In a message dated 10/31/2000 5:56:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
<<
SC>Huxter has made it abundantly clear that Wells and/or the Discovery
>Institute is dishonest about Wells's credentials.
Huxter has done no such thing. He quoted a couple of newspaper articles
which implied that Wells was a biologist at Berkeley. I pointed out that
journalists and editors often use old titles from their records, especially
if it
helps their lay readership judge the credentials of the author.
================================
"...especially if it helps their lay readership judge the credentials of the
author."
But if those are not accurate credentials, how is that helping the lay
audience? Maybe things are different in Australia, but here, as I pointed
out to you before, it is commonplace for editorial page editors to verify the
'credentials' of an author with the author him or herself prior to
publication. In my experience, I have been contacted by the editor or his or
her representative each time a letter of mine was published to verify that
the information I provided pertaining to who I am and my 'credentials' were
accurate. I cannot conceive of an honest journalist allowing - or worse,
fabricating - trumped-up credentials for the author of a letter - much less a
guest article - to be published. No, I am of the opinion that Wells wrote
and/or gave permission for himself to be referred to in such a way.
Of course, we can look at Wells' own words, emphasis mine:
from http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/DARWIN.htm
"Since completing my second Ph.D. a few months ago, I have taught embryology
at a state college and am now a post-doctoral research biologist at Berkeley,
writing articles critical of Darwinism. I am one of a growing number of
highly-educated and articulate critics of Darwinism, located in universities
all over North
America, who stay in touch via the internet and occasionally join forces at
academic conferences."
This article appears to have been written a few years ago, as to the best of
my knowledge Wells graduated in 1996. However, as a post-doctoral research
biologist one should expect these articles that Wells boasts of to be found
in the scientific literature. Alas, they are not. Where did this
post-doctoral research biologist get his articles critical of Darwinism
published? Where else - the internet! Origins and Design!
================================
I also pointed out that Wells currently signs himself as a fellow of the
Discovery Institute.
===============================
Currently as in 2000, sure. Not currently as in 1999, as the article in the
Detroit newspaper clearly showed.
===============================
If Susan and Huxter and anyone else wants to dismiss Wells' as "dishonest"
as a pretext so they can ignore his book, they are free to do so. They do the
same to *everyone* that disagrees with them, so this currency is cheapened
by its overissue.
=================================
I will ignore his book not because Wells trumps up his own credentials when
it suits his purpose or because he admits - boasts - that the actual reason
he went for a science doctorate was to 'destroy Darwinism' which
automatically makes his claims on the subject suspect (and for which none of
his actual scientific papers lend even a hint of credence to), but because
what he points out - at least according to the snippets one can read - is
essentially irrelevant. Perhaps I will look into the icons of
creationism/intelligent design and see what blatant falsehoods and
unsupported assertions are being thrown around as 'proof' of ID (the EF comes
to mind...), or perhaps I could 'grade' Wells own writings on the topic,
using my own spectacularly biased and self-serving grading system as Wells
does. Maybe I will do that...
=================================
Their standard `shoot the messenger' response to criticism tells fair-minded
people that there is something seriously wrong with their position that they
need to so often resort to character assassinattion of their rivals, rather
than
answer their arguments.
=================================
In reality, what it should tell fair minded people is that the messengers of
the 'anti-Darwinist' movement are more agenda-driven than fact-driven.
Wells' continued harping on the peppered moth story, for example, belies his
inability to see or understand exactly what a scientific experiment consists
of. The fact that all he and the bulk of the ID/creation camp has done - in
fact, all they seem capable of doing - is engaging in what amounts to Darwin
and 'Darwinism' bashing. The fair minded person should be asking themselves
Why, if ID and creationism are valid scientific positions unto themselves, do
the majority (all?) ID/creationism proponents' arguments consist almost
entirely of attacks on something else? WHERE is the actual POSITIVE support
for THEIR position?
THAT is what the fair minded person should be thinking...
==================================
What matters in the end is not whether hard-line atheist evolutionists like
Susan and Huxter accept the evidence in Wells' book of the deceitful and
fraudulent practices of Darwinists in trying to prop up their shaky theory,
but
whether John Q Public accepts it.
================================
Why should it matter to science in the least what John Q. "ignorant of
science" Public thinks about it? It is apparently a big shock to hard-line
creationist supernaturalists, but scientific issues are not decided by what
John Q. Public thinks, nor is science done by publishing biased personal
opinions. Maybe John Q. Public should be thinking about why anti-darwinists
feel the need to prop up their shaky credentials and hide their true agendas?
Maybe John Q. Public should wonder why ID advocates and anti-materialistic
supernaturalistic religionists like Steve can't seem to actually support
THEIR version of reality with actual evidence and must rely on textbook
errors and aspersion casting?
========================================
BTW, as part of my winding down my discussions on the Reflector, I have
terminated my current threads with Huxter. I am not prepared to wade
through all the `muck' in order to see if there are any genuine scientific
points in his posts. I assume there aren't otherwise why would Huxter
not have used them immediately *since this was precisely his field*?
Steve
========================
As usual, Steve bails when he can't cut the mustard and, as usual, Steve
feels the need to cast aspersions to cover his own inability to simply
address the points I brought up. The only 'muck' was Steve's, as I clearly
pointed out n my last replies to him. I cannot help it that Steve resorts to
the hackneyed shenanigans of creationist propagandists the world over. I
cannot help it that Steve refused to actually *ask* any questions, then
claimed that if I were a *true* scientist, I would have just written page
after page of information for the poor little layman Steve, who is just here
to learn.
I am still waiting for Steve to tell me exactly what I should do so that
anti-materialistic anti-Darwinists on the internet will consider me a *true*
scientist, because it hurts me so much that Steve and his ilk don't consider
me one, primarily because I am not always 'nice'.
I offered explanations for all of my positions in my last posts to Steve and
asked Steve to actually ask me what he wanted me to address so that I could
provide him with the answers he might want. John Q. Public should be asking
Why Steve has now decided to bail and get off a few last digs on the way out,
like so many propagandizing creationists before him....
Scott
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 14:50:04 EST