…goes to Sal Cordova.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
That's the sound you should hear when Joe Felsenstein takes on an idiotic claim by Sal Cordova. Would you believe that Cordova claims that Kimura and Ohta's classic 1971 paper "shatters the modern synthesis"? That's what he claims, on the basis of his poor understanding of the mathematics of…
It was pointed out in a comment in our FRC post how much cherry picking resembles rank dishonesty.
That's because it is. Deception is inherent in denialist arguments, and there are few better examples than Sal Cordova's selective quotation as demonstrated by Ed Brayton in Dispatches from the…
If there's one undeniable aspect of "intelligent design" creationism advocates, it is their ability to twist and misrepresent science and any discussions of evolution to their own ends. Be it Dr. Michael Egnor's twisting of history to claim that eugenics is based on Darwinism, rather than the…
One of the characters who frequents the ID blog Uncommon Descent is the smarm-meister Sal Cordova, an utterly clueless little git with a talent for being simultaneously oleaginous and snide. He has just posted an astonishingly foolish commentary on the apparent impossibility of evolving…
Wow, and he's not that old.
Jack Krebs has appeared at UD to challenge our Sal. Sal's response was that he had provided the full link, "[a]nd also I edited out what was distorted picture of reality."
But ... but... there's some text from Sal left.
The funny thing is, someone in the comment thread then attacked Jack Krebs for arguing with Sal on the basis of "mere quote mining." They don't normally admit to being liars so freely.
It's generally a bad sign when you end a quote just before either "yet" or "but".
"Nothing . . . makes sense . . . in . . . evolution."
--Theodosius Dobzhansky, noted geneticist and evolutionist
Sal's response was that he had provided the full link, "[a]nd also I edited out what was distorted picture of reality."
Actually, I believe the quote from Sal was: "I... distorted... reality." (That's "not 'falsely interpreting' but drawing logical conclusions from the articles implications - indeed from it's very existence.")
I like this circular bit of "reasoning" from Sal:
First off, this side of the Atlantic it isn't "Darwinism", it's biology. And yes, biology is worthwhile for med students to know.
Secondly, we need campaigns to teach science when overt or stealthy campaigns have perverted the teaching of science. Sal's "argument" is that because, for instance, geocentrism or evolution have been suppressed, they should therefore not be taught.
Thirdly, it hasn't just been idiots like Egnor who have kept evolution out, it really wasn't as important to medicine in the past. If it was obvious that bacteria, viruses, and eukaryotes had in fact evolved, there wasn't necessarily a whole lot at the "pathetic level of detail" which was known about said evolution. The increasing importance of evolutionary details to all of biology, including medicine, has become apparent in the past few decades.
The idea that the IDiots want to sell is that if a campaign of disinformation has been waged by pseudoscientists, this fact alone makes established science like evolution questionable. And Sal manages not to miss any of the dishonest tricks used by the IDiots.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o
Slimy Sal spins his latest lie:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/darwin-dissed-by-doctors-but-a…
Gee, I wonder what we were supposed to get out of this:
So now ol' Slimy wants to claim that MacCallum was admitting that ignorant doctors considered evolution to be irrelevant to medicine. Well that's not at all what he wrote, he used MacCallum to back up Michael's egnorant arguments as to "why Darwinism is irrelevant to modern medicine," stating that "Michael Egnor's claims are being supported" by MacCallum. Egnor was not claiming that doctors diss evolution, he was claiming that doctors are correct to diss evolution, and MacCallum didn't in the slightest back up those lies, she refuted them.
OK, I know, it's all obvious, and Sal's a despicable lying hound. He's also ignorant, and couldn't argue intelligently against evolution even if evolutionary theory were wrong.
So I don't know just how much he conflates dissing evolution with the notion that it should properly be disrespected, but I don't think I want to try to disentangle Sal's dishonesty from his stupidity. These two aspects of Sal's foray into pseudoscience have a symbiotic relationship, which is the only important fact we need to know about Sal.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o
And it all comes so naturally to him. Its impressive. In one post of his, he quoted another ID Creationists article, without noting what the author wrote and what he was quoting, and the ID author being quoted was quote mining pop science articles pretending he was 'quoting' actual research.
I couldnt do that shit if I tried.
**standing ovation for Sal**
(link)
On the other hand, I willingly admit that...this whole volume...is not strictly correct.
Charles Darwin
The Origin of Species
or:
I...am...not...a...man.--Sal Cordova, 2007
(I also had to move letters around to make it work out, but Sal should be cool with that, as he knows that rearrangements, insertions, and deletions can't possibly add information or anything.)
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
ROTFL!!!
Sal Cordova has an almost Charlie Wagner-like ability to highlight random shit as though it meant something. This:
was in bold in one of the blockquotes. I don't know why. I can do that too:
HAHAHAHAHAHA! U DARWINISSTS R SO BRAINWASHED TAHT U CAN NOT SEE THAT EVEN PHYSICS IS TEH SCIENCE OF DESIGN!!! LOL!
I'm off to send (another) application to the Discovery Institute. Wish me luck.
"The emerging discipline of Systems Biology, a design-friendly discipline which investigates biology from a design perspective"
and silly me, i though systems biology investigated biology from a systems perspective.
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
ROTFL!!!