Pile it on!

| 17 Comments

Remember last month when Nature published that crank creationist letter from Polish politician and scientist Maciej Giertych? Well this week Nature has published responses to that letter. PZ has posted the list on his blog: ‘Pigpile on Maciej Giertych!’.

Go check them out and come back here and tell me which one is the best.

17 Comments

I liked Joanna’s more temperate approach…

I like the one where the director of the institute where he works pulls the rug out from under him. Whoops, there goes that pretense to authority.

I agree with PZ. I also think this is why Dawkins is right to go on the offensive; if you want to scrutinize my work to make it fit your religion then be prepared for me scrutinize your religion because it doesn’t make sense to my scientific mind.

My wife likes mine the best. Works for me, and we got a plug in for TalkOrigins. It was also good to see a letter from Gert Korthof. He has an excellent website refuting creationist books: “Was Darwin Wrong?”

I liked A timely wake-up call as anti-evolutionists publicize their views by U. Kutschera, Institute of Biology, University of Kassel, Heinrich-Plett-Strasse 40, D-34109 Kassel, Germany. I thought the background was very good on recent European creationist activity, particularly in the right-wing of the Catholic Church.

And it should be noted that PZ was independently cited by Uwe Balthasar and Susannah Maidment, which is a significant recommendation.

Ditto. But, then again, it’s always easy to expose a bunch of YEC-Fundies. Where’s the sport in that ?

And it should be noted, Mr. Gary, that Dembski just “independently cited” some of Behe’s work. That is ALSO a “significant recommendation” as well, right Gary ? The evos-logic HAS to work both ways, correct ?

Joseph,

“Evos-logic” might entail an examination of how the situations are different. PZ, Balthasar, and Maidment, being on different continents and in different areas of research, are highly unlikely to have ever met, though they can be familiar in a professional sense through their public work (research and advocacy). In much the same way that, in the world of real science, multiple labs can independently cite a significant research paper.

Contrast that with cranks like Behe and Dembski who work for the exact same, small “institute” with the same goals of promoting pseudoscience.

The only way one can think these situations are remotely comparable is if you think that “evos” are some massive, world-spanning cabal that forever plots against the heroic truthseekers in the world. Which, funnily enough, seems to be a hallmark of both IDiots and the YECers you try so hard to distance yourself from. Fancy that!

Gary Hurd

As a proud hillbilly and a biologist who finds creationists hilarious and not-so-harmless, I would like to extend an invitation for you to go and jump in the very first lake that you can find. Please sink to the bottom and do not come up.

It’s one thing to deride science-deniers who are willfully ignorant and stupid, it’s quite another to equate that with some regional cartoon stereotype. Would you have said the same thing about blacks gays or amputees? Your effete self-congratulatory liberal smuggery fell flat on it’s face with that slip. Take your broad brush and stick it my friend.

Erasmus:

have the roast duck with the mango salsa.

Gary,

As always, you make the lame attempt at linking IDers together with religious fanatics. Sorry, but this simply exposes your blatant ignorance, as always.

However, back to the criteria. According to evos-logic, if I have never met Behe, and I offer up kudos for some research he did, it then becomes a “ significant recommendation “, simply because we’ve never met in the flesh. Again, I’m using your evos-logic, so that makes perfect sense, correct ? Of course it does.

By the way, I’m still waiting for your response from two years ago, when you continued to dodge my question, regarding thorns that exist in the plant kingdom. At first your tried to claim plants can’t possibly know of animals and insects looming about, etc. Yet when pressured to give a specific counter argument, you simply employed the classic run & hide defense mechanism. You might want to become a student of one Carl Zimmer of NG magazine. Remember him, the non-scientist ? He claims that plants established into existence for themselves, “ sweet nectars and cool colors to attract insects, blah, blah, blah,” Wait, that can’t be. Gary says no, that’s impossible. Plants can’t possibly know that insects are even in the hood. That’s funny. Either way, it destroys the entire foundation of the evos propaganda machine. It establishes yet another double standard of evos-speak. Therefore, please continue to sort out in your own mind, how to respond to this corner you’ve backed yourself in to. Don’t worry, I’m a patient man. Remember, I’ve waited two years.

Erasmus on December 8, has shown us all the disadvantage of excessive inbreeding. I can still recall my shock when listening to two (southeastern USA) women discussing the fine details of how to tell at a glance that a man was “to close” to be considered as even “date material.” That is when I really knew that I was not in California any more. We Cali-foreigners are more likely to wonder which continent someone came from. As an anthropologist, I ought to have pursued this folk wisdom, but alas it must wait for some future generation of graduate students. (No kidding, there is a thesis in this. There is a whole “theory” of incestuous breeding that these people actively employ). And Erashole, my wife is an amputee and she will make fun of herself if she wants to! As she says, “You will need to sleep sometime!”

Sheez and onions, Joe! What are you blathering about? My “response from two years ago,???”

Maybe you and Ed Bryton can get together on this and have a err, good ol’ time.

Why don’t you pony up some links. I don’t remember what you are going on about. Better, shouldn’t you try and get a life? Two years?

OK, no joke; tell me what the hell you are talking about and I’ll try to be serious. I promise. Plants?

Gary,

No problem. However, some clarification is needed. FYI, I do have a life. I visit this website and other evos pulpits, about once a week, if I’m lucky. I enjoy the comic relief. In reality, it would be folks like yourself Gary, who have no life outside of maintaining the propaganda machine. You’re always here or on Talk Origins. What was the topic here a few weeks back ? evolution and its relation to politics ? Wow. Talk about obsessive behavior.

Now back to business. The plant quandary. Let’s begin with the simple question first. Are plants aware of their surroundings ? You’ve always said No, Gary. Yet your fellow in-bred, Carl Zimmer of NG magazine, says you’re incorrect. So which is it ? Zimmer says plants are keenly aware of their surroundings and use scent & sight appeal, to lure insects closer. They magically know that they must maintain reproductive forces, to continue their own existence. Therefore, they “ lure “ insects to achieve this feat. There is a “ purpose “ to the scents & color schemes that they’ve established into existence for themselves. ( Which is evos double-standard # 6,452, because we IDers are ALWAYS told there IS no purpose, no need, no direction, no arrow, no design, when it comes to evolution. )

So which is it Gary ? You’ve alway said No in the past and Carl Zimmer, aka the non-scientist, says you’re dead wrong. He’s a fellow evos in-bred, so how can either of you be incorrect ? Simply answer this question. Then & only then, will we re-visit our discussion from 2 years ago, regarding the existence of THORNS in nature.

Keep in mind, you’re on stage, in front of all your evos allies. Make sure you read the script well, before you respond. I’ll be busy with my “ real “ life. However, don’t worry. I promise to be standing by, awaiting your public castigation of Carl Zimmer. In addition, no answering this simple question, by asking yet another question, as you did in the past. Take your time.

Joseph, do me a favor and tell me what you think the following sentence could mean:

His sharp and biting statement struck a chord with his audience.

If after a few seconds you’re still scratching your head with the above, consult your nearest high school English teacher but stay clear of your fundamentalist preacher.

A bit of advice Joe - if you would rather us “evos” stop “linking IDers together with religious fanatics,” it might help if y’all stop thinking like them.

Gary

Inbreeding, as everything else, is a relative proposition. It sounds as if you would think that yourself more advanced if you found out that your greatgrandmother was a goat. Not saying that she wasn’t of course. But if it doesn’t hurt the Devil Springs Pupfish or green salamanders, then what does it matter the opinion of some geek in california?

Furthermore, you are simply wrong. Wrong in a rather stupid way that is usually overlooked for many fascinating sociological reasons, one of them likely being your own feelings of insecurity. I’ll sneak past that sleeping demon and get to the point.

Which is, creationism is not and has never been a “delusion is not restricted to American hillbillies”. Have you been paying attention for the last 25 years? the president of the united states is one of these people, and it is those types of folks whose delusions are dangerous, not Ma and Pa Clampett. The international scientific community didn’t need to be ‘warned’ about irrationality on the rise by a member of Polish Parliament, anyone who is paying attention knows this to be true.

“As an anthropologist, I ought to have pursued this folk wisdom, but alas it must wait for some future generation of graduate students. (No kidding, there is a thesis in this. There is a whole “theory” of incestuous breeding that these people actively employ).”

Well that wouldn’t suprise me given some of the shitty theses I have seen. What is one more?

Don’t know where you fell out in the holy wars a coupla weeks or so ago but this is a similar issue. Except that irrationality is not directly heritable and should not be treated as such so there is no hard line and it seems that we should examine the chamberlain defense as relates to pissing off large segments of the population just to make a rather vapid attempt at humor. otherwise you look like an asshole and i just wasn’t going to extend my opinion that far without hearing you first.

Whom is Joseph Alden addressing, anyway? It’s pretty common in popular science writing to refer to fortunate mutations as if they were intended by the plants or animals involved– something like, “cats have sharp teeth in order to tear their food.” But most readers know it’s simply a convention. Cats don’t really sit down and think, “gee, if I grew some sharp teeth I wouldn’t have to keep gumming mice to death.” Likewise, unless Carl Zimmer has some proof of evolved brains in his petunias, the idea of plants being aware of their surroundings is nonsense. As Darwin and Wallace explained some time back, sweet-smelling petunias simply leave more decendants than scentless ones– no conscious thought is necessary on the plant’s part. Alden must know this, and he must know that any working scientist knows it, too. So, who is Alden’s real audience? He’s obviously trying to create the illusion of a scientific problem people outside the scientific community. But whom? If Alden is just trying to get money out of some rich patron who wants to think he’s smarter than them egghead scientists, it’s all between consenting adults and probably not much worse than selling marijuana. But if Alden intends to aim this phoney “crisis in evolutionary theory” at innocent children in our nation’s public schools, he should be deeply, deeply ashamed.

.….…. still waiting for a response from Gary Hurd.

Figures.

As always, the great coward himself, Gary Hurd, pulls the run and hide defense mechanism.

Don’t worry Gary. Mr. Nick will soon drop this entire exchange off the board. Your fellow evos in-breds won’t remember it a month from now. However, I promise not to forget.

Looks like Intelligent Design wins again.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on December 7, 2006 2:02 PM.

Tangled Bank #68 was the previous entry in this blog.

Libya vs. Evolutionary Science: Will the Tripoli Six be sentenced to death by firing squad? 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 4.361

Site Meter