Of Wiker and Witt: The silliest thing I’ve read all week

| 90 Comments | 1 TrackBack

In my very unusual line of work, I read silly stuff all the time. Some weeks, it is difficult to tell what is most silly: most creationist arguments are not new and you stop being surprised by them after awhile.

For example, just this week on the blog of the Discovery Institute Media Complaints Judge Jones Complaints Division, Logan Gage gave us some revisionist history of the now-famous demolition of Michael Behe during cross-examination of the Kitzmiller trial. In that post, as Ed Brayton points out, the DI rep complains about the immune system cross, asserting that the articles didn’t prove anything, but completely ignoring Ken Miller’s testimony about some of the key articles, let alone the Nature Immunology article that three of us PT posters wrote just in case any doubts remained about the science that Behe said didn’t exist. We’re still waiting for the DI to acknowledge the existence of the NI article, let alone produce a rebuttal. So that was pretty silly.

On the other hand, this week we saw one of DIMCJJCD operative Casey Luskin’s famous insta-mega-rebuttals posted in response to Chris Mooney‘s widely acclaimed book The Republican War on Science. (The book just came out in a revised paperback edition with substantial new post-Kitzmiller material, so now is the time to pick up a copy). The rebuttal is essentially a rehash of all of the desperate propaganda the DI has been putting out since Kitzmiller. This bit is particularly precious: “The early drafts of Pandas actually rejected ‘creationism’ as defined by the courts.” Hmm, that’s funny. As Ed Brayton posted months ago, the earliest draft of Pandas, the 1983 draft entitled Creation Biology, (Plaintiffs’ exhibit P-563 from the Kitzmiller case) in fact used the word “creationism” repeatedly.

Luskin also writes, “Yet pre-publication drafts of Pandas juxtaposed the word “creation” with statements to the exact opposite effect, noting that science cannot scientifically detect a supernatural creator.” Hmm. Have a look at page 1-28 from Creation Biology:

V. Scientific Evidence for Creation

Recall the possible ways in which life might have originated. If we eliminate the chemical evolution theory, we are left with only two viable options: extraterrestrial origin, or creation. For the purposes of this chapter we define the latter as the bringing into being of living matter by an intelligent agency outside of nature (that is, outside of matter, energy, and time).

(Chapter 1, p. 28 of Creation Biology, 1983 draft of Of Pandas and People. Plaintiffs’ exhibit P-563 from the Kitzmiller case. Bold added.)

Pretty clear what “creation” means there, I would say.

But even with the above, the claims of the DI bloggers are not the silliest that I have read this week. They are fairly silly, oft-repeated, and prosaic forms of ID silliness. The claims are wrong, badly wrong, but one can sort of see how hardcore ID fans would think such things – if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be ID fans.

Now for some really remarkable and highly unnecessary silliness.

I was recently perusing a review copy of the new DI book, A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature, by Jonathan Witt (an English PhD who is a senior fellow at the DI) and Benjamin Wiker (a DI senior fellow who not only doesn’t like evolution, but is still fighting the evil materialists about atomism as well). Most of the book is taken up with blaming “Darwinism” for a “loss of meaning” in all areas of life, particularly literature, but also chemistry, mathematics, etc. All in all it conforms remarkably well to the longer-term goals of the Wedge Strategy, which was all about defeating “Darwinism” and then moving on to convert all other fields of academia to the fundamentalist view of the world.

Not too surprising, really, but then I came across this remarkable passage. Witt and Wiker are discussing Darwin’s views on the term “species” and in what sense “species” are, or are not, “real” (an aside: someone call Wilkins to see if they even got Darwin’s view on species right). Their conclusion about the implication of Darwin’s views is somewhat surprising, especially since it comes near the end of the book and appears to be the heart of the argument tying evolution to all of the aforementioned evils. Read it carefully:

Strange though it may seem to neo-Darwinists, Darwin’s assumption that the terms species and variety are merely given for convenience’s sake is part of a larger materialist and reductionist program that undercuts the natural foundation of counting and distorts the natural origin of mathematics. To put it more bluntly, in assuming that “species” are not real, Darwinism and the larger reductionist program burn away the original ties that bound the meaning of mathematics to the world and instead leave it stranded on a solipsistic island of the human imagination.

(Wiker and Witt, 2006, A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature, Intervarsity Press, Downer’s Grove, IL, pp. 236-237. Bolds added.)

You heard that right – Darwin spent a lifetime studying organisms in captivity and in the wild, and came to the view that “species” are not absolute, unchanging categories – and in doing so, he undermined counting and mathematics.

There is not much more for me to say here because every time I read this passage, I just splutter at the absurdity of what is on the page, and my brain, in an effort to protect its overloaded logic circuits, automatically assumes that Douglas Adams returned from the dead to ghost-write this part of the book in an highly successful effort to make ID look even sillier than it already looks.

Thus, this is the silliest thing I have read this week.

1 TrackBack

Over at the Panda's Thumb, Nick highlights the following quote from Wiker and Witt's, A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature: Strange though it may seem to neo-Darwinists, Darwin's assumption that the terms species... Read More

90 Comments

I have to agree, and I just finished Scalzi’s “bacon on my cat” blog entry.

Benjamin Wiker (a DI senior fellow who not only doesn’t like evolution, but is still fighting the evil materialists about atomism as well).

WTF!?!?!?!?! I know creationists often have a ‘second denial’, but that takes the cake.

Wait, so are they saying that Peano arithmetic was “undercut” by Darwin? That by making the species uncountable he moved closer to real numbers? And real numbers are for some reason more divorced from reality than whole numbers?

That’s a serious case of cake taking.

How Platonic; natural numbers are more real than real numbers.

It will probably come as no surprise to most of you, but InterVarsity Press (also the publishers of Johnson, Dembski, and other ID “luminaries”) has this to say about itself:

InterVarsity Press is a Christian publishing company dedicated to serving the university, the church and the world.

Or, as the Rev might say, ID isn’t about that good old religious belief,it’s all about da scienz. Right.

One would expect Monty Python’s Graham Chapman to burst into the meetings at the DI in military officer’s garb saying, “Alright, what’s all this then? Stop, that, stop it! This has all gone very silly - much too silly indeed. Put that away. Move along now and turn that camera off…”

“Thus, this is the silliest thing I have read this week.”

Alas, the week is not over. You need to go over to Evolution News and Views and read how Darwin hates women.

That’s the stupidest thing I’ve read in months.

Thank you. After reading that passage, I am now dumber, and my brain feels like it is beginning to curdle. I had a hard day – got three abstracts submitted. Now instead of relaxing and reading about ACC basketball tonight with a couple of beers, I will have to read something requiring thought to re-tune my synapses.

Like the fairy tale sisters, “each more beautiful than the others,” the series of articles currently posted is each more neuron-curdlingly moronic than the next…

(Puts neurons through rinse cycle, heavy on the bleach)

I guess D.James Kennedy will have to host another circus to include this item. If I change my diet to Cap’n Crunch washed down by gallons of beer three times a day, how long will it be before I can write like those guys?

If that’s the silliest thing you’ve read all week, then you haven’t read Casey Luskin’s most recent excrement. Casey, as you recall, is the Jonathan Witt chair of Science advisor to the Disco Institute. That and two bucks will get you a Grande Coffee of the Day at Starbucks in Seattle.

Re “[…] “species” are not absolute, […] he undermined counting and mathematics.”

Darwin undermined mathematics! Tsk! He should be ashamed of himself. Wasn’t formal mathematics undergoing its own paradigm shift around that same time (introduction of transfinite set theory)? and Darwin tried to mess that up?

Re “but is still fighting the evil materialists about atomism as well”

So the 116 elements on the periodic table are just materialistic propaganda too? Who’da thunked it.

Re “And real numbers are for some reason more divorced from reality than whole numbers?”

Well, keep in mind that most real number are irrational, after all. ;) (Even the ones that are also transcendental!) (And let’s not get into the imaginary number system…)

Henry

To clarify, Wiker does not really deny atomic theory (the scientific assembly of the periodic table of the elements is one of the major examples used in the book), but he does seem to always be engaging in a running argument with atomism (which has metaphysical as well as physical versions historically) in some form or other. I think this part of his thesis that evolution (“Darwinism”) is derived from Epicurus, which is unconvincingly argued in his previous book Moral Darwinism.

As a math teacher, I am most distressed to learn that Darwin was attacking mathematics as well as God and the Bible and stuff like that. How dare you, Chuck! I’ve always been devoted to the natural foundation of counting and it’s so very clever of Wiker and Witt to discover after all these decades that “Darwinism” sabotages that foundation.

This is good stuff, clearly breaking the parody barrier. Could someone please refer Wiker and Witt to a competent brain care specialist?

well, we do count using the 10 base system which was probably derived from counting the fingers on our hands. Now Darwin showed that the human species and any species with ten digits is just a temporary form (much like a shifting cloud,which is 99 percent watermelon BTW) So our ten based system is not real, and counting should be thrown out the window.

We should append this to the creationist claims FAQ, I’m not sure what number it would be. I stopped counting ages ago.

Somebody did call the mighty Wilkins, and he hath spoken:

Just because I can - let it be noted that Darwin did *not* say that species were not real. Agassiz tried that one on him, and Darwin responded to Gray

I am surprised that Agassiz did not succeed in writing something better. How absurd that logical quibble “if species do not exist how can they vary”? As if anyone doubted their temporary existence?

What Darwin did deny as real, and what he attached the convenience tag to, was the *rank* of species. The difference between variety and species was arbitrary. But the things themselves, the taxa, were real enough, albeit temporary.

Posted by: John Wilkins | September 15, 2006 10:14 PM

(I knew it! Chalk another one up to the old maxim, if a creationist says the sky is blue, go outside and check!)

What Darwin did deny as real, and what he attached the convenience tag to, was the *rank* of species. The difference between variety and species was arbitrary. But the things themselves, the taxa, were real enough, albeit temporary.

Posted by: John Wilkins | September 15, 2006 10:14 PM

Ah, so if you can’t rank species, then there can be an uncountably infinite number of them. Hence, you can’t use “the natural foundation of counting” on them.

Now it all makes perfect, um, sense.

Bob

Doc Bill wrote:

If that’s the silliest thing you’ve read all week, then you haven’t read Casey Luskin’s most recent excrement. Casey, as you recall, is the Jonathan Witt chair of Science advisor to the Disco Institute. That and two bucks will get you a Grande Coffee of the Day at Starbucks in Seattle.

Sadly, I’m not sure that’s true anymore. Two bucks may only get you a “tall”.

Joe McFaul Wrote:

Alas, the week is not over. You need to go over to Evolution News and Views and read how Darwin hates women.

After reading that, I gotta agree. Anika Smith’s claim that modern sexism owes its existence to Darwin–as opposed to, say, the 99% of his contemporaries who also believed in male intellectual superiority–is silly, but not epically silly.

However, she achieves world-champion silliness when she tries to refute Darwin’s argument that male braininess is due to sexual selection. You’d think the easiest way to do this would be to point out that women aren’t on average mentally inferior to men, so far as modern psychology can determine. But no, that would be far too easy. Instead, Smith chooses to deny the existence of sex-linked traits:

For Darwin, it was a mistaken view of genetics which lead him to claim in The Descent of Man that “the characters thus gained will have been transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring.” It’s an interesting story, but one without any scientific credence. Darwin never understood how genetic traits are inherited. We still don’t understand fully, but we do know that children receive genetic traits from both parents, refuting any sexual selection theory that assumes otherwise.

Aces!

WHAT???????

OK, that’s just bizarre. You might as well blame married couples for occasionally turning two people into three or more by having kids.

I’d say this one definitely needs to go into the Index of Creationist Claims. Has the T.O. archive been made aware of this? It’s so rare to see an actual new argument from these people.

“And let’s not get into the imaginary number system …”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the Kansas School Board want to delete any mention of pi in schools because it is an imaginary number?

“Alright, what’s all this then? Stop, that, stop it! This has all gone very silly - much too silly indeed. Put that away. Move along now and turn that camera off…”

Rather suspect, too.

We still don’t understand fully, but we do know that children receive genetic traits from both parents, refuting any sexual selection theory that assumes otherwise.

Yeah, since women and men both have X and Y chromosomes, of course there can’t really be any diff.

W&W may want to check out some very early theories of atomism in http://tinyurl.com/kfjnq - more for the pot out here. Nick say that you are writing about this silliness only because it is the weekend? Right?

Anton Mates, quoting Anika Smith: “We still don’t understand fully, but we do know that children receive genetic traits from both parents, refuting any sexual selection theory that assumes otherwise.”

LOL. Now I got coffee up my nose.

Incidentally, does anyone else suspect that the DI is working on the basis that the more rationality they discard the more they can wrong-foot us? It’s like trying to argue with Hovind - you can’t plan ahead because there’s no way to come up with ideas as bizarre as his.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the Kansas School Board want to delete any mention of pi in schools because it is an imaginary number?

1. Pi is not an imaginary number; it is a real (transcendental) number. 2. There was an April Fool’s joke about legislating the value of pi to 3 some years ago that far too many people actually believed.

So is that what a couple of monkeys typing at random came up with?

Golly? Undercuts “counting”?

Now, that is some heavy stuff dude.

Perhaps they should call themselves Cheech and Chong.

I see that the Wiker & Witt book has ***** 5 stars out of five from readers on amazon.com.

1. Pi is not an imaginary number; it is a real (transcendental) number.

It is imaginary if P is real. :-)

Bob

Anton Mates said: “However, she achieves world-champion silliness when she tries to refute Darwin’s argument that male braininess is due to sexual selection. You’d think the easiest way to do this would be to point out that women aren’t on average mentally inferior to men, so far as modern psychology can determine. But no, that would be far too easy. Instead, Smith chooses to deny the existence of sex-linked traits:”

Well, this is picking nits a bit, but it merits pointing out that the vast majority of sex-linked traits appear in *both* genders, not exclusively in males. X-linked recessive traits appear much more frequently in males, but that’s a statistical phenomenon, not a cased of gender exclusivity. Only the very, very few Y-linked traits are exclusive to males.

However, of course, there *are* sex-limited traits, which express in only one gender, and sex-influenced traits which express differently in males than in females. Those she’s clearly denying ;^) But most of these traits are, genetically speaking, autosomal, not sex linked.

Lynn

There’s a comment I’ve trying to make here since yesterday, related to Russell and Whitehead and the idea of founding the ideas of counting, addition, multiplication, “successor to one” etc by defining them as operations on classes and sets, and how this paradigm relates to the question of “species” as an objective entity versus a subjective human classification.

It seems that Wiker and Witt have confused Darwin with Peano. Of course, if this is pointed out to them, they would simply blame Peano on Darwin, without any evidence that he was influenced by him.

(P.S. My spelling is the correct. Evolution has pervert English and letters too.)

i.e., ID is true and evolution is false in Bizarro World.

However anyone can understand them, beats me.

Mr. Heywood apparently considers ability to understand to be a weakness and inability to understand to be a strength.

There was an April Fool’s joke about legislating the value of pi to 3 some years ago that far too many people actually believed.

There’s an April Fool’s joke that O’Brien once got something right.

Ahem. You mean to tell me that in a blog dominated by biologists, the first person to note that in fact women only have X chromosomes is a geologist?

You’ve forgotten the 2nd law of sarcodynamics: Responding to P with “Yeah, Q.” where Q is implied by P but is obviously false is meant to point out the absurdity of P.

well, we do count using the 10 base system which was probably derived from counting the fingers on our hands.

So people say, having heard it elsewhere and not giving it much thought, but … base ten has 10 symbols, including 0. We can count (from either 0 or 1) to 10, not 9, with our fingers, so that gives us base 11, but we only have one set of hands, so the notion of “base” doesn’t really apply. The first positional number system, developed by the Babylonians, was base 60. Our base 10 positional system with the digits 0 … 9 is a relatively recent development, and it’s not at all clear how those digits can be historically traced to having ten digits that count 1 … 10 on our hands.

There’s an April Fool’s joke that O’Brien once got something right.

Pill Popper! What rock have you been hiding under?

Popper's Ghost Wrote:

It seems that Wiker and Witt have confused Darwin with Peano. Of course, if this is pointed out to them, they would simply blame Peano on Darwin, without any evidence that he was influenced by him.

Peano arithmetic is a tautology!

Is there no end to the inanity spewing from the Discovery Institute? How can one possibly decide who is most inane, vacuous, and plumped up with self importance among that group of intellectual cripples.

I’m trying to decide if the looniest is Casey Luskin or Anika Smith. Both exhibit many of the symptoms of being in possession of pneumatic brains.

“You’ve forgotten the 2nd law of sarcodynamics: Responding to P with “Yeah, Q.” where Q is implied by P but is obviously false is meant to point out the absurdity of P.”

I’m a little slow, but OK, I get it ;-}

Peano arithmetic is a tautology!

I know you’re joking but … no, it’s not. However, any theorem in Peano Arithmetic is an example of petitio principii, and we all know that’s a fallacy …

I’m sitting here trying to count the fingers on my right hand, and I can’t come up to a conclusive result. 5.26? 4.73? Damn you, Charles Darwin, for burning away the original ties that bound the meaning of mathematics to the world!

I’m sitting here trying to count the fingers on my right hand, and I can’t come up to a conclusive result. 5.26? 4.73? Curse you, Charles Darwin, for burning away the original ties that bound the meaning of mathematics to the world!

Quote from a silly brain dead writer; Darwin never understood how genetic traits are inherited. We still don’t understand fully, but we do know that children receive genetic traits from both parents, refuting any sexual selection theory that assumes otherwise. Firstly, of course Darwin never understood how genetic traits are inherited, it wasn’t until Mendell that people began to simple conceive to the idea of the “units of inheritance” as real physical transmissible entities rather than some “ethereal” elixir. Please God stop me!!!!!!!!! Second, of course there is no sexual selection theory involved since children receive traits from both parents.… WTF?????? What on the name of all that is good and gracious in this universe is that b—h talking about??????? Brain needs to reset.….… low on neural capacity.….. mental shot down in 3,2,1.….….….….….

Lars Karlsson - you shouldn’t have hit Post 3.52 times.

Aaagh! It’s happening to me too…

*whimper*

Bob

It’s pretty silly.

Reminds me when the children were very very small we’d tease them by counting their fingers; this hand 10, 9, 8, 7, 6 plus 5 on that hand = 11. Or tapping each finger lightly and counting slightly out of synch. 1, 2, 3 4! or 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6!

No no they’d scream that’s wrong you are being SILLY

Lynn Wrote:

Anton Mates said: “However, she achieves world-champion silliness when she tries to refute Darwin’s argument that male braininess is due to sexual selection. You’d think the easiest way to do this would be to point out that women aren’t on average mentally inferior to men, so far as modern psychology can determine. But no, that would be far too easy. Instead, Smith chooses to deny the existence of sex-linked traits:”

Well, this is picking nits a bit, but it merits pointing out that the vast majority of sex-linked traits appear in *both* genders, not exclusively in males. X-linked recessive traits appear much more frequently in males, but that’s a statistical phenomenon, not a cased of gender exclusivity. Only the very, very few Y-linked traits are exclusive to males.

However, of course, there *are* sex-limited traits, which express in only one gender, and sex-influenced traits which express differently in males than in females. Those she’s clearly denying ;^) But most of these traits are, genetically speaking, autosomal, not sex linked.

Actually, I think you’re reading Smith over-charitably. True, she should be denying the existence of sex-limited or sex-influenced traits, because that’s what Darwin’s talking about in the passage in question. She’d still be wrong, but at least she’d be making a claim which bears on his argument. But what she actually does deny is the existence of sex-linked traits: her claim is not that all traits are inherited or expressed equally by offspring of both sexes, but that they’re passed on equally by parents of both sexes.

So her attempted refutation is not only false, it would (as Coin said) be irrelevant even if it were true.

Coin Wrote:

Here, I’m going to just go ahead and grab the in-context quote from the Descent of Man:

These latter faculties, as well as the former, will have been developed in man, partly through sexual selection,- that is, through the contest of rival males, and partly through natural selection, that is, from success in the general struggle for life; and as in both cases the struggle will have been during maturity, the characters gained will have been transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring. It accords in a striking manner with this view of the modification and re-inforcement of many of our mental faculties by sexual selection, that, firstly, they notoriously undergo a considerable change at puberty,*(2) and, secondly, that eunuchs remain throughout life inferior in these same qualities. Thus, man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise, it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.

One can instantly see here, of course, 19th century thinking based on naught but prejudice. (One finds such thinking throughout The Descent of Man; I’ve not read most of the book, but I do note that Darwin’s introduction explicitly states that he did very little or no original research in that book, but rather was trying to re-interpret existing human biology and anthropology within the framework of the theory of evolution. One should thus hardly expect the facts of human biology and anthropology in this book to be any more accurate than the state of the art for the time, which in the 19th century was not in a good shape).

I’d also note that Darwin cites many highly respected scientists and intellectuals of the time for support, and so it’s rather unfair to attribute his argument here to personal misogyny. As you say, he’s trying to explain the “facts” about human psychology as they were accepted in his time, and the mental inferiority of women was one such fact. Actually, I think Darwin was considerably more egalitarian than average among his peer group, repeatedly stressing the similarities in mind between the sexes (as in the above quote) and different races, and advocating higher education for women.

I’d strongly recommend reading the Descent. Aside from being a sort of proto-introductory anthropology textbook, it contains strong views on sociality and intelligence in nonhuman animals which so far as I know were pretty controversial at the time, but have been largely vindicated since. And Darwin’s arguments for voluntary mate choice in female birds and mammals–humans included–always seemed to me like something of a milestone in feminism.

On the downside, it invokes Lamarckian inheritance far more commonly than the Origin, and there’s all that business about gemmules. But Darwin tends to be touchingly embarrassed about bringing up the latter sans evidence.

Oh, and so far as primary research goes, Darwin does mention trying to bite the claws of a kitten, to support an anecdote about a foster mother baboon doing the same! (He didn’t actually bite them off, though. Only Bill Frist would do that.)

@ Popper’s ghost

I am really curious to know if you are related to ts and Morbius. Your wit and lightness of touch seem so similar.

Here’s, I think, the silliest thing I‘ve ever read. Get ready.

“There’s a lot of questions right now that I can’t answer. What holds the clouds up? If we throw a whole bucket of water in the air, the whole bucket is going to come right back down, but when it rains, all these little raindrops fall,” Wilbanks said. “There are still many unanswered things out there. Cell differentiation in human reproduction is something we don’t understand. Back when we are just a small cluster of cells, how do some of our cells know to become blood, brains, muscles, bones or something else. We don’t have an answer for that.”

Who’s this Wilbanks? Oh, sorry. He’s “Professor Billy Wilbanks, chair of the Science Department at Jacksonville College”. That’s a Baptist college. And of course, Pr. Wilbanks is anti-evolution and teaches the 6 days creation.

Apparently he’s just as knowledgeable about meteorology as he is about biology.

In “The Jacksonville Progress”: http://www.jacksonvilleprogress.com[…]ord=topstory

Christophe Thill Wrote:

“There’s a lot of questions right now that I can’t answer. What holds the clouds up? If we throw a whole bucket of water in the air, the whole bucket is going to come right back down, but when it rains, all these little raindrops fall,” Wilbanks said.

Who’s this Wilbanks? Oh, sorry. He’s “Professor Billy Wilbanks, chair of the Science Department at Jacksonville College”. That’s a Baptist college. And of course, Pr. Wilbanks is anti-evolution and teaches the 6 days creation.

Good lord, you’ve managed to find a science professor whose education stopped somewhere before the steam engine.

From its website, Jacksonville College apparently has all of seven faculty members. Wilbanks is in charge of…biology and chemistry. I guess he chose “What holds the clouds up?” as a good example of a cutting-edge research question in his field.

Someone else teaches anatomy and physiology, since of course they have nothing to do with biology. Still another faculty member teaches history, government and (for some reason) theater.

Professor Billy Wilbanks, chair of the Science Department at Jacksonville College

Initially, I was confused, since I would have assumed that anybody who lived in Florida would certainly understand clouds, or at the very least, rain, an omnipresent local force if ever there were one.

Then I realized that this school was in Jacksonville Texas, a well-known hotbed for cutting edge science.

Now I understand.

Don’t be too certain about Jax, FL. It’s a very politically conservative city, and the major newspaper once ran a point-counterpoint on whether creationism should be taught in schools. I wrote a strongly worded rebuttal to the creationist viewpoint, which didn’t run until I complained to the editor (after several pro-creationist but no pro-evolution letters appeared).

Having said that, it is pretty horrifying that a “college professor” would be that deluded, and also be willing to delude others with such childish arguments. Makes one wonder if the school is accredited (actually, I’m pretty sure of the answer).

By the way, to head off any complaints that political conservatism is not necessarily tied to creationism, I realize that, but also acknowledge that the two do often coexist in the same individual far more often than political liberalism and creationism.

check out Salvador’s comment. Priceless.

”… and instead leave it stranded on a solipsistic island of the human imagination.”

Huh?

I recently came across a postmodernism generator on the internet. You strike a key and out comes reams and reams of postmodern twaddle.

An ID/creationism generator would be a great addition to this site. The only foreseeable problem is that much of the bumf might find its way into the publications of the ID/creationist brigade.

Re “The only foreseeable problem is that much of the bumf might find its way into the publications of the ID/creationist brigade.”

Are you sure it hasn’t already?

(Did I say that?)

Everyone should read David Heddle’s post and the comments. Great link, Nick.

Everyone should read David Heddle’s post

Reading it, the thought that enters my mind is an old Italian proverb:

“After the ship has sunk, everyone knows how it might have been saved.”

Where was Heddle pre-Dover . … . ?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on September 15, 2006 3:04 PM.

DI’s Latest Attack on Kitzmiller Ruling was the previous entry in this blog.

Macroevolution FAQ updated 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