Without hesitation, I can tell you who the most contemptible, repulsive creationist I know is: he tops even Ray Comfort and Ken Ham in the pantheon of creationist liars for Jesus. It's the otherwise negligible Sal Cordova, a whiny little nobody with no talent and no reputation other than his ability to cobble up some of the most disgusting innuendo. His latest achievement is to tie the murders by Amy Bishop to evolution; he's found that Bishop is named in the list of supporters of the Clergy Letter Project, which means he gets to sneer a bit.
Amy Bishop was charged in the murder of several people recently. Now, there are some very fine Darwinists like Francis Collins, and I don't mean to say Amy Bishop is representative of all Darwinists. But I'd recommend that if the Clergy Letter Project wishes to put on a good face for Darwinism, they might consider disassociating themselves from Amy Bishop.
They may not want to promote "survival of the fittest" in their sermons today. That would be kind of poor taste in light of the fact a presumed societal degenerate (Bishop) is the "fittest" survivor while 3 (possibly 4) innocent victims are the "unfit" dead.
As if the preachers were going to endorse Bishop's actions from the pulpit; as if evolutionary biologists anywhere promote the kind of simplistic ruthless extermination that Cordova fantasizes over as the only possible fitness strategy. All we learn from his nasty little dig at evolution is that he doesn't understand it — he does have some competition from Ray Comfort in the stupidity department — and that he's willing to capitalize on a tragedy to make a fallacious argument against science.
And, as usual, he loves to make the out-of-context quote from Charles Darwin, in this case, the phrase "How I did enjoy shooting," taken from
The Autobiography of Charles Darwin. As if Charles liked to open fire on his rivals and climb to eminence on the corpses of his competitors. Here, by the way, is the full quote in context; he was an enthusiastic sportsman who liked hunting game, and would have been sick with disgust at the thought of shooting people.
I kept an exact record of every bird which I shot throughout the whole season. One day when shooting at Woodhouse with Captain Owen, the eldest son, and Major Hill, his cousin, afterwards Lord Berwick, both of whom I liked very much, I thought myself shamefully used, for every time after I had fired and thought that I had killed a bird, one of the two acted as if loading his gun, and cried out, "You must not count that bird, for I fired at the same time," and the gamekeeper, perceiving the joke, backed them up. After some hours they told me the joke, but it was no joke to me, for I had shot a large number of birds, but did not know how many, and could not add them to my list, which I used to do by making a knot in a piece of string tied to a button-hole. This my wicked friends had perceived.
How I did enjoy shooting! But I think that I must have been half-consciously ashamed of my zeal, for I tried to persuade myself that shooting was almost an intellectual employment; it required so much skill to judge where to find most game and to hunt the dogs well.
Slimy Sal repels me, so I'll leave it to Allen MacNeill to take his post apart.
Sal, what precisely is the point of this post? It seems to me you are making the following assertions:
A1) Amy Bishop is a member of the consultant group for the Clergy Letter Project
A2) Amy Bishop is alleged to have murdered three of her colleagues and seriously injured three others by shooting them
A3) Charles Darwin indicated that he enjoyed shooting (target unspecified)
There appears to be considerable evidence in support of these assertions. However, it is also clear that your intention in making these assertions is the following:
I1) Amy Bishop is an evolutionary biologist
I2) Evolutionary biologists enjoy shooting
I3) Some evolutionary biologists enjoy shooting their colleagues to death
And from this you appear to be strongly suggesting the following conclusion:
C1) The practice of the science of evolutionary biology predisposes people to commit murder by shooting their colleagues to death.
It is a matter of simple historical record that many of the regular commentators at this website agree with something very similar to C1. Indeed, they waste no opportunity to state it as an incontrovertible fact, and cite this "fact" as a reason to reject the methodology, conclusions, and (by implication) the character of the practitioners of evolutionary biology, and especially Charles Darwin.
Let me therefore construct an exactly equivalent line of "reasoning":
A4) Andrea Yates was a member of a Christian worship group led by the itinerant Christian preacher, Michael Peter Woroniecki
A5) Andrea Yates was convicted of murdering her five children by drowning them in a bathtub
A6) John the Baptist indicated that he enjoyed submerging sinners in water
Again, there appears to be considerable evidence in support of these assertions. Using the line of reasoning you seem to be promoting here, it would be equally "reasonable" to make the following inferences:
I3) Andrea Yates is a Christian
I4) Christians enjoy submerging people in water
I5) Some Christians enjoy murdering their children by drowning them
You should therefore be very willing to accept the following conclusion:
C2) Christianity predisposes people to murder their children by drowning them.
Please correct me if I have somehow misconstrued your intentions here. Also, please explain how your training in science and scientific reasoning leads you to make arguments of this form.
And,while you're at it, please let me know how you can look at your own reflection in the mirror after making arguments like this.
We can always play the guilt by association game…in this case, the nastiest person I know is Sal Cordova, a creationist, therefore creationists are all people with no sense of common decency.
- Log in to post comments
Oh, fuck. Now you've done it...
(/The sewer goblins are suing.)
You'll be thrilled to know that Answers in Genesis has ads now in the subway in Boston. The headline is "No God? Big Problem." This probably isn't the most fertile ground for them but they are trying to spread their infection as far and wide as they can, it seems.
While you knew some scumbag was going to say something like this sooner or later it at least gives us the opportunity to read Allan McNeill's response. Which is awesome.
It's weird to see him criticize Darwin for liking shooting. You can't get elected to public office in Alabama without a TV advertisement showing you hunting. The hypocrisy is amazing.
This Cordova guy is nothing but a ghoul.
Now them's some logic, Sal!
A1) Amy Bishop's surname is 'Bishop'...
(Stop me when you see where this is going)
More evidence that, as much as the creationists hate atheists, they really hate theistic evolutionists. I'm sure he's going to make a note that Bishop was promptly removed from the list of scientific consultants, right?
Because after the name is publicly removed, people should write in to make sure...what, that it's been expunged from the super-secret Darwinist scrolls? Stunning.
Amy Bishop is also an Obama supporter.
The Andrea Yates example is particularly damning, in that this tragedy is a direct result of the Yates' religion. Andrea killed her children because she believed that they were destined to go to Hell unless she killed them while they were still innocent. In addition, they continued to have children despite clear directions from their psychiatrist that this would set off such a psychotic reaction. See Wikipedia: Andrea Yates.
Dr. Bishop's crime has no connection to evolution, unless you think that blowing your rivals away with a pistol is somehow "Survival of the Fittest".
Since I'm living near ground zero of a potential ID explosion, I can never get a clear explanation of which one of the creation story's they want to use? gen 1:27, where god created man and women at the same time "male and female created he them", or gen 2:5, after realizing there was no man to till the earth, despite creating them earlier and commanding them to be fruitful and multiply he creates man again gen 2:7?....and later creates woman from a sparerib gen 2:22,? BTW is it god or gods? gen 1:26 And god said "let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." I pointed this out to an id'er once and he pronounced satan was in me... that explains the heartburn. Thank science for prilosec! I think id should be called by its proper name BS!
How long will it take till Allen MacNeill will be banned from Uncommonly Dense?
I've been waiting for this. I've been expecting to read that Bishop was an atheist but, since she's apparently not (is this confirmed?) then attacking evolutionists is the obvious alternative. I've not looked - has Robertson weighed in with some moronic statement yet?
It took a few days but a fine representative of religiously induced stupidity and hatred did show up in the Amy Bishop thread.
You have inadvertently insulted the sewer goblin community. I believe an apology is in order, sir.
And?
...and the same argument is being made about her liberalness that Sal Cordova is making about her evolutionaryness. Check the link.
Perhaps Sal doesn't have a reflection in mirrors.
Re David Marjanović in comment #10:
Actually, I've been banned at UD several times (see http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/03/just-another-one-of-boyz-in-b… ), especially when DaveScot was at the helm. More recently I've been unbanned but placed on permanent moderation, which causes my comments to be regularly delayed, sometimes up to 48 hours.
However, this hasn't kept me from commenting there, especially when something as egregious as the Amy Bishop thread gets rolling. Here's why I do it: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-i-post-comments-on-creati…
For those interested in how outrageous some of the moderators at UD can get, see this related thread:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/christian-darwinism/coffee-clergy-letter…
I have occasionally had interesting disagreements with some of the commentators at UD, disagreements that helped me hone my own arguments and clarify my own positions. However, this has never happened in any encounter with O'Leary, who not only has virtually no understanding of any of the basic principles of empirical science, but who is also one of the most bigoted and proudly stupid people I have ever had the misfortune to interact with. I find it quite telling that UD is now considered to be O'Leary's domain, William Dembski having moved on to other venues. Says everything one would need to know about the scientific credibility of the ID movement...
But... but... SHE HAS A BOOK! Have you bought it?
Worse than being a Darwinist, an Evolutionist, an Elitist Professor and an Obama Voter, Sal suspects that Amy Bishop is also a Woman, and therefore should Know Her Place.
Ain't insinuation by group identity fun?
Louis
My bad barcsb, I assumed you were posting it in support of that nonsense.
Next question: has anyone, anywhere, actually bought it?
In comment #8 T. Bruce McNeely wrote:
Amazingly (or maybe not so amazingly), this is exactly the line of argument that Sal and some commentators have taken in the Amy Bishop thread:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/will-evolution-weeken…
In a later comment in the Amy Bishop thread, a commentator named "derwood" wrote:
Indeed, but I'm quite confident that the Amy Bishop thread will not be the ultimate low point at UD. There's virtually certain to be even more outrageous, bigoted, pretzel-logic ad hominem arguments, Godwins, and Poes to come, so if you have the stomach for it, tune in regularly...
@ #9
Consider that the Old Testament has two contradictory accounts of creation, two contradictory accounts of creatures on the ark and two contradictory lists of 10 commandments.
There is a virtual bottomless pit for how low UD can go. And they have no problem reaching for the limit.
Four questions for Sal:
1. Are you saying that Amy Bishop's victims were not also "Darwinists"?
2. If Amy Bishop is a "Darwinist," why didn't she get tenure? I thought there was a conspiracy.
3. Since she participated in the Clergy Letter Project, she was not an atheist. Why didn't an atheist do the shooting?
4. Do you really want to make this argument?
Everyone, save that UD page - it's going to disappear!
Works for me.
Cho Seung, who shot 33 people at Virginia Tech was a fundie xian.
Oh, does everyone remember how Sal argued that a creationist killing a "Darwinist" after an argument over evolution also somehow "discredited" evolution?
Has Sal ever denied helping Glen Beck rape and murder that little girl back in 1980?
Im not saying he did it, I just want to know why he hasn't denied it.
Oh yes, Amy Bishop was a socialist, too. Always on message when they take turns at the karaoke mic.
It's official--accommodationists (Bishop was a consultant for the Clergy Project) are murderers.
We haven't had any non-accommodationists commit mass murder, have we?
So ok, accommodationists are evil, and Yates has shown that religion is irrevocably evil. I guess all we have left to espouse is atheism.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
I'm posting these comments here because a suspect they may not show up at Uncommon Descent [http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/will-evolution-weeken…
Comment #117
Allen_MacNeill
02/16/2010
12:36 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
richardc in comment #111:
Sal can’t do this because nowhere on the website of the Clergy Letter Project is anything remotely like “celebrating” or “promoting” survival of the fittest or evolutionary theory in general mentioned. The purpose of the Clergy Letter Project is
But elevating the quality of debate on the issue of the relationship between religion and science is exactly the opposite of what Sal (and O’Leary and many other regulars at this website) want. On the contrary, one of the most frequent topics for both original posts and comments at Uncommon Descent is the assertion that religion and science are necessarily diametrically and intrinsically opposed, and that this is especially the case for evolutionary biology.
Here’s O’Leary on this very subject:
That would be news to Ronald Aylmer Fisher, Sewall Wright, and Theodosius Dobzhansky, three of the founders of the “modern evolutionary synthesis” and all three Christians. But, of course, O’Leary’s (and Gil Dodgen’s) predictable response is that “no true Christian/Scotsman” would ever believe in the theory of evolution:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/christian-darwinism/coffee-clergy-letter…
Would someone please explain to me how this kind of bigotry is supposed to support the view that
as opposed to the widespread and growing perception that UD is the home of religiously motivated bigots whose primary concern is religious orthodoxy and whose chosen means of promoting such orthodoxy is deliberate, consistent anti-scientific propaganda, as vividly demonstrated by this thread and the related thread at http://www.uncommondescent.com/christian-darwinism/coffee-clergy-letter… ?
Comment #118
Allen_MacNeill
02/16/2010
12:51 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Sal, it seems difficult to believe, but you have stooped even lower with comment #116. You are aware, of course, that in this quote Darwin was writing about himself as a little boy (i.e. under the age of ten), and speaking specifically about his childish attempts to convince a friend of his that he had caused flowers to change color by placing them in colored water and his attempt to convince his father that he had found a cache of pilfered fruit (see http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=CUL-D… ]
This is, like your quote about shooting, a deliberate quote mine, intended to cast aspersions on the character of Darwin and, by extension, the character of evolutionary biologists in general.
In sum, it is apparent to many readers [at UD] (including some ID supporters) that you have deliberately and with malice aforethought attempted to exploit what any intelligent, compassionate person would consider to be a tragedy (i.e. the UAH shooting) as a means of discrediting a scientific research program with which you disagree, but which you cannot attack using rational, scientific arguments and evidence.
Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
So, Darwin, a nineteenth century upperclass Englishman and naturalist liked shooting - how entirely predictable.
But who else do we know that likes shooting? I remember now, is it that spokesman for the torture lobby, DICK Cheney. And he likes shooting people, in the face no less. Although, I was assured by some of the locals that shooting someone in the face in Texas is merely considered a "Party Foul".
I have to object to the portrayal of the shooting as survival of the fittest though...seems like her chances for reproductive success while in prison are somewhat less than for someone less restricted.....I'm just sayin.
Isn't that about as interesting a headline as "The sun came up this morning"?
Just saying...
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Wait what? Murder is a capital offense in Alabama. Being executed bye the state isn't a terribly good survival strategy.
Also: Paul Jennings Hill. And Hitler.
Obviously. Had they been "Darwinists", they would have shot first. :)
I also have questioned comment 23 from Sal:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/will-evolution-weeken…
""Things only get complicated if she was a biology professor AND a Christian AND a active church member.”
Some anti-semeitic websites speculate she is jewish."
Sal himself identifies the reference as anti-Semitic (with a misspelling), which makes one wonder:
1) Why he's reading those sites first-hand.
2) Why it matters so much to him that she be Jewish that he would repeat this on UD.
3) What in the realm of all things insane he considers legitimate sources.
Come now PZed, you know the only reason they have to resort to tactics like this is they know deep in their hearts that the evidence for evolution is there. Otherwise instead of trying to poison the well through an argumentum ad consequentiam, they would be able to just show the evidence. They can't, and thus they have to resort to "eats babies" as a way of making the idea undesirable.
Just a note combining this and the Melissa Hussain thread.
I called in a local talk radio show on Monday when they were discussing the teacher's suspension in Wake County, NC. Anyway, I think I really touched on something by talking about the word 'theory'--as in evolution (the crux of the problem with the students).
Well, after my call in, another caller, touting ID, mentioned the Bishop shootings as an example of problematic non-believers/evolutionists.
My jaw dropped, but I wasn't surprised.
I wondered how long before we heard a connection like this. Got my answer. It really illustrates the anti-science sentiment in this country.
Now there are some very fine Creatards like Ray Comfort and Ken Ham, but I'd recommend that if Religion wishes to put on a good face for Creatardism, they might consider dissociating themselves from Sal Cordova.
Unfortunately the religions which largely accept science only whisper among themselves that evolution is true or put out the occasional "the bible is not meant to be interpreted literally" bit. Preachers should be telling their sheep that from what we know of history, geology, biology, physics, and so on, the bible is nothing but a collection of stories with no facts behind it (even the jesus bit is dubious as hell). Unfortunately religion is not known for telling truths, only of telling lies and claiming them to be a Divine Truth. Irving Kristol must have loved that.
Read Cordova's own commens on his blog post, and marvel at the idiocy humans are capable of.
Of course, pointing out analogous arguments like that was the what that DaveScot got banned for.
Re Granny Tard (aka D. O'Leary) and her book, someone asked:
"Next question: has anyone, anywhere, actually bought it?"
No, but ironically I got a copy from the Clergy Letter Project, when the publisher gave them a pile of them and the folks at CLP gave them away.
She's a member of the sewer goblin baramin as well.
'Sewer goblin baramin'- PERFECT
I think the solution is simple. Since Christians can always use the "No True Christian (TM) would murder someone" defence, we must simply summon the high priest of atheism/evolutionism/Darwinism (whatever totally unassociated ideas they want to throw in the same bucket) to issue a declaration that no true Darwinist would murder someone.
You could actually argue that natural selection is at work here. Since Amy Bishop violated the acceptable social behaviour of her species, her social group has put her into a situation where her chances for reproduction are greatly reduced. The result is that it's less likely that she'll be able to pass on any genes that she has (such as the ones that predisposed her to this act).
Evolution doesn't really come into play against the people she killed because humans don't have bulletproof skin, and we are unlikely to evolve it any time soon. Plenty of death occurs without any evolutionary benefit. We're never going to develop great resistance to lightning strikes, falling trees, tidal waves, etc, etc (except through technology).
Of course, this is the exact opposite of what Sal is trying to imply.
Maybe Cordova could explain this one. Someone who believes a coach is a devil who can turn people into zombies doesn't sound much like an evolutionary biologist.
As someone who routinely buys poison from goblins in Dalaran's sewers, I can testify that they're really not a bad bunch of fellows, downright angels compared to Sal.
On a more serious note:
I am just about sick and tired of every creationist yabbo bleating "survival of the fittest" as if Darwin meant Arnold bloody Schwarzenegger!
It's not "survival of the one with the biggest muscles/best guns/sharpest swords" it's survival of the ones most suited or best adapted to their environment, you mewling morons!
Are you twits that stupid that you can't look up the alternate definitions of Fittest? Need mummy to hold your hand whilst perusing any book larger than a Chick tract? It's definitions 1 and 6, you fester-brained lotus-eaters!
@DLC
I stopped playing WoW a while back, but I agree on your point regarding goblins. Quirky, eccentric, reckless, but they're ultimately misjudged. How can I hate the guys who made my rocket boots?
Sal, on the other hand, just proved himself to be vile.
The woman who saved the lives of everyone else in the room? Her name is Debrah Moriarity. She is also on the Clergy Letter Project list.
Go fuck yourself, Cordova and Dembski.
@jivlain
Was that in response to my comment...?
But she is a Doctor! Doctor Moriarity! The Nemesis of poor Sherlock Holmes!
ckitching | February 16, 2010 7:10 PM:
She is the mother of four children. They have a father, who can care for them until they are grown.
The Goblin King himself has stepped it up.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/naturalisms-moral-fou…
Apparently Jeffery Dahmer did it because he was a god-hating materialist. (Prior to his father and he converting to evangelism, washing their hands free of guilt, blaming evolution and materialism for his crimes).
No god, no good, blah blah.....
I used the link to read Sal's entire post. Then started reading the comments. Sal has to repond to almost all of the comments with his own and his reek of a creationist's self-rightousness.
As Lucy Van Pelt would say: Bleah...
@RobCT
What on Earth did poor Jareth do to you?
I agree with the former posts: Goblins are generally agreable(OT: Dalaran have sewers?! And here I thought it was just a gigantic crater).
Hell, I don't think there is a word which adquatly describes my loathing for this asshat.