an email to someone and call it an "open letter"
Posted by: intepid | August 25, 2007 10:36 AM
I apologize for not being able to finish either the letter or all the comments, but if you have to invoke an argument about the nature of knowledge, you are not a scientist. Ontology is interesting, but doesn't help run a gel.
Posted by: PalMD | August 25, 2007 10:38 AM
I've been wondering what I could respond to in order to get into the contest. This was perfect.
You are beautiful when you are angry (and it has nothing to do with the fact that I find brainy, chubby men who are not overburdened with excessive youth to be massively attractive.) Such fabulous invective first thing in the morning was a wonderful thing to wake up to. I think it cleared my sinuses. Now for some coffee!
Posted by: MrsCogan | August 25, 2007 10:38 AM
gravity denier
Wow... It'd be hysterical to put up a website devoted to the topic and maybe a museum...
There ARE pictures that show people not being affected by this supposed "gravity" - one common example is Saint Michael Jordan, who has performed miracles as documented in the testament of Beep Beep Roadrunner.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 25, 2007 10:41 AM
Poor guy... must have been traumatized by a roving gang of philosophy undergrads at some point in his life.
I read it through all the hot air. If anybody is ever looking for a big dose of babbling woo-ziness, though, try this blog, written by a former professor of philosophy and solipsist of monumental proportions.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | August 25, 2007 10:44 AM
A couple of points:
*The theory of gravity is plenty controversial. Who told this guy it wasn't? Has he talked to a physicist lately?
*There are theories for why people believe nonsense like ID. Many of them involve evolutionary adaptation which now is creating unintended consequences.
*Of course scientists get upset when someone appears to tell them "Your chosen profession is crap. Let us just destroy science for you". Seems a bit ungrateful and hypocritical since they continue to enjoy the fruits of science...
Anyone who doubts this is asked to remember what al-Ghazali did to Islamic science when he published "Incoherence of the Philosophers"; he sent the Muslim world back from being the most advanced on the planet to one of the most backward societies scientifically and technologically, where they have remained for the last 1000 years. And ID supporters and their friends the creationists will do the same to us, whether they intend to or not.
Posted by: Filll | August 25, 2007 10:47 AM
It's sad when people try to formulate an evolutionary explanation for something that doesn't need explaining. Science works because science works. How humans became scientists is an interesting question, but not "why do we believe in science". We believe because it works, and it's true.
Posted by: PalMD | August 25, 2007 10:53 AM
Another sad victim of crystal meth. I can't wait for his response.
Posted by: Cameron | August 25, 2007 10:56 AM
There once was a doofus named Wood,
Who thought Charles Darwin no good,
He got all confused,
And then he refused,
To hit the "trash" button when he should.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 25, 2007 10:58 AM
{Mmmm-zzzzz-snort-zzzzzzzz-BONK!} "Ow!"
OK, I now need a bandage for my forehead. Just dosed right off there!
Posted by: MK | August 25, 2007 10:58 AM
"Oh, and, BTW: italics are for scientific names, not for tiny degrees of emphasis."
It's okay. You can use them for both if you want. I mean it's not like the italics police are going to come and get you.
Posted by: 386sx | August 25, 2007 11:01 AM
Let's see if I can close that italics for him.
Posted by: meerasedai | August 25, 2007 11:07 AM
When I first started reading here, I knew squat about Biology. But, at least I knew enough to say that the scientists have a genuine responsibility to be pissed since they do all the legwork and the wonked-out, gurgling creationists cherry pick and twist the results to pervert reality so as to accommodate their archaic philosophy.
By the way, I didn't make it too far through that letter. But, kudos to Mr. Wood for spelling your name right. That's got to be a breath of fresh air.
Posted by: Dan | August 25, 2007 11:10 AM
I don't know about you guys, but to me it looks like PZ forgot to stick a close tag on the italics. I'll stick one in this post to see if that helps.
Idiotic though this guy is, there is a good point in there somewhere: if we lose our rag at the IDiots' wilful ignorance of biology, we're letting our emotions rule us. A more helpful procedure would be to first consider how best we can clarify the situation to any innocent bystanders, and then lose our rag in the most productive fashion we can.
Posted by: Corkscrew | August 25, 2007 11:10 AM
PZ, if you were intelligently designed, then wouldn't your bullshit detector be infallible?
I think this guy proves you're right and he's dead on his ass wrong.
Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses | August 25, 2007 11:11 AM
I read 386sx @ #48 and could only think ... "The! Italics! Police!" ;)
Monty Python is really the only defense against something so ridiculous as that e-mail being inflicted upon one at a precaffeinated hour.
Posted by: PuckishOne | August 25, 2007 11:16 AM
I trained a Markov-style text generation program on Wood's email, and now I can generate as much as I like! And it's just as readable.
The text generator speaks the truth!
Posted by: fontor | August 25, 2007 11:44 AM
I never read anything past the word "ontological". It has a 100% track record of preceding nonsense.
Posted by: Science avenger | August 25, 2007 11:44 AM
too long, didn't read.
Posted by: Zombie | August 25, 2007 11:45 AM
Why is it that creationists take one of two tacks - they either use short sayings that completely lie about the subject, or they go for long convoluted writings that could be boiled down to a few words. Both seek to confuse and/or mask the real point. I figured out where he was going after the first couple paragraphs, and skipped the rest of the mind-numbing drivel. Congrats to anyone who actually read the whole thing.
Posted by: Badger3k | August 25, 2007 11:46 AM
Posted by: Tom Foss | August 25, 2007 11:53 AM
that guy surely said a lot of crap huh.. bet he was drank or high on something..
Posted by: Ams | August 25, 2007 11:53 AM
As I said at the outset, Professor Myers, I would not want to unequivocally pronounce who is right and who is wrong in this debate, but I will say that, did I know nothing about the merits of the issue, and was ignorant of the arguments promulgated on both sides, I would, nevertheless, be persuaded that the theory of intelligent design must be a better explanation for speciation than the theory of evolution--and I think you know why.
Yeah, I know why, it's because you're a stupid frigging idiot!
We should all now dutifully apply Wood's calmness test to any argument or theory we encounter:
1) Carefully remain ignorant of the arguments promulgated by both sides.
2) If someone tries to explain them to you, insert ear plugs.
3) As the debate is proceeding, carefully judge the merits of each side based solely on the degree of calmness exhibited. Give each side a calmness score.
4) In the case of a tie, that is, if both sides remain extremely calm or extremely angry, it may be necessary to flip a coin. That's okay! They are probably both right!
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 25, 2007 11:58 AM
Uugghh. Couldn't read the whole thing, no way, now how. And did it come to you in blue? Why would someone write an email in blue? I would use blue for a party invitation, but that email was noooooo party. Uugghh.
Posted by: ctenotrish, FCD | August 25, 2007 12:03 PM
Speaking as somebody who anguishes over his own prose, who has found himself in the middle of the sentence with multiple disclaimers for nuance and what not, I recognize some of Mr. Wood's difficulties in (ahem) 'framing' his argument.
So, I find myself vaguely sympathetic to all the apple-polishing up front, which is a horrifying comment on my own sense of style, in that I often find myself kvetching about the possibility that I might be needlessly giving offense.
Anyway, I hit the snooze button around paragraph five and I hope that PZ doesn't develop narcolepsy from reading the whole thing. God, I hope I never write anything that torpid.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | August 25, 2007 12:03 PM
Logorrhea, the word is logorrhea.
Posted by: natural cynic | August 25, 2007 12:06 PM
That email sounds like the old guy from the Matrix. It's just missing a "vis a vis" and "concordantly" here and there.
Posted by: Chuck Morrison | August 25, 2007 12:07 PM
You were right, I only made it halfway through that drivel
Posted by: ike | August 25, 2007 12:16 PM
Mr. Wood, you are the weakest link ----- good bye.
Posted by: qedpro | August 25, 2007 12:18 PM
I'm too experienced with these bullshit concern trolls who don't bother to understand the science.
I read the first and last paragraphs. I get too angry if I read the whole thing. I know I'll never get that 10-15 minutes back.
He's a wanker.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 25, 2007 12:25 PM
Man .... 3 cups of coffee later and I'm still not finished..... So I skipped to the end.
Posted by: wildlifer | August 25, 2007 12:27 PM
"It is of course a beautiful and brilliant theory, but it is being made to do the work of something that has to encompass the entire physical universe and all its details, and it seems an indisputable fact to me, as an outsider looking in, that to the extent to which it cannot rise to this challenge (in other words to the extent to which it is inadequate as an explanation for the existence and multiplicity of physical life) is the very extent to which in defending such a theory, the Darwinist has to become dangerously engaged in his first person ontology."
Holy frijoles, this is unbelievable. I wonder if that bad writing contest out at San Jose State U. (www.bulwer-lytton.com) accepts nominations, because this guy can shovel the turgid prose well.
Posted by: BG | August 25, 2007 12:27 PM
Posted by: mark | August 25, 2007 12:31 PM
HA!
Posted by: Bob | August 25, 2007 12:32 PM
Ugh, and double ugh. I just got off of a rough shift of taking vital signs, drawing blood and wiping butts. Yes, when you're in the hospital, you too can have someone wipe your butt for you. George Bush? Colonoscopy? My mind drifts where it shouldn't. Anyway, it is less unpleasant to wipe ten assess, than to try to get through that verbal crap. He spews more midden from his keyboard than I could ever wipe up in a shift. That was just way too much scat.
Posted by: Ken Mareld | August 25, 2007 12:34 PM
Okay, I tried, but couldn't stand it. I quit after about 4 paragraphs. Now if it had been a triple dog dare...Oh who am I kidding. That was painful and I feel stupider for reading that much of it.
Posted by: True Bob | August 25, 2007 12:49 PM
Maybe the internet tubes are under too much pressure.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | August 25, 2007 12:53 PM
A counter-example might help. I'll try to brief.
I was a design engineer for 30+ years in an old industrial business that was part of a large conglomerate. We made large, complex machines used in electrical power genetation, since the 1920's. Another division of the conglomerate made similar devices based on a newer technology, since the 1950's. There were similarities and differences between the devices and how they were manufactured, but one large difference was that the newer devices were standardized, like jet engines, whereas the older devices were specifically custom-designed for their operating environments. Thus, while they might design a new part on the order of one every three years or so, as their product evolved, we were designing and building 200-500 new parts per year.
In the late 1990's, the conglomerate high-level management decided we were too stodgy and set in our ways (or for whatever reason), and decided to purge our technical managers and bring in new technical leadership from the newer division. These were smart, capable people who doubtlessly had many past accomplishments in their division, but some of them, on seeing drawing of our parts, literally could not tell which end was up. This combined with a seemingly large amount of arrogance, led to many frustrations such as the following.
A customer had one of our machines on forced-outage due to failure of a certain part. About fifteen of us were gathered in a conference room to discuss repair options, with a "Design Review Board" member from the other division listening in via a "squawk box". One of us had an idea for redesigning the part in way such that we all agreed should help fix the problem. The DRB member berated us: "You're talking about designing a new part. You don't have drawings or manufacturing procedures or machine-tool tapes for that part. It will take you six months to make it, while the customer is on forced outage! The old part lasted for 18 months. It's a no-brainer! Make another of the old parts from the existing drawings, install that, and have him shut down again in six months for the new part."
It took us two hours (30 man-hours during a crisis) to convince him that we knew what we were doing and how long it would take - or rather to let us go ahead anyway, under protest. In eleven days, the machine was running again with the new part designed, manufactured, and installed. For some years now, there has been no further problem with that part.
In the interests of time I won't cite many similar instances. We had the facts and experience on our side, yet at a certain level of frustration our "first-person ontologies" kicked in, and some of us were guilty of rudeness to our "superiors" (they were rude to us first, but that doesn't count). I will admit that the rudeness probably made things worse instead of better, but it had no bearing on where the facts lay.
Posted by: JimV | August 25, 2007 12:53 PM
I distinctly remember watching a TV show when I was a child that showed undeniable "evidence" of Santa Claus's existence. And by that point, I thought that I had already gotten over believing in him. But the show did make me stop and rethink my decision to abandon my faith in the Jolly Elf. I, like many children growing up, got the mixed message that "imagination" and "belief" are interchangeable. As a kid, I would come up with (and believe!) all kinds of explanations as to how Santa could do everything that people I trusted and loved (parents, teachers, etc.) claimed that he did. Creationists and people like Mr. Wood are doing the same thing, with fancier words.
Posted by: Gabriel | August 25, 2007 12:57 PM
Someone I know and thought to be a theistic evolutionisto popped in on one of my angry little rants about creationist lies. I was talking about bald-faced creationist lies on radioactive dating - things like "coal shouldn't have any C-14 in it but it does" when there's always a baseline replenished by other decays, "this marine creature was dated at 30,000 years old" when its carbon supply was from limestone, not plants, as well as doing things like whole rock K-Ar dating without being sure to remove or account for unmelted (and thus dated much older) xenoliths.
Liars and cheaters make me mad. Now that I know what tactics are used to deny things like radioactive dating, I know it to come from lying and cheating or relying on liars and cheaters.
What Wood and others fail to grasp here is the difference between anger due to embarrassment (of the