…and this is a 
I don't hate Jonathan Wells
Category: Creationism
Posted on: March 5, 2008 11:00 AM, by PZ Myers
I despise him.
He's an ignorant buffoon and a professional liar. I hate what he does in his attempts to corrupt public education, but as a human being, I find him simply contemptible.
I just had to set the record straight. He seems to be taking pride in who hates him, but there really is nothing there that elevates him to the level of hate-worthy; he's just a sloppy ideologue who faked his way through a degree program.
Comments
Yes, it seems rather difficult to hate a weasel, a windbag, or the chaff shorting out electrical currents and meaningful signals. One could hate, say, Reverend Moon, because he's a powerful jackass sending out weasels and chaff to harm others and enhance his own power, but the weasel, the chaff? Please, they're just doing what any force of nature does.
Despicable, contemptible cockroaches they may be, but one only wants to step on them, one does not hate them. There isn't enough substance to J. Wells to hate, he's just a vacuous conduit for the lies of the powerful, a stooge for people who have enough power and knowledge to be evil. He has neither the power nor the knowledge (he has many facts, like Ben Stein, but neither has knowledge of which they speak) to be a force of evil, he simply has the ability to be a tool for his evil god.
There does seem to be a great deal of mistaking, or possibly just hoping, on the forums that our contempt for ignorant liars makes them into some sort of powerful individuals. That's a major driver for those who push ID, I think. We do feed their egos by engaging them, however we'd feed their egos even more if we allowed them to get away with their lies, or worse, treated them with respect.
J. Wells simply will have to cling to his illusions that he's a substantial person, even as we shred the shit-covered cloak covering his dishonesty, vacuity, and near-total lack of understanding of the facts that he did manage to collect even while he denied their implications.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | March 5, 2008 11:19 AM
From the Sandwalk: "Wells posted an article about the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and claimed that the authors (Maurice et al. 2008) did not make use of evolution in their study."
So...... The Omnipotent, Beneficent Intelligent Designer (who will here remain anonymous so we can continue to pretend we're not basing our "theory" on some particularly bad religious notions) said, "I think I'll make some antibiotic-resistant bacteria today, just to keep things interesting....... BAM!!!!!"?
Yeah. Right.
Posted by: themadlolscientist | March 5, 2008 11:25 AM
He should know that pride is a sin in the christian lexicon. If he's going to go to all of the trouble of advocating a complicated code, he should at least pretend to follow it.
Posted by: ld | March 5, 2008 11:28 AM
Count me in:
Jonathan Wells, I despise you! I'm not a scientist but I despise the way you spread ignorance and prey on people's gullibility and misinform them about the world of science.
People detest you for good reason, you clueless bastard.
It's too bad none of this will get through to you. Enjoy your phoney martyrdom, asshole.
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 5, 2008 11:28 AM
Like you PZ, I cannot stomach this cretin after trying to
listen to his insane rantings on various debates with
rational speakers, the last one with Michael Shermer last
year. Several people in the audience put him in his place,
but this did not faze the moron, as he kept ranting on
incoherently with his assinine beliefs. It is probably
better to keep one's composure and just avoid listening
and looking at this idiot on all venues.
Posted by: Holbach | March 5, 2008 11:29 AM
What a douchebag. And a Moonie. We ought to mention that every time we mention him. "Intelligent design proponent and Moonie Jonathan Wells said on Tuesday that..."
I suppose that would be an ad hominem attack though. Ah, so what? He follows a deranged cult leader.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 5, 2008 11:36 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: wÒÓ† | March 5, 2008 11:40 AM
So, the creationist community has proved to be devoid of morality, ethics, scientific integrity, etc.
So what the fuck use are they? Are they even good for fertiliser? 'Cause I've got a ficus that's looking a little sickly.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 5, 2008 11:54 AM
Oh, it can get better than that.
I had the chance to look at some of the Christian home school science "textbooks." They can make even crazier claims.
My favorite: George Washington Carver didn't come up with using peanuts for crop rotation from any scientific principle or observation or deduction. Nope, God gave him the idea. Whispered the idea in his ear, so to speak. I kid you not, that's what one of the creationist "science textbooks" actually said (Abeka, I think). And that was one of the saner texts available at our local fundie home school coalition bookstore!
Posted by: Aquaria | March 5, 2008 11:59 AM
So, PZ, tell us how you really feel.
Posted by: Chris | March 5, 2008 12:00 PM
Attacking the person is easily dismissed as ad hominem.
What is a good response to JW's claim that the French study used artificial selection?
Posted by: June | March 5, 2008 12:09 PM
I personally regard Mr Wells with a high degree of revulsion mixed with pity. Mostly revulsion.
And I stand by my statement that he has yet to earn the title "Laughingstock of Biologists," until he has actually attempted to do and or learn Biology to begin with. Once he has attempted to do actual Biology, he can then try to wrest that title from Trofim Lysenko.
Not unless you want your ficus to die an agonizing death that would be commemorated in song for a thousand years.
Posted by: Stanton | March 5, 2008 12:10 PM
Where's the difference?
Nobody is useless -- they can always serve as a bad example.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | March 5, 2008 12:22 PM
"What is a good response to JW's claim that the French study used artificial selection?"
The best short answer would be a strong epithet.
If we really must wait some more time and efforts about this, I'd say that the question is pointless because there is no pertinent difference between artificial and natural selection. I think a guy called Darwin explained this in detail, long ago. If "artificial" selection consists in creating selective conditions and looking at who thrives and who dies out, well, where's the diffrence with natural conditions?
(If I'm not mistaken, of course)
Posted by: Christophe Thill | March 5, 2008 12:22 PM
If you'd like to have a bit of fun, I suggest you see if you can get some of the creotards to organize a prayer-circle for your sickly ficus. Just make sure you refer to the dying plant as a member of your household.
Posted by: Dan | March 5, 2008 12:47 PM
What a douchebag. And a Moonie. We ought to mention that every time we mention him. "Intelligent design proponent and Moonie Jonathan Wells said on Tuesday that..."
I suppose that would be an ad hominem attack though. Ah, so what? He follows a deranged cult leader.
No, that's not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem argument would be one that claims that Wells is wrong because he is a Moonie. Simply stating that he's a Moonie is not ad hominem.
So, PZ, tell us how you really feel.
Was that joke ever funny?
Posted by: thickslab | March 5, 2008 12:52 PM
Well, he's earned the contempt of the scientific community and worked hard to get it. You would think that self-respect, if nothing else, would be a reason for him to stay within the parameters of the science he was taught. Just a waste of education, all in the name of pulling the wool over the eyes of people who do respect him.
Posted by: BC | March 5, 2008 12:53 PM
themadlolscientist,
Well, he (OBID) did put the stars in the sky to make us "wonder."
No, I'm not kidding.
That was the response of an ardent Christian to my query as to why there are stars.
This is what we're dealing with, folks.
Posted by: defectiverobot | March 5, 2008 1:23 PM
Glen D,
What have you got against weasels? They are clean, intelligent and good parents. I have no information on Well's personal hygiene or parenting skills, but on intelligence alone the comparison fails. And I'll bet he can't do a cool war-dance.
Also, the collective term is 'boogle', which has to be a plus for any critter.
What is the collective term for creationists?
Posted by: Don | March 5, 2008 1:28 PM
Steaming pile?
Posted by: khan | March 5, 2008 1:41 PM
Posted by: Stanton | March 5, 2008 1:46 PM
Referring to him as John The Moonie Wells is not an ad hominum attack.
He IS a Moonie, and his name IS Wells. It only accurately labels him, it does not libel him.
Posted by: J-Dog | March 5, 2008 1:49 PM
The principle researcher for the French study did not say Artificial Selection, he said they used, "selective pressure to obtain mutants of the enzyme..." Selective Pressure is more indirect process and not like selective breeding as Wells mentioned. It uses outside conditions to push and poke something to mutate in a particular direction through its natural response to these conditions. In my opinion Selective Pressure is very much like RM & NS. Wells is just trying to change the wording in an attempt to make it look less like Darwinian evolution. By using this term it implies that an intelligent agent, like a breeder or scientist, is needed to directly guide the mutation instead of being guided through a response to conditions.
Posted by: Atomic Chimp | March 5, 2008 1:52 PM
from Sandwalk: "So the researchers used artificial selection to good advantage. But artificial selection is not Darwinism. People were using artificial selection for centuries before Darwin came along, and they didn't need Darwin to explain it to them."
Artificial Selection has nothing to do with Darwin? This is news...
Posted by: Laura | March 5, 2008 2:05 PM
Just to get technical, Atomic Chimp, "Darwinian Evolution" also covers Artificial Selection, too, as Darwin did observe how animal breeders created new breeds of pigs, dogs and pigeons, as well as modify existing breeds.
Posted by: Stanton | March 5, 2008 2:07 PM
Gravity worked just fine for centuries. We didn't need Newton to explain it to us!
And as for collective terms: how about "a scum of creationists"?
Posted by: minimalist | March 5, 2008 2:08 PM
I think the collective for creationists should be "claptrap". "A claptrap of creationists."
Posted by: GodlessHeathen | March 5, 2008 2:19 PM
Being contradicted is considered to be persecution by many of the religious right. Actually it's worse than that, the idea that someone somewhere might hold ideas contrary to one's beliefs is evidence of persecution. Tell some ev-fundy that they are wrong to discriminate against people because their sexual orientation (or whatever), and they are apt to complain that they are being persecuted for their Christian beliefs.
"Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed."
Well, we feel for you. We're playing the world's saddest song on the world's smallest violin.
Posted by: jeh | March 5, 2008 2:24 PM
Thanks Stanton! I was aware that Darwin observed animal breeding. I was purposing a possible reason why Wells might misrepresented what was said. I suspect that by putting the scientist in the process of selecting, instead of in the setting up of the condition to promote the mutation though a response, Wells might have felt it would seem less like random RM & NS. All too often I see Pro-ID cdesign proponentsists use this method to misrepresent the facts to better fit their points.
Posted by: Atomic Chimp | March 5, 2008 2:30 PM
A muddle of creationists?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | March 5, 2008 2:30 PM
It's a little off topic but check out the new web site of the recently "persecuted" @
http://IntellectualHonesty.info/
Note that "persecution" does get you an agent and $1000/lecture, or $1500/weekend, or better still, five grand for four talks! Cool!
Posted by: jeh | March 5, 2008 2:33 PM
Is the Atomic Chimp as funky as the Atomic Dog?
Posted by: Janine | March 5, 2008 2:34 PM
Atomic Chimp, I hope you understand, I am not making fun of you.
Posted by: Janine | March 5, 2008 2:36 PM
I like flock of creationists, both because it describes their behavior so well and because it plays on the Flock of Dodos movie.
Posted by: Carlie | March 5, 2008 2:43 PM
Funkadelic!
Posted by: Atomic Chimp | March 5, 2008 2:46 PM
Yeah, but most of them are all too proud of being members of a "flock".
"Simply stating that he's a Moonie is not ad hominem."
Yeah, but I would only mention it to cast doubt on his mental competency.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 5, 2008 3:04 PM
As yes, the artificial selection argument.
If I may be so bold as to make a prediction, the next attempt at subverting science on ideologic grounds, after ID has been so thoroughly relegated to the dustbin of history that even its proponents recognize the futility of it, will be. . . .
Intelligent Selector Theory.
I will not attempt to predict whether this transition in strategy will occur over a historic, geologic, or cosmological time scale. All I can say is everything I know about the people in question suggests that it will be arbitarily very long.
Posted by: asw | March 5, 2008 3:12 PM
Posted by: Stanton | March 5, 2008 3:15 PM
I was purposing a possible reason why Wells might misrepresented what was said.
c'mon, haven't you figured it out yet?
Wells is a proponent of the Darwin->Hitler meme.
Since the argument against Eugenics being associated with Darwin often takes the form of associating Eugenics with artificial selection, and Darwin with natural, breaking down this "barrier" allows Wells room to keep his argument alive.
Don't fall for such a simple trap.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 5, 2008 3:30 PM
Yeah, but I would only mention it to cast doubt on his mental competency.
even that would not be an ad-hominem unless you proceed to claim that because he is mentally incompetent, all of his arguments are wrong.
frankly, I'm sick of the creobots claiming every insult to them as "ad-hominem", as if speaking a word with more than two syllables somehow made them seem intelligent, even if they use it incorrectly.
I see no reason to continue fueling it.
If I call Wells a demented fuckwit, that is NOT an ad-hominem.
It's simply an insult, and my opinion.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 5, 2008 3:35 PM
Posted by: grasshopper | March 5, 2008 3:45 PM
Um, Ichthyic, I hate to tell you this, but an accurate description of a person, however negatively or unpleasantly worded, is neither an insult nor an ad hominem.
Posted by: Stanton | March 5, 2008 4:05 PM
Referring to Wells as a Moonie is not an ad hominem. After all, didn't Rev. Moon assign Wells the task of getting a PhD in order to "overthrow Darwinism"?
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | March 5, 2008 4:43 PM
- A design of creationists?
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | March 5, 2008 4:53 PM
I like a Big Bang of Creationists.
Posted by: Sastra | March 5, 2008 5:02 PM
Um, Ichthyic, I hate to tell you this, but an accurate description of a person, however negatively or unpleasantly worded, is neither an insult nor an ad hominem.
well, the trouble is, you could say that about almost any insult applied to the man.
frankly, my imagination isn't up to the challenge of figuring out an insult that couldn't be said to actually apply in one sense or another.
can you?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 5, 2008 5:04 PM
I like a Big Bang of Creationists.
sounds like an orgy of creationists.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 5, 2008 5:06 PM
#31 : She deserves credit for her domain name - "intellectual" and "honesty" are probably the last two words on the planet one would use to describe her activities. Maybe it's just an extravagant wish of hers.
Posted by: Hap | March 5, 2008 5:22 PM
I've noticed that people who realize they don't have a leg to stand on always turn to the "it's good that you hate me, that means I'm doing something right" defense.
The Phelps family of the Westboro Baptist Church have used this, as well. They love when people are against them, because they believe this vindicates them. After all, people hated Jesus, right?
It's the secret cop-out of last resort. When you absolutely, positively have nothing better or remotely rational to offer, turn to this. Never for a minute consider the possibility that people dislike you because, hey, you're kind of a dick and a liar.
That is completely unrelated.
Posted by: October Mermaid | March 5, 2008 5:36 PM
A "durrrr" of creationists.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 5, 2008 5:38 PM
A baramin of creationists ; )
Posted by: jeh | March 5, 2008 5:46 PM
as we say in French-
Merde!
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | March 5, 2008 6:07 PM
A douche of creationists.
Posted by: shane | March 5, 2008 7:26 PM
I prefer:
A murder of creationists.
(yes, murder is an actual grouping term)
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 5, 2008 7:30 PM
here, this might help with those still reaching for good grouping terms:
http://www.rinkworks.com/words/collective.shtml
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 5, 2008 7:32 PM
A carbuncle of creationists.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 5, 2008 7:33 PM
A delusion of creationists.
That one's just too easy.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 5, 2008 7:34 PM
more fun collective nouns:
piteousness
smack
exaltation
deceit
...
just too many that work.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 5, 2008 7:36 PM
Really, I think deep down, we all know what it should be:
A fuckwit of creationists.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 5, 2008 7:39 PM
What is the collective term for creationists?
Kindling?
[Well, their heads are obviously made of wood.]
Didn't like that, huh? Well, how about a short bus of creationists?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 5, 2008 7:40 PM
A fuckwit of creationists.
too redundant.
a fuckwit of fuckwits?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 5, 2008 7:43 PM
A chancre of creationists.
Posted by: grasshopper | March 5, 2008 7:48 PM
A plague of creationists?
Posted by: Dan | March 5, 2008 7:49 PM
A chancre of creationists.
*giggle/snort*
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 5, 2008 7:51 PM
Haven't we played this one before?
A buttpropellor of creationists
An irreducibility of 'em
A whole freakin Paley of em
Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | March 5, 2008 8:00 PM
Haven't we played this one before?
yes, but why not have a gaggle of such threads?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 5, 2008 8:02 PM
A chancre of creationists.
A gumma of creationists?
Posted by: Stanton | March 5, 2008 8:04 PM
yes, a tangle of such threads! A skein!
(continue extending metaphor until sick of it. Repeat.)
Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | March 5, 2008 8:05 PM
*lightbulb*
I've got it!
A fuckweight of creationists!
Posted by: Kseniya | March 5, 2008 8:06 PM
(continue extending metaphor until sick of it. Repeat.)
well, since we are talking about creationists, endless repetition until the point of nausea does seem to fit the theme.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 5, 2008 8:07 PM
*falls back to earth*
No, no... never mind... that's a unit of measure, not a group designation.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 5, 2008 8:08 PM
You ain't kiddin.
http://www.rinkworks.com/words/collective.shtml
culture of bacteria
smack of jellyfish
bed of clams
deceit of lapwings
mob of emus
ostentation of peacocks
plague of rats
congress of baboons
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | March 5, 2008 8:11 PM
Aw jeez jeh (#31), that Crocker site made my stomach hurt. I'm tempted use the term Orwellian, which I try to avoid cause I like Orwell and it doesn't seem fair.
Note too the list of "peer-reviewed publications" including one dated 2008 "in progress." I guess that means her progress is being peer-reviewed?
Also in progress, a book on her persecution because she dared to "teach Darwinian evolution in an intellectually honest manner."
*gag*
*gek*
Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | March 5, 2008 8:11 PM
I'm tempted use the term Orwellian, which I try to avoid cause I like Orwell and it doesn't seem fair.
the problem is that too many have chosen to utilize Orwell's writings as instruction manual instead of warning.
case in point, our current administration.
such people view "orwellian" as a compliment.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 5, 2008 8:14 PM
A shitsworth of creationists.
Piles (as in hemorrhoids) of creationists.
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 5, 2008 8:57 PM
#54 A murder of creationists.
(yes, murder is an actual grouping term)
Yes it is a collective noun. But please,don't insult the crows.
I vote for a "delusion of creationists" #57
Posted by: Doug Rozell | March 5, 2008 9:07 PM
PZ and fellow evo turdheads,
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/being_hated_by_the_right_peopl.html#more
I just love it when Wells and other intellects shove your vomit down your throat and stick your screeds of BS evo blather so far up your butts your eyes bug out.
His points were 100% correct and right on the money.
I trust after Expell the public will send packs of wild dogs after you turdheads.
If we can cut off your grant funds for useless evocrap science maybe you'll have to get a real job instead of living off the public teats all your life.
See you at the movies P. Z. Butthead.
Posted by: Keith Eaton | March 5, 2008 10:09 PM
See you at the movies P. Z. Butthead.
ROFLMAO
WATERLOOOOO!
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 5, 2008 10:12 PM
Oh Keith, we just love it when you talk dirty.
Get a life old man.
Posted by: jeh | March 5, 2008 10:14 PM
btw, can we quotemine Wells as having said:
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 5, 2008 10:15 PM
Wait... Did you just call yourself an "evo turdhead?"
Posted by: Dan | March 5, 2008 10:40 PM
An Ark of creationists?
Posted by: Lowell | March 5, 2008 10:51 PM
Nice suggestions so far, but why not consider:
"A prayer of creationists".
(It works for me.)
Posted by: Marc Buhler | March 5, 2008 11:24 PM
A gaseous emission of creationists ?
Posted by: JJ | March 5, 2008 11:25 PM
What is it about crowing creationists who think that the release of Expelled will bring the end of the theory of evolution? If this bomb is so potent, why did they not release it last month when it was originally scheduled? And why this belief that a documentary will change the way science is done?
When, at the end of April, when this piece of fiction is no longer in the theater and they are marketing the DVD to evangelical churches, are the crowing creationists going to come back and say they were mistaken. Experience says no.
So, Keith Eaton(I trust after Expell{sp?} the public will send packs of wild dogs after you turdheads.), you really want to do violence to people you disagree with. You are the sick shithead. And guess what, I desire no violence against you. You already possess what is rightfully your, powerlessness.
Posted by: Janine | March 5, 2008 11:39 PM
Regarding natural vs. artificial selection: Here's how it works in the IDist mind:
IDer - Show me an experiment that demonstrates Darwinian evolution can produce a new function in the lab.
Researcher - Well, here's an example of a system that we observed arising in our labs.
IDer - But they grew the bug in an artificial setting. Artificial selection is "intelligent design", because humans had to create the set-up!
Basically, they'll *never* accept experimental results because experiments are designed by humans.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | March 5, 2008 11:43 PM
Dammit! I gotta publish this paper before the dogs get me shortly after April 18!
Posted by: J | March 5, 2008 11:55 PM
LOL, it's back. Nice Xian vocabulary and personality you have there Keith.
1. Keith Eaton is a paranoid schizophrenic. Delusions, incoherent, enormous endogenous hostility, paranoia.
2. Keith isn't taking his medications these days.
This is not a good sign. The ones the docs watch the closest are the paranoics because they are the most likely to go homicidal.
We just had one nearby. Guy was waving a rifle around and shouting "They are out to get me and I'm not going to take it anymore." Then he fired on a little girl (and missed), presumably because little kids are dangerous. The cops showed up and shot him.
Posted by: raven | March 5, 2008 11:56 PM
Sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean that humans are interfering with the processes under observation. (I know that, and you know that, but...)
Interestingly, Behe has said "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment." Truer words were never spoken, I suppose.
Posted by: Kseniya | March 6, 2008 1:03 AM
Keith: 0.4 Tc at a minimum.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | March 6, 2008 7:43 AM
An Outbreak of Creationists?
An Insipidity of Intelligent Design proponents?
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | March 6, 2008 7:53 AM
A chamberpot of creationists.
Posted by: CortxVortx | March 6, 2008 8:43 AM
A Poisoned Well Of Creationists?
Posted by: June | March 6, 2008 9:07 AM
Actually, come to think of it:
An Hypocrisy of ID Proponents.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | March 6, 2008 9:09 AM
How about:
An asylum of creationists?
The only thing wrong (that I can see) with asylum is that some denizens of the asylum are there involuntarily, and that is obviously not true for creationists. Nevertheless, I think it is a broadly accurate representation.
A congregation of ID proponents?
Hits 'em where it hurts - their blatant dishonesty - though perhaps a bit milquetoast.
βPer
Posted by: bPer | March 6, 2008 9:40 AM
PZ,
As a fellow developmental biologist, I too find the rantings of Jonathan Wells very hard to stomach. I found his book, Icons of Evolution to be a pastiche of demonstrably wrong pronouncements. I have even used sections of this book in a evolutionary biology class to show how spurious creatoinist accusations can be. Once the students investigated the peppered moth literature for themselves or dug into what biology textbooks actually say about the relationships between early embryos and evolutionary theory, they ask how Wells is allowed to blatantly lie to his audience. In some ways Wells' book is the gift that keeps on giving.
Having said that, to respond with indiscriminate animus is probably not the best response. I have met Wells in person and I can say that he is neither the most winsome chap I have ever met, nor the most pleasant. To say that I like him would be a huge stretch, but I cannot say that I hate him. It seems to me that piling on the disgust just plays to the other side.
It's alright to find people difficult, full of malarkey or just plain hard to appreciate. However using such pointed language is probably not the best way to make our point.
Posted by: Michael Buratovich | March 6, 2008 10:11 AM
Ohoh! Well look at that little bitch Keaton, thinking he's big and smart.
Too bad he's dead wrong and lacks logic. Go back to play with your little jesus toys along with your other hypocrite friends. Funny boy.
As for wells... BLEH! Hypocrite.
Posted by: Michelle | March 6, 2008 12:17 PM
It's alright to find people difficult, full of malarkey or just plain hard to appreciate. However using such pointed language is probably not the best way to make our point.
While I generally agree with Michael's sentiments, we should not be so naïve to think that Wells et al will be taking the moral high ground any time soon. Will adherence to a sort of "Marquess of Queensberry rules" for argument be effective when the other side is prepared for a no-holds barred street fight?
The IDists know they are an insurgency and they are employing the intellectual equivalent of suicide truck bombs: hard to defend against, and appallingly indiscriminate in the damage they cause. It will not matter whether Expelled the movie is a box office success, it will cause trouble for years to come. This movie is not meant to convince, it is meant to incite the True Believers to action.
One does not have to look any further than abortion/choice controversy in the US to see how effective the religious right can be in the longer term. The fact that this controversy has not yet graduated to actual physical violence is something to be thankful for. But all you have to do is read the kind of outburst from K. Eaton above to realize the depth of hatred the True Believers have for "us." We've already seen implicit threats of violence, sooner or later some unbalanced individual is going to be motivated to act on this hatred.
Posted by: hje | March 6, 2008 12:21 PM