Aug 262006
 


Over the years, an anti-IDist and professor of biology by the handle “Art” or “Art G” has been haunting the internet. He has progressively gotten more shrill and non sensical. He used to be at ARN and ISCID, trying to argue science. He was actually somewhat effective when argued from his field of expertise. Of late, he’s reduced himself to a the role of troll at Telic Thoughts.

I vanquished him pretty badly at ARN Critique of Endosymbiosis.

He doesn’t even argue science hardly anymore, but just retreats into non-sensical polemics. He’s been a thorn in the IDers side, but finally we’re beginning to finish him off. He used to be a respected foe, now he is nothing more than a pest. But I suspect the TTers are having a lot of fun taking shots at their old foe.

In fact Guts is looking forward to him coming back so they can feed him a little more humble pie.

Salvador

  4 Responses to “Sith Lord Art G is in a melt down”

  1. I’ve noticed the same thing. I especially like the thread where he went off his rocker with ad hominem attacks on Joy for organic farming.

  2. A lot of them are going off their rocker. Bill Dembski’s former teacher and mortal enemy Jeff Shallit accused me of dishonesty because I jokingly used the phrase, “creationism in a tuxedo” instead of “creationism in a cheap tuxedo”. He made a big deal out of my comment which was clearly intended as a pun. See: Breaking News: A Creationist Dishonestly Doctors a Quotation

    Shallit writes:

    Yes, I know it is not really breaking news. Creationists have been dishonestly doctoring quotes for years. But still, each new episode can be breathtaking in its chutzpah.

    The latest dishonesty comes from that paragon of boot-licking virtue, Salvador Cordova. In a recent post at Uncommon Descent, he says of intelligent design

    Some critics claim that it’s ‘creationism in a tuxedo’. My response to them is: what’s so bad about being in a tuxedo?”

    Although it’s true that some people have called intelligent design “creationism in a tuxedo”, the original citation is the far more damning appraisal that intelligent design is “creationism in a cheap tuxedo”.

    The essay in question by me was: Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse

  3. Why is it the case that only IDPs or Darwin doubters are ever “guilty” of misquoting? Isn’t it amazing that 100% of the time that some anti-ID person quotes and ID advocate the quote is:
    A)totally accurate
    B)completely in context with no ambiguity
    C)Understood 100% correctly by the quoter, with no misunderstand whatsoever

    BUT whenever and IDP quotes some pro-Darwinian, then, 100% of the time the quote is:
    A)completely inaccurate
    B)taken out of context (after all Darwinists never mean what they say)
    C)not at all understood by the quoter who, being and IDP, is simply too stupid to get it.

    What are the probabilities of such an outcome by chance alone?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.