Orson Scott Card: The brain eater takes another bite--Intelligent Design
David M. Palmer
<http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1.html>
Pointwise rebuttal:
<http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/01/orson_scott_card_intelligent
_d.php>
--
David M. Palmer dmpa...@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
Gene Ward Smith
David M. Palmer wrote:
> Orson Scott Card on intelligent design:
> <http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1.html>
>
> Pointwise rebuttal:
> <http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/01/orson_scott_card_intelligent
> _d.php>
Or, fixing the broken line:
Gene Ward Smith
This is kind of funny: a big fan of Card's novels interviews the actual
man. Boy is she disappointed!
Tim McDaniel
David M. Palmer <dmpa...@email.com> wrote:
>Orson Scott Card on intelligent design:
><http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1.html>
(I *definitely* have to get my tape of Orson Scott Card's
"Secular Humanist Revival Meeting" transferred to CD ...)
I think that's actually not *too* bad an article: he sets up several
strawmen on the scientific side and I think he seems to conflate
evolution with Darwinian evolution, but he does have some valid
arguments too (like the sometimes-ignored "excluded middle").
--
"Me, I love the USA; I never miss an episode." -- Paul "Fruitbat" Sleigh
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
Gene Ward Smith
Tim McDaniel wrote:
> I think that's actually not *too* bad an article: he sets up several
> strawmen on the scientific side and I think he seems to conflate
> evolution with Darwinian evolution, but he does have some valid
> arguments too (like the sometimes-ignored "excluded middle").
He also seems to think the ID people are agreeing with him; that is,
that evolution happended , and that natural selection played some role.
But do they?
Carl Dershem
dmpa...@email.com:
> Orson Scott Card on intelligent design:
> <http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1.html>
>
> Pointwise rebuttal:
> <http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/01/orson_scott_card_intelligent
> _d.php>
Scott is another one of those guys that tend to conflate some intelligence
in one area (he's a decent writer, and one or two of his books are very
good) into a general assumption of genius. It's not unusual, and I've
known a few Nobel laureates who had the same problem.
Of course, he's also a pompous, self-aggrandizing twit in many areas, but
somehow he manages to avoid claiming that also makes him a pompous, self-
aggrandizing twit in all areas. Strange how that works, eh?
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
Joe Pfeiffer
>
> This is kind of funny: a big fan of Card's novels interviews the actual
> man. Boy is she disappointed!
>
> http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card/
I come away from the story with a much higher opinion of Card than of the
interviewer...
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
skype: jjpfeifferjr
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Ward Smith <genewa...@gmail.com> writes
>
don't.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Gene Ward Smith
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> I come away from the story with a much higher opinion of Card than of the
> interviewer...
She presents herself in an unflattering light, to be sure. On the other
hand Card says stuff like "gay rights is a collective delusion" and in
the next sentence denies being a homophobe.
That makes about as much sense as your typical Pat Robertson soundbite.
jwra...@aol.com
jwra...@aol.com
To acknowledge evolution and to argue about exactly how it happened
(i.e., to not fully buy into the natural selection hypothesis) is not
outside the realm of scientific discourse. I get the impression though
that most ID supporters are really against evolution at all (even if
they pretend to take the more reasonable position) and actually believe
that the Earth is far younger than it actually is.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> This is kind of funny: a big fan of Card's novels interviews the actual
>> man. Boy is she disappointed!
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card/
>
>I come away from the story with a much higher opinion of Card than of the
>interviewer...
It's clear they both have "issues."
--
"Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war?"
Justin Hayward
rja.ca...@excite.com
As for the spokesmen in either case, we don't necessarily hear what
they believe, only what they say they believe. Indeed, several
creationist or ID proponents have had science errors in their argument
pointed out to them in detail and have gone on preaching the same
errors. You figure they're not as dumb as they seem because they
/couldn't/ be /that/ dumb and learn to walk.
Peter Huebner
says...
>
> >"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> This is kind of funny: a big fan of Card's novels interviews the actual
> >> man. Boy is she disappointed!
> >>
> >> http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card/
> >
> >I come away from the story with a much higher opinion of Card than of the
> >interviewer...
>
> It's clear they both have "issues."
>
Ra-ther!!!
People who smell a homophobe and a racist behind every tree are about as
odiferous as racist homophobes & fundies (if not as evil, as a rule).
However, I do more or less agree with the author in that I can no longer, in
any way, recognize the O.S. Card who seemed to have a pretty good grasp of
ethics and a wide knowledge of religious issues and the ability to take a step
back and look at things with perspective. He looks much more like a blinkered
person with a religious obsession to me these days, meaning that I began
finding the Alwin Maker chronicles unpalatable half way through the third book
and the Memories cycle gave me bad indigestion in the second volume already -
Card slipped from my 'must buy' to the 'do by all means avoid' list of authors
somewhere around that point.
Card's statements on civilian bystanders killed in war certainly had me gagging
(assuming they were reported correctly) and steaming from the ears. Those are
not the words of a person concerned with ethics (outside of intra-church
politics). Sure does not co-incide with any accord on civilized behaviour and
rules of war I have come across in recent decades. :-(
-P.
--
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
Gene Ward Smith
Peter Huebner wrote:
> Ra-ther!!!
> People who smell a homophobe and a racist behind every tree are about as
> odiferous as racist homophobes & fundies (if not as evil, as a rule).
Card does not say "I think people ought to be able to fire whomever
they choose, for any reason, and refuse to rent apartments for any
reason." He in effect is saying "it should not be legal to fire
someone, or refuse to rent to them, because they are Mormons. But it
*should* be legal to fire someone, or refuse to rent to them, for being
gay". If that strikes you as a non-bigoted position, I'm afraid the
stench here is coming from you.
Keith Morrison
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> To acknowledge evolution and to argue about exactly how it happened
>> (i.e., to not fully buy into the natural selection hypothesis) is not
>> outside the realm of scientific discourse. I get the impression though
>> that most ID supporters are really against evolution at all (even if
>> they pretend to take the more reasonable position) and actually believe
>> that the Earth is far younger than it actually is.
>
>As for the spokesmen in either case, we don't necessarily hear what
>they believe, only what they say they believe. Indeed, several
>creationist or ID proponents have had science errors in their argument
>pointed out to them in detail and have gone on preaching the same
>errors. You figure they're not as dumb as they seem because they
>/couldn't/ be /that/ dumb and learn to walk.
It's not hard to find out what the people behind, say, the Discovery
Institute believe. Many basically think that all science has to be reigned
in so religion is recognized as being supreme (as in, if the religious
authorities, namely them, make a decision as to what is to be taught,
that's it). They see evolution as the wedge: if they can get that
precedent then they can use it as a base to go after other sciences like
geology and astronomy which they see as threatening (due to issues like the
age of the planet).
Yes, I realize what a stupid goal this is, but that's them.
JJ Karhu
<no....@this.address> wrote:
>Card's statements on civilian bystanders killed in war certainly had me gagging
>(assuming they were reported correctly) and steaming from the ears. Those are
>not the words of a person concerned with ethics (outside of intra-church
>politics). Sure does not co-incide with any accord on civilized behaviour and
>rules of war I have come across in recent decades. :-(
Well, that part seemed -- to me, at least -- more like realism. If you
go to wage war on someone, you WILL kill innocent bystanders. It's
utter self-deception to claim otherwise. It's unavoidable.
// JJ
Peter Huebner
genewa...@gmail.com says...
> If that strikes you as a non-bigoted position,
>
I never said it did. It's a whopper. I merely agreed with the other poster that
she seemed to have 'issues'. In my perception, reading the interview
chronologically, she seemed to obsess about it long before Card let fly, in
fact made any mention of it. Well, whatever. Guess she had 20/20 hindsight by
then and that's hard to disregard in the recalling of an event/conversation,
but she came across a lot like a PC whiner in the process. Personally I'm about
as far from the religious nuts on this (and virutally everything else) as you
can reasonably get.
Please note my use of the subjunctive. SEEMED to have, CAME ACROSS A LOT LIKE.
She may not be that at all. I know how easily it can happen that one's words
get understood in a totally different way from how they were meant; and I would
like to go on record as saying that I can sure identify with her outraged
response to Card. His statement is repugnant.
westprog
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bbv7t1d349ublbdtj...@4ax.com...
> On 21 Jan 2006 23:33:08 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu>
> wrote:
> >"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> This is kind of funny: a big fan of Card's novels interviews the actual
> >> man. Boy is she disappointed!
> >> http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card/
> >I come away from the story with a much higher opinion of Card than of the
> >interviewer...
> It's clear they both have "issues."
"When he says provocative things I agree with, he's my brother." The
reaction to things Card said that were at the very least debateable were way
over the top. I get the impression that she liked the books so much that she
assumed she had to agree with everything he said.
J/
westprog
"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137988852.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Peter Huebner wrote:
He does, however, specifically say that "I would find it appalling to fire
people from most positions because of it." That's the kind of remark that
would normally invite probing comments to see just what he meant by it.
J/
westprog
"JJ Karhu" <kur...@modeemi.fi> wrote in message
news:9vc9t1l85hamfehlv...@4ax.com...
I can see that there would be pacifists who would say that because innocent
bystanders will be killed, then war can never be undertaken. There will be
pragmatists who say that even though innocents will be killed, then
sometimes evil must be opposed. But people who say - yes, we must sometimes
wage war, but we will never kill any innocents - they're just fooling
themselves, in a very harmful and dangerous way.
In WW1, French conscripts were paid a pittance, lived miserably, and died in
huge numbers. In Paris, a few miles away, civilians were living well, with
comparitively little risk. Who were the innocents?
J/
Peter Bruells
> I can see that there would be pacifists who would say that because
> innocent bystanders will be killed, then war can never be
> undertaken. There will be pragmatists who say that even though
> innocents will be killed, then sometimes evil must be opposed. But
> people who say - yes, we must sometimes wage war, but we will never
> kill any innocents - they're just fooling themselves, in a very
> harmful and dangerous way.
> In WW1, French conscripts were paid a pittance, lived miserably, and
> died in huge numbers. In Paris, a few miles away, civilians were
> living well, with comparitively little risk. Who were the innocents?
At the very least the children of the civilians who lived a few miles
away, also the women, who during that time weren't allowed to vote.
westprog
"Peter Bruells" <p...@ecce-terram.de> wrote in message
news:m2d5ii3...@rogue.ecce-terram.de...
More innocent than the people who were forced into uniform and shot if they
refused to fight?
J/
The Amazing Human Echo
Gene Ward Smith
The Amazing Human Echo wrote:
> "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsm...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > This is kind of funny: a big fan of Card's novels interviews the actual
> > man. Boy is she disappointed!
>
> > http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card/
>
> I come away from the story with a much higher opinion of Card than of
> the interviewer...
But both are better than The Amazing Human Echo, don't you think?