In which I am a prophet

| 15 Comments

Five days ago, I wrote about a creationist letter that was published in Nature. At that time, there was a discussion going on in email with the gang at the Panda's Thumb, and someone said we ought to get a pool going on how long it would take before the Intelligent Design creationists would use this to argue that their case was being seriously discussed in the pages of a major scientific journal. Four months was suggested; I said one week.

I should have put some money down on that.

It turns out one of the PhD alumni in biology from Moran's school (University of Toronto), a respected scientist and pro-ID creationist recently had his letter published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature. This is news in itself that creationists and ID proponents are getting airtime now in scientific journals

That was the unctuous clown, Sal Cordova, of course. It was four days before they were trumpeting this crank letter as a triumph for Intelligent Design creationism.

15 Comments

That “respected scientist” Sal is talking about co-authored (according to google scholar) 3 scientific papers in his whole life. Respect!

You probably gave them the heads up about the letter on your blog since they obviously don’t read the literature.

Does Sal count, though?

The thing to remember is that Sal was also pleased at his own appearance in Nature, wherein he said:

The critical thinking and precision of science began to really affect my ability to just believe something without any tangible evidence.

Praise be that he’s over that problem, now. How is a statement like that supposed to be good for ID? I’ll bet that those behind the PR of ID cringed when they read Sal’s bit in Nature, then again when Giertych babbled about paleontological evidence of humans and dinos living together, a recent worldwide catastrophe, and:

We do not know its [DNA’s] origin, but we know it exists, can be spoiled by mutations, but never improves itself spontaneously. No positive mutations have ever been demonstrated.

(well, except in Nature and other journals that he evidently doesn’t read).

Giertych is about as well respected as the recently banished (for lying about himself) troll “Dr.” Michael Martin. Both of whom are about on the level of Sal, which is why Sal can’t keep himself from saying that Giertych is a “respected scientist”, for he no doubt imagines that he is also one of those.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Glen Davidson Wrote:

the recently banished (for lying about himself) troll “Dr.” Michael Martin.

Lying about yourself is not a major concern on PT. MM was banned for claiming to be one or more real-world Michael Martins with a Ph. D.

How appropriate, Sal to the rescue once again. I guess since ID has so little scientific relevance, all one can do is inflate the relevance of young earth creationists getting a letter ‘published’ in Nature. Even if the letter itself exposes more scientific ignorance and vacuity.

I’ll bet the conversation in the copy room just before publication went something like this…

“Hey, Bob! Wanna see somethin’ funny?

Watch this.…”

Next week’s issue -

“Just kiddin’.”

:)

Hey, I got a letter about European history published in National Geographic 8 years ago. Does that mean I’m a respected historian?

Wow. That’s like me putting my published letter to the NYTimes last year disputing YEC claims about the Grand Canyon in my curriculam vitae under “Publications.” How absured. Please.

Peter — A near-by English professor did just that with a letter-to-the-editor. He argued thaqt it manifestly was a publication and to be completely honest, he was forced to list it…

Then there’s the letter to Marvel Comic’s The Mighty Thor that got published when I was twelve.

Which won me a deeply-treasured No-Prize (now if I just had a “bell” to go with it, eh?).

In any event, I’m glad to learn that I’m now not only a “published” art critic, but arguably a Norse Theologician as well.

re: taking credit for being a prophet

Back after the first Gulf war, there was an interview on (I believe) “60 Minutes” with Gen. Norman Schwarztkopf (sp?). He was asked what he found most amazing about Sadam Hussein, to which he replied, “His predictability.”

I submit the same could be said of Sal and company, and it is their predictability that should amaze us.

Sysadmin please note: spelling checker seems to be having trouble again.

How is a statement like that supposed to be good for ID?

We’ve had this discussion before, and IIRC, the general conclusion was that ID supporters watched too much TV and came to the conclusion that “there is no such thing as bad publicity”.

How is a statement like that supposed to be good for ID?

We’ve had this discussion before, and IIRC, the general conclusion was that ID supporters watched too much TV and came to the conclusion that “there is no such thing as bad publicity”.

Ah, yes, I believe OJ said the same thing recently.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

The worst thing is that Sal may have been inspired by your post. He may not understand that he was just falling into your trap, PZ.

Did you buy a Lotto ticket, by the way?

Nah. I never gamble. Ever.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PZ Myers published on November 21, 2006 7:02 AM.

Nelson vs Mycoplasma: ORFans redux. was the previous entry in this blog.

Now It’s Really, Really Over 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