Jack Krebs gets 2007 Darwin Award

Comments (16) on “Jack Krebs gets 2007 Darwin Award”

1. Why was Darwin nicknamed “Gas”?

2. 2006 Darwin Awards

3. Apparently Darwin was nicknamed “Gas” because he did chemistry experiments to synthesis several gases. Not sure why Salvador mentions that, but my best guess is that Salvador is trying to promote the idea that Darwin had flatulence, therefore evolution is wrong. Hmm, not sure quite what the logic in the middle there is.

4. Sal, iInteresting post about you recently at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, called Sal Cordova’s Rank Dishonesty. Here is the last paragraph:

   Sal has completely reversed the meaning of the article and I can’t imagine he did so unintentionally. You simply cannot read his description of the article and the article itself without having the utter dishonesty of his misrepresentation of it hit you in the face. Kiss your credibility goodbye, Sal. This is rank, rank deceitfulness. Tell us again about how evolution undermines morality while you tell lies like this.

5. Can you trust anything from a guy who looks like this?
   Take a look at what some of his friends said about Eddie.

   Even PT hosts people who are devoted to the death of species, and the destruction of civil government. Look up the Pacific Law Foundation: they are a pack of deadly supporters of species extinction, clear cutting and death. Tim Sandefur for these pigs and earns his living working to clear cut forests and eliminate protection of endangered species. Ed Brayton is his self-professed “libritarina” soul mate. They are scum that should not be entertained as “science” presenters or supporters. They can not be trusted further than they can be kicked.

   Brayton made a big deal when he was trying to protect the Mirecki attackers about his imaginary role as a “founder” of PT and how this precluded me from criticizing him, but as Wesley has documented, PT was largely my idea while the development was done by others.

   Mr. Brayton, where did you recieve your clinical training? I was a Professor of Psychiatry, probably well before you were even a graduate. I considerable research on alcoholism that was highly respected. It is my considered professional opinion that you are an incompetent, both medically and scientifically. Don’t worry, you share this with the likes of Bill Frist and his distant diagnosis of Terri Schiavo.

   And let’s not forget who brought this story to our attention, Pixie the Insincere Debater
   Welcome to Pixie Land!
   Look away! Look away!
   Look away! Pixie Land.

   Chorus:
   O, I wish I was in Pixie!
   Hooray! Hooray!
   In Pixie Land I’ll take my stand
   To live and die in Pixie
   Away, away,
   Away to irrationality in Pixie!

6. So your response is:

   1) Brayton should not be trusted because of his appearance (I suspect this was actually meant as humour, i.e., poking fun at the appearance of another person – you know, like bullying is so funny).

   2) Some comments by other people about Brayton, by people you label as his friends, but that seems unlikely.

   3) I should not be trusted.

   Do you think any of these is suggestive that what Brayton wrote was not true?

7. 1) Isn’t that a part of your Darwinian belief? You know, when you were running around with the baboon cousins, you learn to read the appearance of other animals and recognize signs of danger? If you think that is a problem then it just means Darwinian evolution is a farce. (Consult your evolutionary psychologist for further detail)

   2) You are right, friends might be too strong a term how about fellow Darwinian worshippers?

   3) I’ve given specific reasons why you are not a reliable source of information.

   I see no reason to accept the spin and such inane arguments from a Darwinian worshipper.

8. Right. So there really was no attempt to refute Brayton, just to claim that he and I should not be trusted on principle.

9. Right. You meant you and Brayton cannot refute Sal’s criticism that evolution undermines morality so you attack him personally.

10. Hey, I am happy to agree that “Sal’s criticism of evolution undermines morality”

11. easy fix!

12. Yeah, right. See the huge moral gulf between the Christians, as exemplified by Sal, attacking Darwin personally, and the evolutionists, as exemplified by Brayton, attacking Sal personally.

13. Right. So there really was no attempt to refute Sal, just your usual ad hominem. I thought so.

14. My usual ad hominem vs Sal’s usual ad hominen. Atheist morality vs Christian morality. Which is better?

15. [my response to Brayton]

    Consider the fictional statement:

    “Phlgiston is essential for chemistry. It’s dissappointment it’s not being taught in chemistry as it’s the most central theory of chemistry”
    Would such a statement, in your mind, be embarrasing admission of phlogiston’s irrelevance to chemistry. You fail to see the there is a comparable situation with MacCallum’s statement.

    The very existence of her editorial refutes the point she was arguing for. It was an unwitting admission of Darwinism’s irrelevance.

    Would it find it more acceptable if instead of “admission” I said, “unwitting admission”.

    I wrote orginially:

    And it turns out, Michael Egnor’s claims are being supported by an uncomfortable admission by Catriona J. MacCallum, the Senior Editor at PLoS Biology.

    would this be better:

    And it turns out, Michael Egnor’s claims are being supported by an uncomfortable (albeit unwitting) admission by Catriona J. MacCallum, the Senior Editor at PLoS Biology.

    I didn’t have to add the qualifier “albeit unwitting” for the benefit of pro-ID UD readers as we’re so used to seeing Darwinists shooting themselves in the foot by arguing how central their ideas are to science, and yet, they have to wage campaigns to persude professionals to include more Darwinism in their curriculums. Don’t you see the irony in that Ed?

    The pro-ID crowd at UD does not have the same reverence for evolutionary biology that you do. We think so ill of evolutionary biology that we veiw most of what Darwinists write as examples of self-incrimination and self-embarrassment. My fans realized I was upholding MacCallum’s article as an example of self-embarrassment and self-incrimination of her field.

    Had you realized that that was the perspective and audience I was writing for, you would not have accused me of lying. Look again at the fictional Phlogiston quote above, and you’ll see that from my perspective. MacCallum was making a similar statement regarding Darwinism [at least in our eyes she was].

    You may not agree with me, but an opinion is not a lie, even if the opinion could be wrong.

    You could of course show why Darwinism is relevant to science by refuting the other essays I provided links for regarding Blyth, Maxwell, and Jerry Coyne. I don’t think however you’ll succeed as Darwinism is not science. You’re greatly mistaken in defending it, but I applaud your valor in defending what you believe is true. But I assert, you are deeply mistaken, and your on the wrong side of debate. Maybe you might consider if you prejudice toward Creationists and ID proponents is clouding your perception of facts. Maybe you’ll come around one day. I hold out hope that you will as I don’t put you in the same category of PZ Myers or Larry Moron.

    Thank you for letting me post my reply.

    regards
    Sal

16. Atheist morality vs Christian morality. Which is better?

    For the record, I have friends who are atheists and I respect them. Don’t presume that I inherently despise someone for merely being an atheist. I think they are gravely mistaken, but the greatest leaders of Christendom were former atheists.

    I do have a generally low opinion of Darwinists trying to ruin academic and professional careers. I consider them scum.

    I don’t count Brayton in that crowd, but I do count PZ Myers and Larry Moron in that crowd.

    Salvador

Comments are closed.