The University of Waikato - Te Whare Wānanga o Waikato
Faculty of Science and Engineering - Te Mātauranga Pūtaiao me te Pūkaha
Waikato Home Waikato Home > Science & Engineering > BioBlog
Staff + Student Login

creationist 'report' writing: marked down again

Yesterday I received an e-mail from someone using the pseudonym 'WinteryKnight, who said:

I was just wondering if you have any recent research publications on experimental biology? I am thinking about writing a blog post comparing you to Michael Behe, and I want to be as fair as possible when I compare your research publications on experimental biology in peer-reviewed journals. Please send me a list of the ones that involve lab experiments, like the Lenski experiments, in an e-mail so I can include and compare it with Behe's research. I don't want you to be "Marked Down" unless I find out what you can actually do in the lab.

 

This sounded a bit like Andrew Schlafly's demand for Richard Lenski to hand over research data on the evolution of a novel trait in E.coli - although I hasten to add that I'm not in Lenski's league! (I'm sure all this attention is doing wonders for my blog traffic, though!) In addition, WinteryKnight's use of the words "Marked Down" made me think he could be another apologist for the Discovery Institute. In any case, I could guess which way this was heading, so I responded:

I don't think so. I don't respond favourably to 'incognito' requests like this, & I would also expect to be able to view previous posts by the writer to see their approach to the subject.

At which point, WK wrote:

That's OK, I can use what you have on your web page. Thanks for your reply.

At the time I thought that my response would be quote-mined &/or misrepresented and lo! it has come to pass. (Gosh, I should give up my day job & set up shop as a psychic...) For WinteryKnight hath written... a considerable outpouring of spleen, based on inaccurate &/or sloppy research. I just know this is asking for another quote-mine, but if a student of mine turned out a bit of substandard work like this, their work would indeed be 'marked down'.

WinteryKnight complains that I don't appear to have any training in biology. This would be news to those who taught me, including my PhD supervisors at Massey University, and also those who have subsequently hired me to teach - wait for it! - biology. It also suggests a failure to check references, as a simple google search of my name & the phrase 'PhD Massey' (from my uni web page) turns up the details of my education. I am indeed a biologist by training (as well as a teacher.) He also complains that I'm not a researcher - before listing a reasonably large number of publications, the majority of which are peer-reviewed. You can't have it both ways! In addition, he seems unaware that I have also published in the area of teaching evolution in NZ and that I regularly review new biology publications - despite his protestations, I think we can safely assume that I do know what I'm talking about. (By the way, a number of WK's 'intelligent design' references are in the area of cosmology, not evolution. Sorry, WK, but you'd be 'marked down' for padding out your references list.)

He also fails in reading comprehension - WK has apparently failed to see my statement (in the comments thread of that original blog post)  that I do encourage discussion of 'intelligent design' in classes looking at the nature & philosophy of science. Which is where it belongs. No mechanism, no evidence, special pleading - Not Science.

I would also deduct marks for failing to deliver on what his original brief suggested: Please send me a list of the ones that involve lab experiments, like the Lenski experiments, in an e-mail so I can include and compare it with Behe's research. Yet I looked in vain for this comparison in WK's post. Why is that?

Finally, & true to the example of Casey Luskin, it seems that WinteryKnight censors posts to his comments thread. As I said earlier, this is hilariously ironic. So, in the interests of free speech, I attach below comments posted - but not published - at WK's place and cc'd to me by Grant:

You have contradicted yourself in trying to make out she has no idea what ID is then pointing to references where she has written about ID/creationism. Sloppy, biased reporting. But then what else to expect from someone trying to shore up their beliefs?

Additionally, as she’s not research staff, not it’s meaningful to complain about a lack of “research” publications. It wouldn’t have been hard to find that out yourself with a few minutes on google and the university website. You obviously didn’t try.

Her interests are with the school-university interface, as her publications clearly indicate, and those are publications; you can’t pretend they’re not with word games!

“It’s not clear to me that she actually knows any biology at this point.”

Actually, it’s quite obvious she does. You clearly haven’t even tried. In fact, you must have avoided what she wrote in the article that you link to.

“and she refused to give them to me”

Not in the way you’re making out.

& Number8Dave:

What a strange post. Since when was it necessary to be a research biologist to understand evolutionary theory?

I didn'thave time to plough through all the references you copied and pasted, but the first one is an unremarkable piece on echinoderm biochemistry. No mention of Intelligent Design anywhere, though I see it's partially funded by the Discovery Institute. Presumably the DI aim to quote from this and declare "How could anyone suggest something as complex as this could have arisen by chance?" They, and you, seem incapable of learning that complexity is not something that evolutionary theory has ever had a problem with.

Intelligent Design is not some bold new theory challenging the hidebound evolutionist orthodoxy. It dates back at least as far as William Paley's Natural Theology in 1802. ID has really not moved beyond Paley in more than 200 years - its proponents still have no mechanism beyond "God did it", while evolutionary theory has moved ahead in leaps and bounds. We now have a reasonable understanding of how diversity and complexity arise through evolution, although as in any active field there is much still to learn. People such as yourself who reflexively insist that life is too complicated to be natural, and therefore must be supernatural, do nothing but provide amusement and occasional irritation to the rest of us.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Edit, 13/03/2011: While it seems that Grant & Number8Dave have now had their comments approved by WK, Ted tells me he's still waiting on his remarks on a second round of WK's writings to see the light. Since it addresses some of the points I was going to make, I see no point in duplication. Here's what Ted said:

WK:
Did you even read her post?  Where did she call you a creationist?  Why bring the Big Bang into the conversation at this point. 

You questioned her training, she addressed it.  You asked for links to her writings in order to perform a specific analysis and she pointed out where you failed to perform this analysis, even saying you had enough from her University site.  So you were asking for information under false purposes.  One lie.

She also pointed out that many of your own supposed scientific papers supporting ID not only failed to mention the subject, but were not about biology at all, but cosmology.

You failed to address ANYTHING she commented on.  Then you wrap up your post with another an out-and-out lie.  Her site requires the same three pieces of information to post on your site.  Her site also holds comments for moderation, just like yours.  Don't try and claim that the syndicated site has a different policy than her University blog, because YOU posted the link to her own blog, not the syndication site.  So don't bother trying that lie.  See, I just saved you from having to make another lie. 

So you not only do not read for comprehension -- which she also accurately identified -- but after being criticized you make up stuff.  I thought lying was against the rules?  So you're an interesting sort of Christian, aren't you?

| | Comments (19)
Share via Email Share this on Twitter Share this on Google+ Share this on Facebook

19 Comments

Now I don't even get a moderated notice if I comment over there. It would seem that he has "banned" me from his blog for the comment you quote.

And yet according to Mr Luskin I'm the one suppressing free speech?

I am thinking about writing a blog post comparing you to Michael Behe,

I don't know what you've done to deserve an insult like that.

Grant he's approved and replied to your comment now. Hasn't directly addressed any of your points and implies you are rude.

Hah! Pot, meet kettle.

Darcy,

Methinks he blocked, then unblocked after comments & posts appeared here. Seen that one before.

Funny he should think me rude - he ought to take a look in the mirror first. Y'know, get your own house in order before criticising others, etc.

He's just walked around what I wrote by repeating himself. Ignore all his own errors, then repeat himself. Typical from what I've seen of his type of creationist. But never mind.

To be fair, he's now passed my post for publication as well. But then he grumbles about how you make it difficult to post comments on your blog because you require registration first. Think he must have been looking at the Sciblogs mirror. As if registration was arduous anyway.

And yes, given that he called you a fascist in one of his comments, Alison, he has a strange idea idea of what constitutes rudeness!

Well, the uni site does ask you to fill out the anti-spam thing. But what's his beef with registration anyway?

I linked him to Alison's response (this was before he started approving the comments), but I used the Sciblog site 'cause that's what comes up in my Twitter feed. I didn't notice it had rego. I've since pointed him to this version.

Well, looks my next comment didn't make it through moderation. I didn't save a copy of it, but as far as I recall it went something like this - hope you don't mind me posting it on your blog given that Wintery Knight is suppressing debate on his:


"Sorry, but no. Paley was definitely an ID proponent. All Behe and Co. have done is to wrap the same kinds of ideas in sciencey-sounding language in an attempt to wheedle them into the science classroom. ID is a political movement, not a scientific one.

"I am familiar with the work of Dembski and Meyer, and may be prepared to debate it with you. But I want to be clear what sort of person I am dealing with here. I see that you say you are not a young-Earth creationist, but there are many flavours of creationism. So before we get on to the scientific evidence for ID, would you please answer the following questions:

"(a) Were Adam and Eve actual historical figures?

"(b) Was Noah’s Flood an actual historical event of global proportions?

"The answers I’m looking for here are of course No, and No. These responses are entirely uncontroversial in scientific circles, and if you are prepared to give your unequivocal assent to them it would give me some assurance that you are capable of rational debate of scientific matters. So how about it? Do we have a basis for further discussion?"


Rather than post this, Wintery Knight then sent me the following email:

"Stop talking about the Bible and God. Talk about science. And don't talk about the presupposition or materialism or naturalism. That's religion. Just talk about what can be observed, tested, repeated, falsified. Just science.

Wintery Knight

---
...integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square
http://winteryknight.com/"


I then fired off the following reply:

"I didn't mention the Bible or God. Read my post again. I asked you about your views on a couple of questions of history. Your refusal to answer is all the answer I need though. I see no point debating the minutiae of cellular chemistry with someone who believes our ancestors were persuaded to eat forbidden fruit by a talking snake, or that all land animals are descended from a boatload that landed on a mountain top in eastern Turkey. I'm happy to talk about the scientific evidence against these views for as long as you like.

"Your trouble, Mr Knight, is that you have a variety of religious views, which range from belief in Adam and Eve, through to there being bits of a cell which are irreducibly complex. None of them are supported by science. You are plainly incapable of rational discussion of your beliefs, and it would be a waste of my time to engage you.

"I also find it extremely ironic that you call Prof Campbell a fascist for allegedly suppressing free speech, yet you refuse to publish my post on your blog. You, sir, are a hypocrite and a poseur."

Thanks for posting all this. The exclusion of materialism is a bit of a laugh since he did (as I remember) call me a materialist at one point :-)

As I said over on the SB site, I think he doth protest too much: telling you to leave the bible out of it (when you didn't mention it) & also chiding me for calling him a creationist when in fact I didn't; I did say I suspected him of being an apologist for the Disco Tute, however....

Wow. If any of you heard a booming noise a short while ago, it was probably Wintery Knight's head exploding, from clear across the Pacific! Here's the continuation of our exchange; normally I wouldn't re-post private emails on the web, but Wintery Knight is such an ardent supporter of free speech I'm sure he won't mind ;-)


First, he said:

Stop talking about the Bible and God. Talk about science. And don't talk about the presupposition or materialism or naturalism. That's religion. Just talk about what can be observed, tested, repeated, falsified. Just science.


I replied with:

I didn't mention the Bible or God. Read my post again. I asked you about your views on a couple of questions of history. Your refusal to answer is all the answer I need though. I see no point debating the minutiae of cellular chemistry with someone who believes our ancestors were persuaded to eat forbidden fruit by a talking snake, or that all land animals are descended from a boatload that landed on a mountain top in eastern Turkey. I'm happy to talk about the scientific evidence against these views for as long as you like.

Your trouble, Mr Knight, is that you have a variety of religious views, which range from belief in Adam and Eve, through to there being bits of a cell which are irreducibly complex. None of them are supported by science. You are plainly incapable of rational discussion of your beliefs, and it would be a waste of my time to engage you.

I also find it extremely ironic that you call Prof Campbell a fascist for allegedly suppressing free speech, yet you refuse to publish my post on your blog. You, sir, are a hypocrite and a poseur.


He then came back with:

Again with the talking snake and the ark. Feel free to leave a comment about science when you are ready to talk about science. Leave the Bible for church time.


To which I replied:

But you do believe in the talking snake and the ark, don't you? Scratch an ID proponent and you'll find a creationist. (Or a Raelian, I suppose...) Your inability to answer a couple of straight questions clearly marks you as such.

In behaving the way you do, you illustrate Judge Brown's finding in the Dover trial that ID is just a rebranding of creationism. You have no science to engage with, just a lot of empty, religiously-motivated verbiage. And you're beginning to sound like a stuck record.


He then said:

The Big Bang is the greatest ally that theism has ever known. It disproves atheism. Your worldview has basically been reduced to flat-earthism because of the progress of science in discovering the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the greatest ally that theists such as myself have ever had. It means that your side is left affirming that the entire physical universe appeared out of nothing.

Here is a peer-reviewed article in a science journal that explains it to you. It might be a little over your head, because it doesn't mention Noah's ark and the talking snake. But try. Stretch your little mind and embrace the progress of science.

Link to article:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j66361146539wh38/

Full text:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html

Don't write to me again. If you don't understand that the Big Bang has disproved materialism, then there is no point in talking to you. You are a flat-earther. You are anti-science. I can pick up scientific articles like that one, and it reduces you to Ken Ham.

Science has reduced you to praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and wishing and hoping that all of the discoveries that led to the Big Bang (cosmic microwave background radiation, redshift, helium/hydrogen abundances, second law of thermodynamics, radioactive element abundances). You disagree with all of those evidences, because you are anti-science.

Basically, I think of you as though you were Kent Hovind. That's what you are. You deny science in a vain effort to save your religion - materialism. You are a dinosaur. Only dinosaurs don't believe in magic. So I guess you would be an insane dinosaur. Literally out of your mind - believing in fairies and leprechauns. You hate science. That's your problem.

Why don't you just go back and live in a cave and rub sticks together to make fire? Or is fire too advanced for you?


After that, what could I say but:

Thanks for telling me what I think and believe, Wintery old boy. Ever considered getting professional help?
:-D


I guess I really got under his skin. Don't think I've ever had a creationist melt down on me to quite that extent.

Science has reduced you to praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster

The secret is out!!

The article he links to was published in "Astrophysics and Space Science", a journal best-known for publishing a theory that extra-terrestrial cells keep washing down to earth in red-tinted rain in India. Not to mention papers supporting "modern geocentrism", or the 2001 Hoyle / Wickramasinghe paper arguing that we should increase our output of CO2 to avoid the problem of global cooling

Just to keep WK honest, I posted the following on his blog:

WK said: "Please don’t comment any more until you show me that you actually know what ID is, and what are the arguments for it. If you comments get rejected, that will be the reason why – because you refuse to engage with what ID theorists actually argue, and what they measure in the lab."

Stephen Meyer's argument in "Signature" is:
1) DNA makes use of a "code", an abstraction for communicating information between processes.

2) we've never witnessed a natural process forming a "code";

3) we have seen intelligent agents (people) make codes; therefore

4) an Intelligent Designer is the best explanation.

Signature takes something like 700 pages to say this, and no - I didn't read all of it. I skipped the self serving autobiographical bits once I realized that nowhere in the book does Stephen Meyer address his complete lack of education in evolution or biology.

Bit I'm more interested in the argument than the author's lack of qualification. But we'll get to that in a moment. Let's look first at "The Wedge".

In "The Wedge" Meyer (and Douglas Axe) are named as members of a group dedicated to using scientific language to promote a Christian creationist agenda - to promote a version of science more compatible with a world created by God.

Therefore, Meyer and Axe are motivated by religious and political ideology first, not by science.

So in this context, I looked in "Signature" where Meyer is open and honest about his promotion of the Christian God as the "Designer". Funny - I couldn't find that anywhere.

OK, so knowing that "Signature" is first and foremost a sophiticated propoganda piece, I read it carefully.

In selecting "best explanation", Meyer utterly fails to address the historical record of how often throughout human history the divine/supernatural has been put forward by VERY intelligent men and women as the "best explanation", only to fall to later generations of natural philosophers and scientists.

Meyer fails to demonstrate the difference between:
1) what we can't explain yet; and
2) what we will never be able to explain.

And like YOU, WK, Meyer fails to put forward a base case. He fails completely to indicate what "undesigned" life would look like and how it would differ from "designed" life.

I'm no mathematician, but Meyer seems completely unable to impress other mathematicians with his math. And outside of the Fellows of the Discovery Institute, it is difficult to find biologists who are impressed with Meyer's book as well.

Finally, returning to the propoganda argument - Meyer writes a dense book heavy on science and directs it not to the scientific community but to the general public. Why? Why direct it to people largely unable evaluate the science?

Well, the "Best Explanation" is that he did it so people like you can wield it as if it were definitive science.


-------------

He didn't post it (surprise!). So I posted the following:

So what was wrong with my description of Stephen Meyer's argument in "Signature"? I compared it to a summary Meyer himself gave to a critic. Here is Meyer's summary:

"The central argument of my book is that intelligent design—the activity of a conscious and rational deliberative agent—best explains the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell. I argue this because of two things that we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which following Charles Darwin I take to be the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. First, intelligent agents have demonstrated the capacity to produce large amounts of functionally specified information (especially in a digital form). Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power. Hence, intelligent design provides the best—most causally adequate—explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life from simpler non-living chemicals."

Here is my summary:
"1) DNA makes use of a "code", an abstraction for communicating information between processes.

2) we've never witnessed a natural process forming a "code";

3) we have seen intelligent agents (people) make codes; therefore

4) an Intelligent Designer is the best explanation."

Here is your statement, WK:
"Please don’t comment any more until you show me that you actually know what ID is, and what are the arguments for it. If you comments get rejected, that will be the reason why – because you refuse to engage with what ID theorists actually argue."

So tell me, WK - who doesn't understand the ID argument? Meyer? Me? or you?

----------------

Can't take the heat, WK, stay out of the kitchen. If you want to talk about "Signature", then we certainly can. But you can't separate the arguments in "Signature" from the author's agenda, dishonesty, lack of qualifications, and complete inability to gain acceptance from actual scientists.

As for Behe - LOL!

WK has just posted this comment on his blog - I presume he's talking about me. No point me trying to respond there, obviously. He's such a dishonest little creep - google his name and you'll find pages and pages of people who've had similar experiences.


"This one stalker keeps e-mailing me asking me about Noah’s ark and the flood. I try and try to get him to talk about protein sequencing and Lenski experiments, but he keeps quoting Genesis at me and telling me to have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don’t know what to do with people who are stuck in the 19th century. What do you do? He’s not familiar with a single discovery that occurred in the last 150 years. I am not joking. I fully expect him to send me a link to Haeckel’s fraudulent embryos any minute. Or try to cast demons out of me. One never knows with these people."

Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power.
I am impressed that Meyer was willing to beg the question so blatantly. "Life uses large amounts of functionally specified information, but I am not considering life to be an undirected chemical process, therefore life was directed."

Wintery Knight actually did post my comment, the one you mentioned above. He/She then commented back. Here it is, so you don't have to bump up the numbers on his site any higher:

You write: “WK: Did you even read her post? Where did she call you a creationist?”

Can you tell me what the title is?
http://sciblogs.co.nz/bioblog/2011/03/12/creationist-report-writing-marked-down-again/

1. I asked her for better papers to make her look better. I explained exactly what I was going to do, it wasn’t false pretenses. I e-mailed her for better science papers to make her look better. Then when she refused to produce any scientific papers, I used what was on her page, quoted in full with a link back for context.

2. Why bring the Big Bang into it? Because it falsifies materialism, which is the worldview that animates the Darwinians. Don’t you see that everything you believe is at odds with good science? You have a 19th century view of science. You haven’t updated it with the latest evidence and discoveries. You really need to work on your science. Stop with all of this religious stuff. Stick with the hard science, and you will be fine.

3. Cosmology is not part of intelligent design? Arguments about habitability and fine-tuning are EVERYWHERE in intelligent design literature – and any ONE of them refutes the assumption of naturalism which is the life blood of macro-evolutionary speculating.

4. She didn’t comment on any SCIENCE. I only want to discuss the science. In her article, she doesn’t define ID by referencing ID scholars themselves, nor does she explain ID arguments by citing the ID proponents in their published academic/research work. If she wanted to refute ID, she needs to actually READ ID SOURCES. Nowhere in the article does she interact with ID. She calls them creationists! As if non-theists ID-supporters like Steve Fuller, Bradley Monton, David Berlinski, etc. are young-earth creationists.

5. Stop calling me a liar. I haven’t lied about a single thing. Not one. The problem here is that you have a religion (materialism) and it’s at odds with science. You are not capable of discussing scientific evidence objectively, but only attack people. But I want to discuss the science.

Please don’t comment any more until you show me that you actually know what ID is, and what are the arguments for it. If you comments get rejected, that will be the reason why – because you refuse to engage with what ID theorists actually argue, and what they measure in the lab.


No surprises there, really. But since he basically tried to tell me to shut-up and color -- which is how I took his last paragraph, i decided to comment again and post on my own blog. (http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/2011/03/professor-campbell-responds-to-request.html) I doubt he will put my last comment on his site. He's not nearly that interesting is communicating, only pontificating. He thinks he put me in my place and will probably dismiss me. No worries on my part, I mean i git under his skin a little bit, so it's worth it. i guess I should poat my return comment or it would look like i was just looking to bump up my own site stats, so here is:


1. Yes, in my opinion you displayed false pretenses. You claimed one thing and did another and at the end you questioned her competence in her own field of expertise. So you not only falsely represented yourself, you were insulting — without cause. And you claim to be a Christian? Can’t tell by your posts.

So she didn’t share her work with you, just who are you anyway? You hide behind a pseudonym, have no identified expertise to evaluate her work and you wanted to compare her work to a pseudo-scientific idea postulated by Michael Behe. Not a good start to someone claiming to be truthful, or particularly Christian.

2. Why bring the Big Bang into it? Because, WK, you were talking to a Biologist and asking for her BIOLOGY papers to compare them to a Biochemist’s non-scientific philosophy. Have you forgotten the part of the Dover trial when Michael Behe said that he hadn’t done the experimental work to support his own ideas? Did you also miss the part where he said he wasn’t aware of ANYONE doing the work? So just what are you trying to compare her work to? The stuff he hasn’t done? Oh, so I guess he’s done a great deal of work on the Big Bang? In other words you were just padding your list of supposed science in order to make it sound good. I’m glad she didn’t offer you any more grist for your less-than-truthful mill of Christian propaganda.

3. So just what part of Intelligent Design of the Universe is an accepted part of Cosmology? Can we just say it’s just as much accepted science in Cosmology as it is accepted in Biology. That the polite way of stating ‘Nothing’. Guillermo Gonzalez, the guy who lost his position at ISU because he failed to do the job he was hired to do, is your main source for this? Pretty poor showing. Neither you, not anyone else, has made the case for your blatant lie that the Big Bang falsifying materialism. You make that statement as if it is factual — yet it is, at best, another unsupported philosophical statement.

4. She doesn’t need to refute ID, it’s already been refuted. You just didn’t bother to read her words, you already had your responses lined up as soon as you saw the title of her post. ID has been found to be Creationist at it’s core. Read the Dover decision, look at the actions of the Discovery Institute. Look at their own strategy document. Intelligent Design is not science. Even Judge Jones gave it a possible out at some time in the future, but right now today it’s not science. I agree wholeheartedly with her that if a student answered a question about science with ID, they should be marked down. Of course you still haven’t addressed that she said it might be OK for a discussion on the nature and philosophy of science, but you don’t want to acknowledge that ID is a philosophy. That would be an honest statement.

5. As for telling the truth, you mentioned three more ID proponents: Steve Fuller, Bradley Monton, David Berlinski. Steve Fuller: philosopher-sociologist; Bradely Monton: philosophy professor; and David Berlinski: Mathematician and philosopher and also a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. What, don’t you have biologists to discuss biology with a biology professor? Apparently not! Yet you don’t like admitting ID is only a philosophy with no empirical science behind it — yet you trot out Philosophers to do battle. For shame WK, you are tarnishing the color White.

I believe you are a liar and one who continually misrepresents the truth. I don’t know if a court would agree with my opinion, but I really don’t care. You are doing nothing but playing word games — all because she wouldn’t hand over her own research and references to you to misquote, and also because she wouldn’t engage in a debate over non-science. If you wish me not to identify you as such, then stop doing it. It’s that simple.

Oh, and as for her calling you a Creationist, other than using the word in the title of her post, she never said you were one. She did say that she thought you might be an ” apologist for the Discovery Institute”, which you apparently think means the same thin as being a Creationist. Interesting that even in your own words, under the ill-fitting lab coat of ID there beats the heart of a Creationist. Thanks WK for clearing that up.

Cheers,
Ted
tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com

Don't think I've ever had a creationist melt down on me to quite that extent.

Number8Dave, that email exchange is hilarious. That last email rant from Wintery is particularly grand. If there was ever any doubt that he was not to be taken the least bit seriously, the isn't now.

Note to self . . . Spell-check and check format when using >>! How embarrassing! I think I deserve to be marked down :-)

Ted

Leave a comment

August 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Recent Comments

  • Ted Herrlich: Note to self . . . Spell-check and check format read more
  • Steve Parkes: Don't think I've ever had a creationist melt down on read more
  • Ted Herrlich: Wintery Knight actually did post my comment, the one you read more
  • herr doktor bimler: Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power. I read more
  • Number8Dave: WK has just posted this comment on his blog - read more
  • RickK: Just to keep WK honest, I posted the following on read more
  • herr doktor bimler: Science has reduced you to praying to the Flying Spaghetti read more
  • Number8Dave: Wow. If any of you heard a booming noise a read more
  • Alison Campbell: Thanks for posting all this. The exclusion of materialism is read more
  • Number8Dave: Well, looks my next comment didn't make it through moderation. read more