Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

There are two different videos posted there of separate incidents, with the most egregious one - the one I think you are referring to - occurring in a London park:

The Sanity Inspector said:

Ever see the YouTube video of a pelican nabbing and swallowing a pigeon? Worst new flavor!

Matt,

As a postscript, I thought I’d post the link to Monton’s CV. It almost reads as though it could be Bill Dembski’s:

http://spot.colorado.edu/~monton/Br[…]ton%20cv.pdf

Regards,

John

I think he’s as much an apologist for ID as Steve Fuller. I noticed in his CV that one of his forthcoming articles is a defense of “God of the Gaps”. I don’t know, but it seems to make that if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, then it is a duck:

Matt Young said:

He’s a University of Colorado philosopher, Bradley Monton, who is quite supportive of ID, as evidenced here: http://spot.colorado.edu/~monton/Br[…]on/Home.html

I have not read Monton’s book yet, but I think he is not exactly a supporter of ID creationism. A professed atheist, he thinks that some of their arguments should be taken seriously. According to his website (the “ID” link), he considers 4 ID arguments to be “somewhat” plausible. I do not agree, but I would not call him a creationist of any kind.

If my memory is correct, Pennock had “outed” Monton as both someone involved with the Dishonesty Institute, and hence, therefore, as an Intelligent Design creationist. Of course Monton, in typical DI “new speak”, vehemently denied either accusation:

Frank J said:

John Kwok said:

Another typo. Sorry about that. I meant to say, “I don’t know, but it seems to me that if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, then it is a duck.”

If by “duck” you mean “anti-evolution activist,” I don’t think you’d get any argument. But if you mean “creationist,” you can expect the usual bait-and-switch-based objection from the DI.

It’s actually far more interesting than you can imagine:

Frank J said:

John Kwok Wrote:

Of course Monton, in typical DI “new speak”, vehemently denied either accusation:

I would bet that he took liberties with the definition of “involved,” and denied that he was a “creationist,” confident that his target audience would define “creationist” as an honest believer of a 6-day-~6000-year-ago creation. Not as “any ‘kind’ of anti-evolution activist,” as it’s normally defined by critics.

Am posting the link to his online “rebuttal” to Pennock’s accusations here:

http://bradleymonton.wordpress.com/page/3/

There’s still a few who contend that it’s a hominid showing severe birth defects. Unfortunately, this is so far the only specimen of its kind found, and I suppose that if another was found looking like it, then it would settle the argument once and for all. But, I might too, that there’s been some recent work published that demonstrates conclusively (I think) that this is a new species:

dhogaza said:

I’ve heard and read that there are some physical anthropologists who consider Homo floresiensis (known colloquially as a “hobbit”) who insist that it’s really a fossilized Homo erectus with severe birth defects

Yes, when the fossils were first announced, at least, not sure if this is still being fought over within the field.

So, did the creationists pick up on that disagreement and apply it universally, or did they argue this earlier and is the fact that there’s been a recent professional argument along the same lines sheer coincidence?