Another morning, another creationist whine out of the blue. Here's another letter, and as usual with these well-thought out rants, I'm an afterthought—it's addressed to Ken Miller, but then the guy figures he might as well clog a few more mailboxes while he's sending it out.
As is traditional, the formatting is exactly as I received it. What is it with kooks and Comic Sans, anyway? And could they possibly trade in a few bold/italic font changes for an occasional paragraph break?
Dear Professor Myers: I’d dearly love to have someone show me where I am wrong in my analysis here.
Dear Professor Ken Miller,
the doubts I have about darwin--and why--but from a non-scientific point of view
Can you explain one thing to me? How can the evolutionist trust in the empirical veracity of his theory if, when Michael Behe’s new book comes out (The Edge of Evolution), all that he is determined to do is to refute it? I am willing to bet that no evolutionist (that is, an evolutionist fiercely opposed to the Theory of Intelligent Design) will approach Michael Behe’s book with the natural curiosity and fair-mindedness which seeks to find out: Now what has Michael Behe done here to try to provide evidence for the idea of design and intelligence? No, the strong evolutionist is, at the outset, closed-off to any other possibility than that the theory of evolution must explain everything that Michael Behe wants intelligent design to explain. And this means, Professor Miller, that the evolutionist is no longer engaged in an objective or open-minded relationship to nature; but more than this: it means that he does not trust that nature might not just throw up something which poses a challenge to his theory. And this strongly suggests, it is not that the evolutionist so much trusts in his theory to represent the way the natural world came about, and presently exists, but rather that the theory itself, just per se, must provide the explanatory sufficiency for anything and everything that occurs in the natural world. Therefore, Professor Miller, the evolutionist is no longer objectively and disinterestedly seeing the relationship of this theory to nature; his only concern is to uphold and defend the theory of evolution no matter what. This is like someone who knows the theory of gravity is true, but in the face of an alternative theory decides: No, I am no longer going to test out the theory of gravity by conducting my own experiments; I am only going to demolish this opposing theory out of my reverence for the validity of the theory of evolution independent of its relationship to the physical world. If the theory of evolution is true, why not assess the evidence for the theory of Intelligent Design as if one were going to make a fresh determination of this question, based on the evidence presented? To me, this unwillingness of the evolutionist to subject the theory of evolution once again to the test (by suspending judgment, just for a a prescribed period of time—;the time, say, to read Behe’s book), is evidence that, at least unconsciously, the evolutionist not just doubts the final scientific truth of his theory, but even begins to suspect (again unconsciously) that the theory of Intelligent Design just might be right! I can’t see any other interpretation for the behaviour of the hard-core evolutionists. As I say, what is the mind-set of the strong evolutionists in knowing that Behe’s book is coming out? Is it: Let’s see what Behe has to say on behalf of this competing theory? No, it is: Let us destroy the credibility of this thesis as soon and as lethally as we can. We must put our brains to this task and this task only: how can we disprove the validity of Michael Behe’s book? And in doing so, none of us must ever allow ourselves to be open to what would be the spontaneous and undefensive understanding and experience we might receive from just reading this book without bias or pre-determined judgment? This will not happen, Professor Miller. And this, for me, is the most powerful indictment of the theory of evolution. It does not provide, in its defense of itself, the convincing and persuasive feeling that would innocently refute any opposing theory, and therefore, what the theory won’t do—;metaphysically to conquer opposition to itself—;we will have to do with our own subjective passion.
I can't speak for Professor Miller, but I can address this as someone who has responded to Behe's book.
I have read the book, carefully and thoroughly. I did not go into it with particular specific expectations, other than that I have a low opinion of Darwin's Black Box and so my expectations were low. In fact, Behe surprised me completely on several points—not good surprises—so it's a bit unfair to complain that we had our minds made up and that we wouldn't even read his book. I haven't seen any reviews yet that are by people who haven't read the book at all; if you want to find examples of that, you'll have to look for for reviews of Dawkins' The God Delusion.
What Mr Creationist here is asking isn't that we keep an open mind, but that we suspend critical thinking for Behe's book. That's not scientific, and it's not going to happen: years of grad school journal clubs have trained us to examine every paper and book with great suspicion, and works by eminent authorities, even those on the side of evolution, are especially fun to eviscerate. We treated Behe's book exactly as we would a book by James Valentine or Mary Jane West-Eberhard or Eric Davidson or Rudy Raff or Elisabeth Lloyd or Ed Wilson, for instance, smart people all who are on our side: we look for holes, and we poke them.
The difference between Behe and those other guys is that the other guys build a solid argument based on evidence, and we have to look awfully hard for the weaknesses; Behe has erected a fantasy with wisps of smoke as his construction materials. Not only can we find holes big enough to punch our fists through, but as we move our hands around the whole thing wafts away.
The bottom line is that Mr Creationist wishes Michael Behe had written a book that would blow us critics away with the force of his evidence and the robustness of his reason. Behe did not do that. Behe has written a very poor book that provides no mechanism and no evidence for Intelligent Design—the little rant above is a prime example of projection, since all The Edge of Evolution is is a close-minded rejection of all of evolutionary biology. He even specifically goes out of his way to to dismiss my favorite field, evo-devo, with a collection of complaints that reveal he doesn't understand the subject.
The most amusing part of the letter is that it implies at the beginning that the writer doesn't know when the book is coming out, and if you'll notice, no where does he mention one single detail from the book. I suspect he hasn't read it himself, but he wants us to give it a positive review!
- Log in to post comments
Got fifty bucks that an MBTI test would consistently put a nice big F for Feeling in the third spot for this individual.
"I make decisions with my heart."
There is the key phrase for those that feel instead of think.
How silly.
I write all my crazed screeds in double-spaced 12 point Helvetica.
Either that, or crayon grasped between my toes. Depends where I am, and whether I happen to be restrained and gagged at the time.
This looks like yet another guy who rides dinosaurs in his dreams and moves his lips when he reads his Wholly Babble.
Mr Creationist has sent me a major correction to his screed. Where it says,
it's supposed to say
Oh. Now it all makes sense.Not.
When I teach junior high science, the (general) complaint that this guy has is something we talk about. As we look at the history of scientific theories and how they were wrong, we discuss how some scientists ignore new data in favor of popular theories and how difficult it is for many scientists to reject popular theories for new ones based on brand new evidence. And just because scientists held an incorrect theory, it doesn't mean they were stupid or deliberately misleading, it's just that their theory best fit the data they had available.
Then we talk about religion (being in a reddish state) and how science makes no claims at all about religion because it can't be measured. So I assure them and their parents that we are going to examine theories based solely on physical, measurable evidence and will neither make claims nor hold discussions about religion in science class. I still get complaints about teaching evolution, but luckily it is in the state standards so the parents who completely ignore any science have no leg to stand on. it is sad, though, that the kids still ignore the evidence in favor of fairy tales.
Professor, you remind me of Borat.
I read that last "paragraph" four times and I still have no idea what he is trying to convey.
Anyone up for a translation?
OHG (his god, not mine)
His suspects a certain attitude towards the book and without any shred of evidence to confirm his suspicion, he leaps to the conclusion that therefore his other preconceived idea must be what subconsciously is driving everybody else.
How can you expect people like that to be rational about anything?
mndarwinist has thoughtfully provided us with half of an ad hominem argument!
This is the script that Mr. Creationist is following. It's all based on
a) scientific theories are by their nature incomplete and sometimes flawed, and the history of science is littered with theories that have fallen by the wayside
b) his pet religious theories are, of course, sacrosanct and must not be questioned
c) therefore, the scientific theory that contradicts his pet theory must be flawed. QED
d) "reasonableness" = agreeing with his flow of argument. Insisting on ordinary lines of evidence, theory, and argumentation is a sign of "bias".
Khan:
I translated the text using Google's language translation as follows:
English->French
French->German
German->English
Does it make more sense now?
#7,Yeah, I have a response "Uh, What??"-with apologies to GIECO.
I am no scientist-but have a dgree in Fire Science, its been years since I took biology, but damn, this kind of creationist crapola makes my head spin. Resisting urge to bang head onto keyboard.....
As an ademdem to my post #11. I am going to go back to my local college and take all the biology classes I can, especially since I have two young daughters -4 & 6- and I am afraid the the creationist dolts will try to make Florida thier new battle ground.
Seems I was misunderstood. I meant the "NOT" joke.
#10
New version makes just as much sense as the original.
The biggest problem that I can find with this argument is that they're comparing lack of belief in evolution with lack of belief in, say, Newtonian gravity. At the time Einstein was working in the patent office, there were some problems with the theory of gravity - specifically dealing with mercury's orbit. Behe attempted to provide a corresponding problem in evolution with the idea of irreducible complexity. Sounded great - only evolution adequately explained irreducible complexity.
I agree with the creationist that we ought to question evolution. What I disagree with is their claim that we have NOT been doing so.
I gave up reading that after about line 10, in favour of the less painful (and less damaging of brain function) exercise of trying to self-induce Phineas Gage syndrome by driving a large spike through my skull.
Resisting the temptation to recite the standard aphorisms about open-mindedness, I only note that when someone urges you to be open-minded, it almost invariably means: "Just accept everything I'm about to say with less skepticism than you would normally treat the claims of a used-car salesman".
His first sentence is, "Can you explain one thing to me?"
Well? What is the one thing?
Or maybe that screed is the result of each of the voices in his head getting to make one statement or phrase? That would be the simplest explanation.
I am not a psychiatrist, but... the word projection springs unavoidably to mind here.
(Which is to say: the ranting about "evolutionists" not wanting to accept contrary evidence is the key point for me in this guy's letter. It shows a mind very close to breakdown, someone whose subconscious has already identified the real problem and is trying to let his conscious mind in on the joke. I don't think he's going to be a cretin all his life; I think he's going to come out of it and realise that every thing he's been saying about his opposition is far truer about himself.
Or maybe I'm wrong and he's simply distanced himself completely from the reality-based community. Who can say?)
Legion?
OK, I took this to heart. God forbid that I not be a TRULY open minded rational individual.
So I tested the theory of gravity this morning. It still works.
Oh, and BTW... OUCH!
WTF...
That screed is NOT intelligible. High fives!
Wa-wa-we-wa.
As it says.
Mr Creationist seems to have missed the fact that if you attack reason without using reason, you are unreasonable.
You've got a big jigsaw puzzle. Not all the pieces are in place, but the image is obviously a Kandinsky. Then some nutjob who has never actually bothered to look, sends you an e-mail that you need to be open-minded to the possibility that it's really a Margaret Keane.
All right, now that the Borat meme has been invoked, we're free to throw good taste out the window. How about this:
"Is it problem that creationist have smaller brain than evolutionist?"
khan - as best I can interpret that paragraph he's saying "I read about evolution and I still feel doubtful, and the fact that you have to argue with people about evolution proves it's wrong". I think this an attempt to falsify by lack of warm fuzzies (argumentum nullum teddybearum, IIRC).
"I am willing to bet that no evolutionist (that is, an evolutionist fiercely opposed to the Theory of Intelligent Design) will approach Michael Behe's book with the natural curiosity and fair-mindedness".
Well they probably expected shit, because that is what you normally find in a toilet. But I suspect had they found a gold brick instead they would have noticed.
And Blake is it possible make creationist go away by toss US and A dollar at it?
Khan, that is my favorite part of the rant. He is claiming evolution is false, because it doesn't feel more right than the competition. He thinks, cause it doesn't seem overwhelmingly right, we have to use our own passion to attack the competition.
It is painfully obvious that this man is not using a rational standard. He assumes a true idea has to seem and feel true; evidence is secondary to intuition. Incorrect though he is, I feel sorry for this fellow.
Well, *I* got it the first time anyway, mndarwinist.
Considering the source, of course, that may or may not be reassuring to you :).
At least he spelled your name right.
Two things: at least he spelled your name correctly, and they're quoting from Edge already?
Dear Professor Myers: I'd dearly love to have someone show me where I am wrong in my analysis here.
Somehow, perhaps by accident, you managed to write a screed, not an analysis. And not even a very good screed (see comments #1-#28).
Back to the drawing board, Dumbo.
I think you should reformat your blog in Comic Sans, remove all paragraph breaks, and use more bold and italics. That way, the creationist nuts would think you were on their side and leave you alone. Can they still really think that they are going to convert you?
I think the screed reads as if it were written while under the influence of 8 to 10 beers or a quart of vodka, maybe both?
"This looks like yet another guy who rides dinosaurs in his dreams ..."
Hey! There's nothing wrong with riding dinosaurs in your dreams. Calvin and I do it all the time. It's OK as long as you don't feel jealous because you think other humans actually got to do it. Well, except for people riding ostriches, which is just plain silly and not something Calvin or I would do anyway.
You know, something about this seems familiar:
Oh yes, that was it:
khan:
'the convincing and persuasive feeling that would innocently refute any opposing theory' is the feeling provided by a notion, when one has been wholly indoctrinated in the belief that the notion under discussion is the unalterable will of an all-powerful god. Creationist is unconvinced because evilutionists have failed to indoctrinate him, and his religion has succeeded.
vjack makes a nice point: getting rid of paragraph breaks is a wonderful way to emulate the diction of creationists and other anti-science cultists. They argue without pausing for breath (how do they do that?) in their spoken harangues and they spew book-length paragraphs in their written "arguments".
Ooh, a challenge. Let me try to translate:
"And this is what I think is the most powerful indictment of the theory of evolution: that the people who defend evolution do not seem to be open to being convinced or persuaded by other theories on their merits, as they would be if they innocently believed evolution to be true -- instead, they use their own subjective passion to try to conquer opposing views, as if they really know it to be false."
I suspect this is the jist of what s/he meant here, though granted I took major liberties with the phrasing.
"I had not checked my email to fight with a creationist dressed as Hitler."
(Godwin'd!)
This letter reminded me of the criticism my New Age-ish friends often make me when I point out problems and inconsistencies with alternative medicine or other forms of woo: my skeptical attitude is close-minded. If I really want to be scientific, I should not look at a theory or claim and just try to poke holes in it. I should start out favorably predisposed, follow along with the story, and ask myself "hmm, what if this were true? Might it be true?" This, they say, is the way science operates properly, when scientists are not all concerned with their egos and just proving themselves right. Don't begin negative, begin neutral.
Clearly, they don't understand the rigorous methods of science, or its requirement for consistency. What they're doing is following along a narrative and playing the 'what if' game. I got the same impression from reading this email. The writer wants PZ and Miller to just read the book casually, as if it were a story, and see if it makes sense and holds together taken by itself. Then of course they can bring in the other theory and compare it with the science stuff and everything. But give it a fair chance first.
Then try Jesus the same way...
I just wish these guys would at least take a writing class. Aside from the fact that Comic Sans is already a bad stereotype, the inability to structure the text employing a concept called paragraphs instead of funky changes in font or color just baffles me.
Only one color change. Incredibly good for a creationist.
I've recently encountered some really nutty woo over at TMZ.
I've been digging at some wingers and creationists there. Encountering the usual "it's only a theory" and "there's no evidence for evolution" arguments. But one poster there who's a "writer" and so submerged in the world of woo that she's like a fundie spouting scripture. She's come up with her own term panGasm, claims to have performed 2 abortions through prayer and goes on and on about quantum mechanics and the "death consciousness". She says the same things. The my rational pov inhibits me from maintaining a proper ph balance or something.
The trainwreck can be witnessed here...
http://www.tmz.com/2007/05/15/jerry-falwell-1933-2007/283#comments
"And this, for me, is the most powerful indictment of the theory of evolution. It does not provide, in its defense of itself, the convincing and persuasive feeling that would innocently refute any opposing theory, and therefore, what the theory won't do--metaphysically to conquer opposition to itself--we will have to do with our own subjective passion."
Translation: "It doesn't make me FEEL good about myself. It doesn't make FEEL I'm the most important thing in the universe."
.
"open to what would be the spontaneous and undefensive understanding and experience we might receive from just reading this book"
Translation: "I don't want to actually THINK about what I read, I just want it to reinforce my feelings & preconceptions."
.
As to the issue of critically reading only opposing viewpoints and uncritically accepting ideas I would tend to support anyway, that is a classic example of projection; the tendency to project onto others one's own beliefs. In fact, I read everything critically, whether scientific works, fiction or philosophy/religion.
.
"But give it a fair chance first.
Then try Jesus the same way..."
Posted by: Sastr
I don't want to misinterpret Sastr's intent here, but would like to respond to this idea.
I was raised as a christian. My mother had a degree in theology from USC and came from a long line of missionaries. My father was an Okie baptist. I have been an atheist since age 10. This was not as a rejection of my parent's ideas, but as an acceptence of what I found in the real world.
There is much admirable about the teachings of Eshoo/Yeshua (Jesus being a Greek pun). I have happily incorporated those ideas into my ethics & world view. However, the value of those ideas has nothing to do with their alleged source in the Big Fairy. Their value is intrinsic.
The monotheistic sect of christianity is a different story. Very little that is of value in the message of its alleged founder has been transferred to christianity. It, like all the other monotheistic sects, has generally been a destructive influence both historically and at present.
.
"I am willing to bet that no evolutionist (that is, an evolutionist fiercely opposed to the Theory of Intelligent Design) will approach Michael Behe's book with the natural curiosity and fair-mindedness".
The problem is not limited to evolutionists. "I'm willing to bet that no historian ... will approach Van Danekaan's (sp?) book with the natural curiosity and fair-mindedness."
That makes just as much sense.
Hmmm, what if we did a bit of word substitution: evolution for Intelligent Design and vv, the author and title of a scientific book on evolution for Behe's book and shot it back to the writer for consideration?
OK, yes, I know the answer. The writer wouldn't even realize what we had done.
What worries me most about people like the writer isn't their belief in Intelligent Design but their complete disconnect from basic logic. Put another way, would you want this guy to be on a jury of your peers?
I would have to undergo serious traumatic brain injuries before Behe could be on a jury of my peers.
You guys better be careful, this "creationist" may be trying to do an "Alan Sokol"? trick. Writing a totally unintelligible screed with absolutely no meaning and getting you guys to try to pick it apart and give it some meaning. He's a trickster.
Comic Sans is a sign of an unsound mind. Everyone better be careful here, or this person will send a letter to everyone at your university informing them that you're a white supremacist. It's what all the cool kooks are doing these days.
My hypothesis is that muticolored Comic Sans is the closest thing to crayon.
Please explain.
ARGH! He richly deserves it, but it's not a pretty sight that you mangled him like he mangles history, physics, and the rest of the world. He's "von Däniken". fawn DAY-ni-kng, roughly. Or maybe with DAA because he's Swiss.
Incidentally, I disagree with the idea that Comic Sans MS is diagnostic of madness. I've seen several university lectures and other presentations in Comic Sans; the only fault I can remember is that one of the lectures was on phylogenetics and taught that phenetics was phylogenetics.
Maybe this is a Sokol gag.
It reads like one. Oh the woo.
http://www.floweroflife.org/toverview1.htm
Yummy Sacred Geometry goodness.
" 'Jesus being a Greek pun'
Please explain."
Jew Zeus
.
To add a little to above:
When early christians were proselytizing their religion to gentiles, the initial audience of converts were Greek (not Roman). The bible was translated to or written in Greek. Je(wish) Zeus was a simple concept that could be understood without difficulty, even by illiterate slaves.
They were, after all, introducing a different religion to the Greeks (monotheism vs polytheism); a much more difficult task than creating a new sect (christian vs hebrew).
.
"But give it a fair chance first.
Then try Jesus the same way..."
Posted by: Sastr
Creationist wants to believe in a world that satisfies his/her sense of how things should be. Never mind that its a made up world. The theory of Evolution messes with their world view. We are asked to set aside reality, or the pursuit of it, and just see if an excuse can be made to eliminate the need to see the harsh (to them) light of truth. It frustrates them to no end that some of us would rather live in a real world than one that is made up to make them feel good.
I would challenge creationist to give the theory of evolution a fair chance first before trashing it. Then I would ask that they give a good look at their religious views in light of the scientific method. There's plenty of literary works on textual critisism to expose the bible for what it is. At least have the courage to seek the truth. I was raised a fundie, but I thought that if the Bible was inerrant then it should be able to hold up to close examination. It couldn't. So don't insult me by impuning my morals, or my intelligence or whatever just because I refuse to accept your worn out version of the world. Do me a favor and don't try to straighten me out by chiding me for not having an open mind. I have an open mind, and I'm not interested in a life of self deception. You my work that way but I expect more of myself.
Difficult. The vowels both don't fit, sigma was not pronounced [z] between vowels but stayed [s], and zeta was probably [dz] or even [zd] at that time. Besides, Jesus isn't supposed to sit on a mountain, to throw lightning, to be anyone's father or to seduce mortal women after having assumed some animal shape or other.
Isn't it a much simpler explanation that Greek has never had a "sh" sound and likes it when nouns, especially masculine ones, end in [s], while a man's name ending in [a] is unimaginable? In other words, we are looking at "Yeshua" shoehorned into Greek.
Not to be punctilious; nor to punctus your puntiglio, but puns are based on a deliberate confusion of words, often for metaphorical purposes. They seldom respond well to analysis.
Puns were quite common in both Hebrew & Greek cultures.
.
P.S.
Zeus was alleged king of the gods and ultimate ruler of the universe, as was Jehovah/Jesus.
Stories of Zeus' adventures are occasionally contradictory due to the existence of cognates that become identified with the major avatar of that god. Tossing out gross similiarities for differences in details seems rather petty. After all, consider the various forms Aphrodite or Artemis took in different cultures, all nominally Greek.
.
Prof. Myers I have a question regarding the snippet below ...
Did you give any thought to testing your hypothesis? ... I'm thinking along the lines as asking this individual for his opinion with regards to a particular point of Behe's book ... perhaps referenced by chapter and verse ;-)
I suspect any response to such a inquiry would be far more amusing and revealing that the original letter :-)
Regards
P.P.S.
"Besides, Jesus isn't supposed to...to be anyone's father or to seduce mortal women after having assumed some animal shape or other."
Posted by: David Marjanović
No, but Jehovah IS supposed to have done those things.
.
I think I have to call bullshit on Jaycubed here. I'm no linguist, but according to the internets, Zeus is etymologically related to the Latin Dios; so David M. seems to be correct regarding the pronunciation of zeta. Also the Greek for "Hebrew" (or "Jew") is "Evreios" and is obviously not related to the "J" sound. (Incidentally the Greek for "jesus" is Iesous - Ee-yay-soos.) I don't think it was a pun on anything.
But I could of course be wrong.
Sorry. Not Dios, Deis. Duh.
"Also the Greek for 'Hebrew' (or 'Jew') is 'Evreios'. (Incidentally the Greek for "jesus" is Iesous - Ee-yay-soos.) I don't think it was a pun on anything."
Posted by: J Daley
Hebrew and Jew are neither the same thing or word. (all Jews are Hebrew-Not all Hebrew are Jews)
The ancient Greek for Jew is Ioudaios-Ee-aw-do-ee-aws.
Iesous was probably pronounced closer to Ee-eh-soos.
Iozeus-Ee-eh-dz-oos would likely sound too close to Ioudaios to distinguish the differences in concept required.
While it is obvious that Jesus is a Greek translation of Eshoo/Yeshua, I find the specific choice of name reflects a wry sense of humor such as was common at the time.
Is that just a folk etymology? I.e., sounds plausible and interesting but based on speculation.
There's a more pedestrian explanation at yourdictionary.com: "Middle English, from Late Latin Iesus, from Greek Iesous, from Hebrew yesûa, from yhôsûa, Joshua "
Spelling mistakes are mine as I transliterated some phonetic graphics.
How do I do blockquotes? Anyway,
And this, for me, is the most powerful indictment of the theory of evolution. It does not provide, in its defense of itself, the convincing and persuasive feeling that would innocently refute any opposing theory, and therefore, what the theory won't do--metaphysically to conquer opposition to itself--we will have to do with our own subjective passion.
This one is actually easy, but perhaps because I've seen it before. It ties in nicely with the new crischin curse word, "scientism," which advances the idea that relying on solely physical methods to find "truth" is bad.
Now, whenever I asked someone to define "truth," I never got an answer, but the gist of it is, philosophy is supposed to be an accepted method of scientific investigation, and that "truth" is a fundamental (Ha! I kill me!) concept best defined as "that which makes me feel good."
As others have pointed out, if something doesn't make you feel good, it must be wrong (unless, of course, we're talking about sex). This is an extension of denialism: I believed this all my life, you're not allowed to tell me I was wrong to do so. So, the defense is, I'm right by default because otherwise I would have been wrong for a long time. That's not acceptable to many people.
And of course, many religions maintain that evolution is wrong, lies, etcetera. So actually looking into what exactly evolution is, is an exercise that threatens to expose how incorrect religious teachings are. Thus, the writer hides away from the evidence and, sight unseen, tries to defend a book that promises to support his/her mindset. Yes, the irony is delicious.
The other thing that is much fun to read is the idea that it is only the bias of evolutionists that allow them to trash the book so readily. If the book, and Behe's concept, is so convincing, how is anyone able to tear it apart? Shouldn't the science stand up for itself? Wouldn't a contrived attack be immediately obvious? Instead, he/she appears to be worried because people will take such criticisms seriously, and I wonder why? Can it be because the writer thinks everyone else will respond the same way he/she does, and blindly follow whatever written statement is put in front of them? Is the authority of PZ, and all the others having a field day with this clumsy "theory," that sacrosanct? The writer seems to be worried that it is.
But yeah, overall, it's great. Before the book is even out, and before anyone could offer a review, the reviewers are being accused of not being fair. As a paraphrase of the whole letter, "I am allowed to judge you based on past performance, but if you do the same you're being mean, close-minded, and petty." Because, of course, the writer comes from higher ground, donchaknow.
"Is that just a folk etymology? I.e., sounds plausible and interesting but based on speculation."
Posted by: Monado
All etymology from that period is speculative; as is the pronunciation of ancient Greek. For example, the letter Z(eta) was apparently pronounced as Zd, Dz or Z for different words.
Also, to avoid offending Greek polytheists, it would be necessary to not sound exactly like "Jew-Zeus".
.
Who gives a flying dungball whether it was written in Helvetica, Lucida, Arial, or Comic? Does one's choice of font really say something about their education or intelligence?
Criticising someone on their choice of font is a little like saying "How can she make that argument while wearing those shoes with that skirt?"
"the doubts I have about darwin--and why--but from a non-scientific point of view"
Hmmm, in which case I'll be listening to your human arguements from a non-human point of view, specifically that of a startled hamster.
Criticising someone on their choice of font is a little like saying "How can she make that argument while wearing those shoes with that skirt?"
Clearly the veracity of this analogy depends critically on the skirt and shoes in question. The Comic Sans equivalent would have to be something like this.
Well done CCP. Thanks for the chuckle.
Comic Sans is the closest email equivalent to capital letters cut and pasted from the newspapers.
A font is part of professional attire in online communication. Good impressions matter, as any business executive or design professional would affirm.
Ah, CCP said it better.
"Dear Professor Myers: I'd dearly love to have someone show me where I am wrong in my analysis here."
Clearly, without any shadow of a doubt, a goddamned liar.
I notice "critical thinker" 's link is to " JailProxy.com".
"Jail proxy is a free public proxy server available to the public for legal surfing habits. This service is provider free of charge for legal activities such as browsing websites, bypassing incorrectly setup firewalls, keeping your information private and your surfing habits your own. This service is not for spamming, hacking, downloading illegal porn or any other illegal activities."
For what purpose is "bypassing incorrectly setup firewalls" except for "other illegal activities".
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
So critical thinker is really an "anonymous", hiding behind a site that appears to make its money from porn links while providing a method for anonymous illegal activities and hiding your porn surfing habits from your spouse.
Not in the least.
There is no devil.
There are no saints.
And porn is of man.
Of course, other primates love masturbating to pictures of nubile females and virile males too.
So that makes pornography further evidence of mans evolutionary relationship to other ape species.
My last comment was in response to "critical thinker", whose posts have seem to have disappeared from this thread.
I believe his comment was something like, "So you must think porn is the devil's work"
My response doesn't make much sense without the question.
khan: Charitably, it means something like "I don't believe evolution because it doesn't instantly and simply answer all criticisms I've heard, including this fancy-dancy one about metaphysics".
Steve_C: Abortions through prayer? Must be a newager, not a more traditional fundy. (The use of "quantum" is also a clue.)
As it says.
Mr Creationist seems to have missed the fact that if you attack reason without using reason, you are unreasonable.
Please explain.
ARGH! He richly deserves it, but it's not a pretty sight that you mangled him like he mangles history, physics, and the rest of the world. He's "von Däniken". fawn DAY-ni-kng, roughly. Or maybe with DAA because he's Swiss.
Incidentally, I disagree with the idea that Comic Sans MS is diagnostic of madness. I've seen several university lectures and other presentations in Comic Sans; the only fault I can remember is that one of the lectures was on phylogenetics and taught that phenetics was phylogenetics.
Difficult. The vowels both don't fit, sigma was not pronounced [z] between vowels but stayed [s], and zeta was probably [dz] or even [zd] at that time. Besides, Jesus isn't supposed to sit on a mountain, to throw lightning, to be anyone's father or to seduce mortal women after having assumed some animal shape or other.
Isn't it a much simpler explanation that Greek has never had a "sh" sound and likes it when nouns, especially masculine ones, end in [s], while a man's name ending in [a] is unimaginable? In other words, we are looking at "Yeshua" shoehorned into Greek.