Dawkins’ Gift to Kansas

| 198 Comments

Richard Dawkins has penned another good article on evolution. Read through it and we’ll discuss it on the flipside.

Dawkins makes a lot of very good points. First off is the way that creationists hijack the language of teaching to their own ends. Teleological thinking is generally shunned as a scientific method because it’s not useful, but concepts in science are often a lot easier to get across if teachers refer to enzymes or organelles being “designed” to do a particular function. To a creationist, this is tantamount to endorsing ID creationism.

To a scientist, doubt inspires investigation and can be used to intrigue an audience. To a creationist, it’s an admission of defeat. And don’t get me started on quote mining. Dawkins’ point about hijacking language is quite valid.

Similarly, Dawkins talks about the incorrect default explanation of design. That is, to a creationist, once one rules out a current understanding of science or evolution, it’s as good as proving design. This is an intrinsic failure of an eliminative method, like Dembski’s “Explanatory Filter.” (Suspect design, rule out chance; rule out science: design.)

I don’t want to gild Dawkins’ lily but he’s absolutely correct. Eliminative methods can be used in science, but not as evidence for something. Rather, eliminative methods are used in place of evidence - as a surrogate for positive reasons to consider one explanation over another.

An example would be Alzheimer’s disease, for which there is no good test but highly reliable post-mortem findings. What we do is suspect Alzheimer’s disease (a patient presents of likely age with a good history for Alzheimer’s dementia), rule out reversible causes (vitamin deficiencies, too much narcotics, etc.), and then we diagnose Alzheimer’s. For a population of people that fit this description, post-mortem examinations have been found to be (and are) extremely likely to verify the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s, even in the absence of a really good clinical test for it or other positive evidence while the patient is alive.

But what if the patient in question was 30 years old? A 30 year old is incredibly unlikely to have Alzheimer’s disease. To get me to believe a patient like this had Alzheimer’s, I’d have to see a reliable brain biopsy that confirmed the diagnosis, and I’d do that only at the end of ruling out every form of temporary dementia (aka, delirium) I could think of. Even then, I’d be hesitant to settle on that diagnosis unless it was really my last option.

What’s going on here is that making any sort of eliminative argument in favor of a diagnosis, what we call the “wastebasket diagnosis,” is itself an occasion for consideration. You can’t just see dementia and diagnose Alzheimer’s by elimination: you’ve got to be smart about what gets the default, wastebasket status. The implications for untreated, reversible delirium in a young person are too terrible to not error on the side of vigilance. On the other hand, for a patient in the correct age group with a good history, you don’t want a million dollar workup to determine what is painfully obvious. Again, what gets default status is itself an occasion for consideration; it is a surrogate for good evidence, not good evidence itself.

Now consider evolution. Michael Behe used to claim the absence of whale transitional fossils as evidence in favor of design. Specifically,

Michael Behe Wrote:

… (if) random evolution is true, there must have been a large number of transitional forms between the Mesonychid and the ancient whale. Where are they? It seems like quite a coincidence that of all the intermediate species that must have existed between the Mesonychidand whale, only species that are very similar to the end species have been found.

Notably, the year after he published his paper, not one, not two, but three whale transitional fossils were found.

Where Behe errored is in using design as his wastebasket diagnosis. Rule out current understandings of evolution or science and Behe chose to believe that design was the best explanation. What Behe should have done was recognize the brilliant history of evolution and science in terms of explaining away mysteries that used to be the work of God and credit future understandings of evolution and science as his wastebasket diagnosis. Then, he would have been less likely to make the mistake of diagnosing design inappropriately.

Finally, Dawkins points out that creationists have an unfortunate propensity to advocate for ignorance and confusion. I think I speak for everyone here at the Thumb when I agree wholeheartedly with his sentiment. As my recent essay Creationist Fears, Creationist Behaviors has hopefully convinced the reader, this is the whole point of intelligent design creationism: to confuse students about the validity of evolution or the methods of science.

BCH

EDIT: Ficksede badd spleing erurs an gramer.

198 Comments

Darwin never argued that man ‘evolved’ from simple matter . Darwin , a Minister of christianity , only pointed out that God’s ‘created’ creatures adapt to the envionment they are given .

If matter , alone , ‘evolves’ of its own volition , then do not bother to waste your time building an automobile or an airplane :: in time , IT will build (‘evolve’) itself .

If matter alone can evolve into a human being , then for Godsake it can ‘evole’ into a simple motorcycle ! !

Darwin and Evolution are totally misrepresented by the idiot followers of the genius thinker .

ERGO : It is the ‘evolutionsts’ who preach nonsense .

‘Existence’ requires WILL. - - Shakespear , “ To Be or Not to Be “ .

It is your Will that determines your existence .

hey there, buddy.

define evolve for me.

Hmmm yes ofcourse now I see it. Humans exist because there once was an ape who really really wanted very badly to be a human :P

No, humans exist because a speceship carrying a load of hairdressers and telephone hygienists crashed here a few thousand years ago.

OJSB! Yeah! Kepp those jokes coming, you ol’ Loki, you!

Evolution is the non-random selection of randomly varying replicators.

Evolution requires replicators. Prior to that, we aren’t talking about evolution.

Machines do not replicate. Cells and animals do.

Thank you for your contributions to the Thumb.

BCH

Matter does not evolve, life does. The process by which matter became living is not evolution. Life can evolve into other forms of life, and I assume you do not believe a motorcycle is living. Unless you adhere to De Selby’s mollycule theory (see http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t[…]amp;n=507846). Noting that mollycules at a surface are not tightly bound, he postulated an exchange of mollycules at a surface under friction, for example between a bicycle saddle and the ..er.. part of the cyclist’s anatomy in contact with the saddle (Phew, that was close, almost typed “bum”. DOH!). Now imagine a bicycle which has been with one owner for decades, so many mollycules will have been exchanged that the rider will have become the bicycle and vice versa. So you can see the immorality of a man riding a woman’s bicycle.

Telephone sanitation engineers, thank you very much.

Buddy - have you ever read Origin? Have you read anything Darwin wrote?

Something strikes me as not quite right here. I have never yet seen what I consider a conclusion of Divine creation based on an eliminative argument. But to support this claim, I need to distinguish between what I consider a logical progression, and what I consider a rationalization.

Without question, the presentations from (especially) Dembski, but most of the ID school generally, take the form of an eliminative approach. They say, life is too complicated to have evolved blindly. And this being creationism’s only real competitor, once we eliminate it creationism remains. Many have pointed out the logical error here: Not A does not imply B.The problem is, they are pointing out a logical error in what was not a logical process.

I should think it would be pretty obvious that creation is not *deduced* in any way, as a proposed answer to “What’s going on here, anyway?” The creationist answer is already known, it is axiomatic, a priori, not subject to doubt or question. All of these superficially eliminative arguments are attempts to rationalize a foregone conclusion. It’s apparently not considered persuasive to say “I believe this because it’s true” except to someone who already shares the same belief.

Surely nobody thinks that Dembski, objective and agnostic, sat down with his mathematical training (and no biological knowledge) and by a sequence of symbolic manipulations within the rules of his discipline derived the conclusion that life could not have evolved – at which time he experienced a blinding flash of insight and leapt up shouting “I will henceforth worship Jesus Christ, whom I have found in my equations!”

I think it was Dawkins who had a more useful proposal: That humans are born able to accept what they are told implicitly and unthinkingly, because being able to follow directions without question or analysis was for a few hundred thousand years (or more) an essential survival trait, without which children could not have reached the age where they could reproduce. And neotony being what it is, especially with constant reinforcement, by the time the child reaches the age where certain notions can be usefully questioned, they can no longer be neurologically displaced.

(I saw a study where a roomful of people underwent some sort of brain scan while watching a video of someone lighting up a cigarette. Half the people watching had never smoked, the other half were ex-smokers who had quit for at least ten years. The smokers’ brains lit up like Las Vegas as they watched, while those who had never smoked showed nothing. There are in this sense no ex-smokers in the same way there are no ex-alcoholics. There are only smokers and alcoholics currently not smoking or drinking. There is what I consider intriguing evidence that religious belief also becomes neurologically hardwired. Perhaps there is some physical age before which this wiring becomes indelible?)

Consider that Behe used the whale fossil claim to buttress his Belief, but that when his whale claim became obsolete in light of clear contrary evidence, Behe’s Belief didn’t budge an iota. And this, ultimately, is why we are not really seeing eliminative logic. Eliminative logic says Because no A, therefore B. Produce lots of A, and B doesn’t move!

Saying that creationists hijack the language is also misleading, because it implies that they know better but are doing so as a tactic in part of a larger battle. I submit that this isn’t so. They are describing the world according to their own model. What Dawkins and others can’t quite realize is that believers Believe. Their minds are stuffed with crystalline certainties based on no evidence or experience they can remember, and therefore not capable of being altered through evidence or experience. The creationist strives to find some way, ANY way, to make external reality fit and support those certainties. Reality can be interpreted across a broad range. Trained-in Truths cannot.

Evolution requires replicators. Prior to that, we aren’t talking about evolution.…

Matter does not evolve, life does. The process by which matter became living is not evolution.…

…Unless you consult actual evolution textbooks such as Volpe-Rosenbaum’s and Freeman-Herron’s. Then, it becomes quite clear that prebiotic chemical evolution claims are considered part and parcel of evolution theory. No denying, no sidestepping.

FL

Burt Humburg Wrote:

Finally, Dawkins points out that creationists have an unfortunate propensity to advocate for ignorance and confusion. I think I speak for everyone here at the Thumb when I agree wholeheartedly with his sentiment. As my recent essay Creationist Fears, Creationist Behaviors has hopefully convinced the reader, this is the whole point of intelligent design creationism: to confuse students about the validity of evolution or the methods of science.

Speaking of Dawkins and your “Creationist Fears, Creationist Behaviors” essay, Dawkins’ recent letter to the editor of Nature suggests to me that he would strongly disagree with some of the strategy you advocate in your essay. Am I misreading him or you (or both)?

Burt Humburg Wrote:

Teleological thinking is generally shunned as a scientific method because it’s not useful, but concepts in science are often a lot easier to get across if teachers refer to enzymes or organelles being “designed” to do a particular function.

Why should that be so? Are students’ brains wired differently than researchers’? Has anyone even bothered to try teaching biology without using teleological language?

I don’t want to guild Dawkins’ lilly

I’m guessing you don’t want to gild his lily either.

Heh. Point well taken.

I wrote once that I was loathe to do something. Someone corrected me on that as well. Touché.

BCH

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 3, column 15, byte 506 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Thats a very good point flint. It seems very unlikely that the majority of creationists believe what they believe as a result of a logical process, leaving them mostly immune to any logical counter-arguement. The decietfulness on their part comes when they try to conceal this, such as they are doing by advocating the teaching of ID in schools. They know what they believe isn’t science (or those of them with any self-examination skills do) so why are they trying to get it taught as science? Because they know that if they frame their arguement in the way they feel about the subject- as a matter of revealed truth, they will get no traction in their effort to subvert the wall between church and state. So they pretend to accept science, then go about the process of undermining it. So while using logic to point out the obvious flaws in their arguements won’t actually convince any of the people making those arguements, it will expose them as being either fools or the cynical theocrats they are.

Hi, FL. My geology textbook’s introduction talks about cosmology and the creation of the Solar System. Does this mean that these subjects are part of geology? Oh wait! I’ve got it now. No.

Dawkins Wrote:

Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty, not as a spur to honest research but in order to exploit and abuse Darwin’s challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?” If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right then, the alternative theory, ‘intelligent design’, wins by default.” Notice, first, the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! We are encouraged to leap to the default conclusion without even looking to see whether the default theory fails in the very same particular. ID is granted (quite wrongly as I have shown elsewhere) a charmed immunity to the rigorous demands made of evolution.

Hear hear. The vacuity of ID combined with the argument from ignorance. Dawkins is right on the mark. While I hardly approve of his use of evolution to support atheism, Dawkins does have a good point hear. And many Christians are listening and getting the message

Kevin:

The underlying problem here is that a very high percentage of voters are well aware that revealed truth and science aren’t the same process, but still have a very strong desire that the two agree. If only science could find God, all these problems would go away. And that means anyone making the claim that science HAS found God is going to get a very respectful hearing.

I suggest that most Believers are neither fools nor cynical theocrats. In Dawkins-think, they are victims of their parents’ delusions. And so when a closer examination shows that science hasn’t found God after all, something has to give. And their faith very rarely compromises with anything, it’s too deeply rooted in the back of their brain. God IS. Therefore, if science disputes God’s word, science is wrong by definition.

Creationists are well aware of the same thing we are: there is a cut-off age beyond which Belief can no longer be fully internalized. Get your message to a child young enough, and in nearly every case that child will grow up permanently unable to adopt a new Belief or to discard a Belief that got trained in. The younger they can be reached, the more indelible the training – whether that training be in fundamentalist doctrine or scientific method.

Granted, ID is an artificial posture, ginned up in a rather transparent attempt to make an end-run around existing legal tests. These people can well be regarded as cynical, but the rank and file have consistenly rejected this disguise. They can’t help agreeing with Dembski that if Jesus Christ is not central, the position is not valid. And science is the Big Kahuna, because people can’t help but be aware that it works so fabulously well.

The article which (nominally) inspired this thread is mistitled: it might more accurately be called “Dawkins’ Slap in the Face to Kansas”.

Dawkins’ passing sneers at “a simplemindedly pious audience” and “Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas” could fairly be used, with no basis for charges of quote-mining, to illustrate the case of arrogant intellectuals holding the general citizenry in contempt. Moreover, he disregards the abundant evidence for the existence of clear-thinking pro-science Kansans, taking the part (the state Education Board’s current majority & their supporters) for the whole: wouldn’t he flunk any student who handed in a two-page paper doing the same?

Pierce:

You are upset because Dawkins failed to isolate the majority of voters who elected the majority of the school board? But unfortunately, the resulting antiscience curriculum is inflicted on ALL the children of Kansas, not just the children of those who wish to victimize everyone else.

We’re all aware that this thread was started by someone in Kansas. Aren’t we?

Flint,

Your comment in 32010 was a masterpiece.

Not really a propos, but here I have a gift to Kansas, ala Billie Holiday and Lewis Allen

http://murkythoughts.blogspot.com/2[…]e-fruit.html

FL Wrote:

Then, it becomes quite clear that prebiotic chemical evolution claims are considered part and parcel of evolution theory. No denying, no sidestepping.

FL very clearly exemplifies one of the key characteristics of fundamentalist thinking, which ties a lot of things together, and highlights anti-evolution as a central issue.

It’s this all-or-none thinking. Consider:

With regard to abortion: one moment it’s prelife (say gametes just prior to fertilization); one fraction of a picosecond later, it’s fully human, entitled to all the rights and privileges…

Likewise at the end of life: either one is alive or not. None of this “persistent vegetative state” or shades-of-gray nonsense for the Fundie.

What about the dawn of life? The Fundie is comfortable with the instantaneous divine “poofing” of nonlife into life. But this whole transition period, where at time 0 it’s more of a chemical process; a million years later it’s a little more “life-like”; another million years, still more so… It just seems to give them the heebie-jeebies. The Fundie doesn’t seem to be able to deal with the whole “becoming” process: is it A or is it B? Which is it? No sidestepping!

I think this is one manifestation of “typological” thinking vs. “evolutionary” thinking. Mayr wrote about this some in “What Evolution Is”; Anyone know of better developments of this theme somewhere?

You are upset because Dawkins failed to isolate the majority of voters who elected the majority of the school board?

Unfortunately, Pierce, our electoral system doesn’t work that way. I honestly don’t know if a majority of the voters elected the majority of the school board, but mathematically they didn’t have to.

Consider this:

Let’s pretend that there are 21 members of the school board (just to use an odd number). Then the creationists only need 11 for a majority. In order to elect those 11, they only need “50% + 1” votes in each of the 11 districts.

So it becomes ((11/21) * (0.5)) + 11 votes to elect a creationist school board. Or 26.19% + 11 votes!

Consider that fewer than half of eligible voters actually go to the polls, and the percentage is actually less than 1/2 of this. Of course, this assumes that the creationists got zero votes in the other 10 districts - not a realistic possibility. But it does show that you don’t need anywhere NEAR majority support to get such nonsense through.

I’m going to go off and be sick now.

Moses,

Thank you.

To get me to believe a patient like this had Alzheimer’s, I’d have to see a reliable brain biopsy that confirmed the diagnosis, and I’d do that only at the end of ruling out every form of temporary dementia (aka, delirium) I could think of. Even then, I’d be hesitant to settle on that diagnosis unless it was really my last option.

Some people are genetically prone to a disease referred to as early-onset Alzheimer’s. As I recall, the disease is associated with a mutation in the B-amyloid gene which affects its processing and which causes plaques to ]appear which resemble those observed in elderly Alzheimer’s patients.

At one time, our ancestors might have imprisoned or tortured or killed such people because they were “possessed by evil spirits”. We know better now, thanks to the scientific method. Or at least, many of us know better.

Quote Get your message to a child young enough, and in nearly every case that child will grow up permanently unable to adopt a new Belief or to discard a Belief that got trained in. The younger they can be reached, the more indelible the training — whether that training be in fundamentalist doctrine or scientific method.

Wasn’t it the Jesuits who started the motto - “Give me a child until he is seven and I will show you the man” ?

Wasn’t it the Jesuits who started the motto - “Give me a child until he is seven and I will show you the man” ?

Maybe it was Jean Piaget? It’s no mystery to developmental psychology in many respects, from learning languages without accent to learning not to wet the bed.

Good Dawkins article. But the argument in the comments that people simply can’t grasp this because their religious beliefs have been programmed in in childhood doesn’t impress me at all. Rather like Dawkins “reigion is a virus/meme” argument, it seems mostly a convenient explanation to brush away disagreement (“Well of course I’m right, but your mind has been wired not to see it!”).

FL Wrote:

wanting to “cross swords” with the “big shark” William Dembski eh?

Does Dembski characterise himself as a shark? NB It means a particularly nasty corrupt person here (UK). From your continuation of the metaphor into describing yourself as a guppy (again not complimentary, mostly meaning a fool) rather than a minnow (relatively harmless but inconsequential), does that make Lenny Flank into a swordfish (usually seen as a more dashing or heroic role)?

Rilke's Grand-daughter Wrote:

You realize, of course, that asking Sally to give you an actual answer is equivalent to asking Satan whether he cheats at cards, don’t you?

Salvador is a gift - a bonified, absolute gift to the scientific community. His incoherence and syncopophancy are so obvious that he is bound to drive thousands, yea, millions into the fold of actual science.

Indeed.  I intend to keep asking that question whenever I see him, because there are exactly two things which will advance the goals I believe are worthwhile:

  • If he doesn’t answer me, and
  • If he does.

Re RG and EP, I think the creationists like Sal fail to understand the hidden purpose of Panda’s Thumb–so undecideds can watch the creationists hand-wave and plead in response to scientific questions, giving evolution more credibility.

FL wrote:

wanting to “cross swords” with the “big shark” William Dembski eh?

Sharks don’t have to delete all substantial criticism from their comment sections. Punkass bitches do.

JRQ:

Similarity of peoples’ reported frequency of religious activity correlates with thier genetic similarity.

No question about it. I remember reading somewhere that statistically, one’s nominal religious faith is 98% explained by the faith of their parents and surrounding culture. And of course, genetic similarity with those nearby is also higher.

If you feel that religiousness and spirituality is well-defined, then I can understand your defense of these studies. I don’t question that there is a body of work studying more or less the same things, and getting similar results. If we agree that what this body of work is studying is really what we agree by social consensus is “spirituality” then we agree there is some underlying biological propensity independent of socialization.

My understanding is that spirituality is a big-tent general term applied to a not-particularly-clearly-defined constellation of a great many different behaviors, across a fairly wide spectrum, fairly tightly bound to the norms of a given culture. I consider it even less definable than “big G intelligence”, and I seriously doubt that big-G intelligence is a meaningful construct. I grant we have studied it (whatever it is) for a long time, we have a very large number of tests which are by now quite reliable and are reasonably good predictors of some things, most specifically performance on yet other tests. Big G ranks very high as a predictive factor for intelligence test performance and indeed performance on similar tests. Efforts to control for “test-taking skill” as opposed to “intelligence” are problematical.

Assigning someone a 3-digit “IQ” number and expecting that number to be a general performance predictor hasn’t worked. And I think if we were to assign a similar “spirituality number”, we would predict little more than the answers to the questions by which the number was constructed. Until we are satisfied that we are measuring something a lot more “real” than patterns of answers to questionnaires (and a whole bunch of social activities the questions address), the distance between the measurement method and any underlying biology will make me nervous.

My concern isn’t really with heritability. I’m not convinced that you, Dembski, the Pope, and your neighbor would be able to define spirituality in a way acceptable to all four of you.

I’m not convinced that you, Dembski, the Pope, and your neighbor would be able to define spirituality in a way acceptable to all four of you.

Neither am I. but then again, I doubt that you, Dembski, the pope and my neighbor would able to define evolution in a way that was acceptable to all four of you.…does this have important implications as to the nature of evolution? I doubt you would agree to that.

I don’t know where the idea came from that somehow this was an attempt to measure spirituality and assign a “spirituality number” to people. The paper is concerned with relgiousness, defined simply as the tendency to engage in religious activities. nothing more.

You will be happy to know that spirituality does not even appear in the paper untill the discussion in the end where the authors point out explicitly that, “The present study is informative about religiousness and is not meant to represent the entire concept of spirituality.”[p. 484], after a more detailed treatment of what thier particular operationalizaton of religiousness does and does not necessarily entail.

As for G, it certainly has its problems. Most of these problems are in its misapplication. It’s theoretical importance for understanding the general coherence of problem-solving performance across a variety of domains (both in what it can and can not predict) is not quite as controversial. G is something, it’s just not the something that some folks would like it to be.

Even by their own self-definitions, religions are deeply social phenomena—a church is a congregation and the greg in congregation means flock (grex). Since social tendencies in animals are an inevitable target for natural selection, it would be exceedingly surprizing if there were no heritable component to religiosity since religiosity surely has something to do with loyalty to in-groups and hostility to out-groups.

Small point about the limits of a metaphor. We sometimes speak about genetic and environmental factors as if genes and culture were components of human behavior much as flour and water and salt are components of bread. But culture is a different sort of thing than genes. It is more like the part of the recipe that tells you how to do the cooking than the part at the beginning that lists the ingredients.

And just like Heddle, I will still be here to remind you, as often as I need to, that your religious opinions are just that, your opinions.

That’s fine, I’m sure I need the reminder every now and then.

I’m sure, too.

Now answer my questions. Or else go away.

I weary of your arm-waving. It’s time for you to put up or shut up. Fish or cut bait. Shit or get off the damn toilet.

Which will it be.

Steve White Wonder…

is this who i think it is?

if so, welcome back.

No. It’s me. I merely assumed the character of GWW, because people like FL just don’t deserve better anymore.

“If Great White Wonder didn’t come here, we’d have to reinvent him.”

     – Me

Isn’t GWW a “her” rather than a “him”?

Henry

Don’t know. He or she hides under an ambiguous pseudonym.

DrJohn:

thanks for the references.

can we reasonably conclude that environmental effects common to twins before birth (developmental environments) are a confounding factor in heritability studies using twins? Based on the schizophenia studies, it appears that at least some older studies of heritability using twins may be re-evaluated to incorporate developmental variability as well. How many other twin studies are being re-evaluated as to their heritability figures based on potential confounding factors due to devlopmental variablity? Do you see varying developmental environments being a significant factor that must be ruled out for most twin studies, or only certain ones?

“Sadly, I don’t see much recent work on this. “

really? this puzzles me, as it would seem a productive area of research.

as to medline searches, or Current Contents searches… Is there a way to access the full papers without having direct access to a university network? I used to be able to link up to the UC Santa Cruz library to do CC and medline searches, but they stopped allowing that some years back, unless you were a registered student or employed by the university directly or as an affiliate.

cheers

after some searching, i did find a decent public access point for medline searches (for abstracts anyway):

http://tinyurl.com/9plbm

but still no Current Contents (only pay services). anybody found a way to search Current Contents for free?

cheers

Comment # 32642

Henry J Wrote:

Comment #32642 Posted by Henry J on May 28, 2005 08:53 PM (e) (s) Isn’t GWW a “her” rather than a “him”? Henry

Ack … I think I’ve been spreeding a lie! Further investigation by me makes me think GWW is not a woman. Here is one of the quotes that made me think he was.

Comment # 15654

Great White Wonder Wrote:

Comment #15654 Posted by Great White Wonder on February 9, 2005 04:00 PM … And maybe make sure you have the right woman first! God forbid that “Dr. Page” and I aren’t wearing the same high heels. …

I thought that the “Dr. Page” being refered to was a man and the heels and woman comment refered to GWW.

but here is a comment that contradicts it.

Comment # 1902

Great White Wonder Wrote:

Comment #1902 Posted by Great White Wonder on May 6, 2004 09:10 PM Charlie says, “No clue is given by the author on how the tympanum “evolved”.” Charlie, I’ve seen pictures of your jaw but you haven’t seen any of mine. Your jaw looks quite a bit weaker than my jaw, just so you know. My jaw looks like my dad’s jaw. I married a woman with a big jaw because she reminded me of my dad. My son’s jaw and my daughter’s jaw are at least as powerful as mine. …

Forgive me for my mistake. Sorry GWW for mistake.…unless the 2nd comment is just allegory…then GWW may be a woman.…damn I’m all confused. I might look over all the data and re-evaluate my hypothesis. If I do I promise to present all evidence for and against so others can independently assess the claim.

hey, don’t orget, GWW could still be a woman AND married to a woman as well. They could have adopted kids, or..

don’t mean to confuse the issue any more for ya, but…

:)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Burt Humburg published on May 24, 2005 11:45 PM.

Discovery Institute’s Doctor Shopping was the previous entry in this blog.

Bailey Among The Creationists is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter