What Pagano Didn't Answer...
Dave Horn
Pagano presumed to respond to my "And Pagano Ran Away" article; but left off
the following items under the pretense that my argumentation didn't get any
better. I countered that it was REALLY because questions were asked that
Pagano couldn't answer and I will add that he likely couldn't find ways to
obfuscate around them, either. For the record, here's the rest of that
article.
* * *
Buckna wrote (and Pagano posted):
>7. You can refer to articles by atheists Stephen Jay Gould and
>RichardDawkins as "Holy Writ".
Only creationists have ever been noted doing this -- at least by me. Name
anyone in any scientific field concerned with the subject matter whom has
ever referred to any writings by Gould or Dawkins as "Holy Writ."
>6. If in need of spare cash, rob a bank and call it "natural selection".
Describe what part of natural selection could be used to justify such an
action.
>5. Whenever a dating method gives a young age, simply add
>more zeros.
Provide an example of such a dating method.
>4. You get to cross out the word "God" and print "Hydrogen" at
>Genesis 1:1.
I have seven translations of the Bible in my personal library, Pagano.
"God" appears untouched in Genesis 1:1 in every copy.
>3. You get to use quotation marks around the word "scientists"
>when writing about creationists who received science Ph.D.'s
>from major universities.
What science are these creationists doing? A degree does not make one a
scientist.
>2. You don't have to make any distinction between fact and
>wild speculation.
Provide an example of a "fact" cited by evolution and EXPLAIN WHY it is
"wild speculation."
>AND THE "NUMBER ONE" COOL THING ABOUT BEING
>AN EVOLUTIONIST IS...
>
>1. When someone asks:"Name one thing about evolution you
>know to be true? How do you know it's true?" you just refer to your
>continuously evolving collection of "Just-So Stories"!
Pick any of the answers to this question and EXPLAIN WHY it is a "just so
story."
>David Buckna<http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-282.htm>
><dabu...@awinc.com>* * *
Of course, neither Buckna nor Pagano responded, so I sent the following:* *
*
A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote in article <33A06E...@fast.net>...
> The following is posted on behalf of David Buckna <dabu...@awinc.com>:
Would this be the same "David Buckna" that Karl Crawford tried to sick on
me, and whom sent me an email a couple of days ago, was quickly refuted, and
hasn't been heard from since?
> If "Late Show" host David Letterman became a creationist,
>would he include a Top 10 list on evolution?
Yep...this would be him. I refuted this list once already -- and recently
enough that there's no need to do it again. However, here are the 10
not-so-cool things about being a creationist:
10. You can make claims and never have to support them.
09. You can presume for yourself expertise that you do not possess.
08. You can presume to make others DISprove your arguments, even though
you've made no attempt to support them (IAW item #10).
07. You can presume for yourself the authority to ask questions while never
having to answer any.
06. You can presume that science and evolution must be proven TO YOU and
so, consequently, must be proven to everybody.
05. You can presume that others are responsible for YOUR education.
04. You can presume to answer all refutations with "is NOT," "is TOO," and
"does NOT" and "does TOO" argumentation.
03. You can presume to redefine well-established scientific terms to suit
your arguments.
02. You can presume to be insulted when all that has happened is
correction.
And the number one not-so-cool thing about being a creationist is...
01. You can lie in the service of the Lord...and never even be worried
about going to Hell.
By the way...I have 30 others. Care to hear them...?* * *
And Pagano ran away...
Roger Schlafly
Dave Horn wrote in message <6ktc26$6...@news3.newsguy.com>...
>>7. You can refer to articles by atheists Stephen Jay Gould and
>>RichardDawkins as "Holy Writ".
>
>Only creationists have ever been noted doing this -- at least by me. Name
>anyone in any scientific field concerned with the subject matter whom has
>ever referred to any writings by Gould or Dawkins as "Holy Writ."
Gould treats Darwin's writings as Holy Writ.
John Wilkins
In article <6ktd6v$np$1...@camel0.mindspring.com>, "Roger Schlafly"
<nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
Hmm, then he's an adherent of Higher Criticism, for he often objects to
what Darwin (and Wallace) says and claims that later research has shown
him (them) to be wrong...
--
John Wilkins
Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Melbourne, Australia
<mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
Roger Schlafly
John Wilkins wrote in message ...
> |Gould treats Darwin's writings as Holy Writ.
>
>Hmm, then he's an adherent of Higher Criticism, for he often objects to
>what Darwin (and Wallace) says and claims that later research has shown
>him (them) to be wrong...
Yeah, that aspect of Gould never made much sense to me. Maybe Gould
thinks he is some sort of Prophet.
Dave Horn
Roger Schlafly wrote in message <6ktd6v$np$1...@camel0.mindspring.com>...
>Dave Horn wrote in message <6ktc26$6...@news3.newsguy.com>...
>>>7. You can refer to articles by atheists Stephen Jay
>>>Gould and RichardDawkins as "Holy Writ".
>>
>>Only creationists have ever been noted doing this -- at least
>>by me. Name anyone in any scientific field concerned with
>>the subject matter whom has ever referred to any writings by
>>Gould or Dawkins as "Holy Writ."
>
>Gould treats Darwin's writings as Holy Writ.
DOES he, now?
Really?
Explain.
Or is this another in a long, boring line of creationist one-line responses?
Dave Horn
Roger Schlafly wrote in message <6ktfci$stf$1...@camel0.mindspring.com>...
>John Wilkins wrote in message ...
>> |Gould treats Darwin's writings as Holy Writ.
>>
>>Hmm, then he's an adherent of Higher Criticism, for he
>>often objects to what Darwin (and Wallace) says and
>>claims that later research has shown him (them) to be
>>wrong...
John is right about this. As much as there is obvious admiration for Darwin
in Gould's writings, it is clear that Darwin is viewed as a pioneer rather
than any sort of diety from which is derived "Holy Writ."
The POINT of the Buckna item, of course, was satire. But MY point in
response was that the only people who ever actually refer to Darwin's
writings as "Holy Writ" are creationists.
>Yeah, that aspect of Gould never made much sense to me.
>Maybe Gould thinks he is some sort of Prophet.
Or maybe -- and more likely -- you are being critical of something you don't
understand.
geo...@usa.net
In article <6ktfci$stf$1...@camel0.mindspring.com>,
> > |Gould treats Darwin's writings as Holy Writ.
> >
> >Hmm, then he's an adherent of Higher Criticism, for he often objects to
> >what Darwin (and Wallace) says and claims that later research has shown
> >him (them) to be wrong...
>
> thinks he is some sort of Prophet.
>
>
There is an easy solution to this conundrum:
Gould does not treat Darwin'w writings as Holy Writ.
(In spite of what other people have told you.)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
sregoR .M divaD
Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> Dave Horn wrote in message <6ktc26$6...@news3.newsguy.com>...
> >>7. You can refer to articles by atheists Stephen Jay Gould and
> >>RichardDawkins as "Holy Writ".
> >
> >Only creationists have ever been noted doing this -- at least by me. Name
> >anyone in any scientific field concerned with the subject matter whom has
> >ever referred to any writings by Gould or Dawkins as "Holy Writ."
>
If one considers "Holy Writ" to be dictated or inspired by a divine
being, I see no evidence in anything produced by Gould to indicate that
he thought Darwin divine.
If one considers "Holy Writ" to be complete or infalliable, once again,
Gould certainly has quite a few corrections for Darwin.
If you consider "Holy Writ" to be merely the starting point for an
inquest which ultimately abandons it's source (as many creationists do),
then you're still not that much closer...
What _do_ you consider "Holy Writ?"
--
The Young American
===========================================
"Who will venture to place the authority of
Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?"
-John Calvin, on Ps. 93:1
from his Commentary on Genesis
.
David Johnston
Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> Dave Horn wrote in message <6ktc26$6...@news3.newsguy.com>...
> >>7. You can refer to articles by atheists Stephen Jay Gould and
> >>RichardDawkins as "Holy Writ".
> >
> >Only creationists have ever been noted doing this -- at least by me. Name
> >anyone in any scientific field concerned with the subject matter whom has
> >ever referred to any writings by Gould or Dawkins as "Holy Writ."
>
> Gould treats Darwin's writings as Holy Writ.
Does he? And yet, he amends them.
stu...@kaku.soest.hawaii.edu
In article <6ktd6v$np$1...@camel0.mindspring.com>,
Everglades...
Stuart
Roger Schlafly
Dave Horn wrote in message <6kuamv$p...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>John is right about this. As much as there is obvious admiration for
Darwin
>in Gould's writings, it is clear that Darwin is viewed as a pioneer rather
>than any sort of diety from which is derived "Holy Writ."
I disagree. Gould just wrote a whole article in the NY Times whining about
people quoting Darwin. He appears to be deeply offended. Kind of
like taking the Lord's name in vain. Why would he be so offended if
Darwin were just a pioneer?
>response was that the only people who ever actually refer to Darwin's
>writings as "Holy Writ" are creationists.
Is Gould a creationist? He acts like it sometimes.
Dave Horn
Roger Schlafly wrote in message <6kuu3q$ps6$1...@camel0.mindspring.com>...
>Dave Horn wrote in message <6kuamv$p...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>>John is right about this. As much as there is obvious
>>admiration for Darwin in Gould's writings, it is clear that
>>Darwin is viewed as a pioneer rather than any sort of
>>diety from which is derived "Holy Writ."
>
>I disagree.
Your agreement or lack of same is irrelevant. Gould would claim no divine
inspiration from Darwin or his writings, has never (that I am aware of --
and I am well-read on Gould) referred to Darwin as anything but the
scientific pioneer that he was while demonstrating errors that Darwin made.
What cleric ever took his own "Holy Writ" and showed error contained within
it? Others have gone a little deeper into this, demonstrating that what I
said is true. Gould does not refer to Darwin's writings as "Holy Writ" and
I challenge you to cite anywhere that he does. Your response below is
simply obfuscation:
>Gould just wrote a whole article in the NY Times whining
>about people quoting Darwin.
Really! Identify the specific "whine," tell us why it is "whining," and why
he is wrong.
Many people, you see, MISquote Darwin and misapply what he wrote. Most
people who criticize Darwin (or Gould) have no clue about him (or them) and
what he (they) have contributed to science.
>He appears to be deeply offended. Kind of like taking
>the Lord's name in vain. Why would he be so offended if
>Darwin were just a pioneer?
Maybe it's the same sort of indignation that comes from having watched this
sort of thing occur over decades? S'pose that could be it? Or maybe he
just has an aversion to creationist dishonesty?
But that doesn't make Darwin's writings "Holy Writ," nor does it mean that
Gould views them that way.
>>response was that the only people who ever actually
>>refer to Darwin's writings as "Holy Writ" are creationists.
>
>Is Gould a creationist? He acts like it sometimes.
Oh, REALLY? Well, first of all, this doesn't address my point. Second of
all, Gould is not a creationist and third, I challenge you to show us just
how he "acts like it sometimes."
A Pagano
Dave Horn wrote:
Pagano presumed to respond to my "And Pagano Ran Away" article; but left
off the following items under the pretense that my argumentation didn't
get any better. I countered that it was REALLY because questions were
asked that Pagano couldn't answer and I will add that he likely couldn't
find ways to obfuscate around them, either. For the record, here's the
rest of that article.
Pagano replies:
One will notice of course that the foaming-at-the-mouth Horn doesn't
claim that I evaded or obsfucated on the topics to which I did respond.
He simply assumes that my decision to ignore his other points is
indication of inability. This is characteristic of evolutionists: in
the absence of evidence they assume away. At any rate you have provided
me with sufficient amuzement to last for a while, so you're going to
have to find someone else to satisfy your rantings and ravings.
...Oh and please don't forget to take your medication...
Regards,
T Pagano
Roger Schlafly
Dave Horn wrote in message <6kv1d3$5...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>Roger Schlafly wrote in message <6kuu3q$ps6$1...@camel0.mindspring.com>...
>>Gould just wrote a whole article in the NY Times whining
>>about people quoting Darwin.
>
>Really! Identify the specific "whine," tell us why it is "whining," and
why
>he is wrong.
Here is the May 29, 1998 NY Times, with a May 31 response that explains one
of Gould's errors. I think he is whining because he is upset that someone
would
criticize his 3 favorite idols: Freud, Marx, and Darwin.
Let's Leave Darwin Out of It
By STEPHEN JAY GOULD
As a paleontologist by trade and (dare I say it?) a card-carrying liberal in
politics, I have been amused, but also a bit chagrined, by the current fad
in conservative intellectual circles for invoking the primary icon of my
professional world -- Charles Darwin -- as either a scourge or an ally in
support of cherished doctrines.
Since Darwin cannot logically fulfill both roles at the same time, and since
the fact of evolution in general (and the theory of natural selection in
particular) cannot legitimately buttress any particular moral or social
philosophy in any case, I'm confident that this greatest of all biologists
will remain silent no matter how loudly conservatives may summon him.
The scourging of Darwin -- the idea that if we drive him away, then we can
awaken -- has animated a religious faction that views an old-style Christian
revival as central to a stable and well-ordered polity. In "Slouching
Towards Gomorrah," for example, Robert Bork writes, "The major obstacle to a
religious renewal is the intellectual classes," who "believe that science
has left atheism as the only respectable intellectual stance. Freud, Marx
and Darwin, according to the conventional account, routed the believers.
Freud and Marx are no longer taken as irrefutable by intellectuals, and now
it appears to be Darwin's turn to undergo a devaluation."
Then, exhibiting as much knowledge of paleontology as I possess of
constitutional law -- that is, effectively zero -- Mr. Bork cites as
supposed evidence for Darwin's forthcoming fall the old, absurd canard that
"the fossil record is proving a major embarrassment to evolutionary theory."
If Mr. Bork will give me a glimpse of that famous pillar of salt on the
outskirts of Gomorrah, I shall be happy, in return, to show him the abundant
evidence we possess of intermediary fossils in major evolutionary
transitions -- mammals from reptiles, whales from terrestrial forebears,
humans from apelike ancestors.
Meanwhile, the celebration of Darwin -- the claim that if we embrace him, he
will validate the foundations of our views -- motivates the efforts of more
secular believers determined to enshrine conservative political dogmas as
the dictates of nature. In National Review, for example, John O. McGinnis
argued last year that "the new biological learning holds the potential for
providing stronger support for conservatism than any other new body of
knowledge has done."
"We may fairly conclude," wrote Mr. McGinnis, "that a Darwinian politics is
a largely conservative politics." Mr. McGinnis then lists the biological
bases -- self-interest, sexual differences and "natural inequality" as
examples of right-wing ideology resting on the foundations of evolutionary
theory.
Moreover, according to Mr. McGinnis, Darwinism seems tailor-made not only to
support conservative politics in general, but also to validate the
particular brand favored by Mr. McGinnis himself. For example, he uses
specious evolutionary arguments to excoriate "pure libertarianism." Thus he
invokes Darwin to assert that the state has legitimate authority to compel
people to save for their declining years or to rein in their sexual
proclivities.
"The younger self is so weakly connected to the imagination of the older
self (primarily because most individuals did not live to old age in
hunter-gatherer societies) that most people cannot be expected to save
sufficiently for old age," Mr. McGinnis writes.
"Therefore there may be justification for state intervention to force
individuals to save for their own retirement." Also, "Society may need to
create institutions to channel and restrain sexual activity."
Misuse of Darwin has not been confined to the political right. Liberals have
also played both contradictory ends of the same game -- either denying
Darwin when they found the implications of his theory displeasing, or
invoking him to interpet their political principles as sanctioned by nature.
Some liberals bash Darwin because they misconceive his theory as a statement
about overt battle and killing in a perpetual "struggle for existence." In
fact, Darwin continually emphasized that this "struggle" for existence was
metaphorical and best pursued by cooperation in some circumstances and by
competition in others.
Using the opposite strategy of embracing Darwin, many early-20th-century
liberals lauded reproduction among the gifted, while discouraging
procreation among the supposedly unfit.
The Darwin bashers and boosters can both be refuted with simple and
venerable arguments.
To the bashers, I can assert only that Darwinian evolution continues to grow
in vibrancy and cogency as the centerpiece of the biological sciences --
and, even more important, that no scientific truth can pose any threat to
religion rightly conceived as a search for moral order and spiritual
meaning.
To those who would rest their religious case on facts of nature, let them
note the wise words of Bishop Thomas Burnet, the 17th-century scientist:
"'Tis a dangerous thing to engage the authority of Scripture in disputes
about the Natural World . . . lest Time, which brings all things to light,
should discover that to be evidently false which we had made Scripture to
assert." So the Roman Catholic Church learned in the 17th century after
accusing Galileo of heresy -- and so should modern fundamentalists note and
understand today when they deny the central conclusion of biology.
Those who recruit Darwin to support a particular moral or political line
should remember that, at best, evolutionary biology may give us some insight
into the anthropology of morals -- why some (or most) peoples practice
certain values, perhaps for their Darwinian advantage. But science can never
decide the morality of morals. Suppose we discovered that aggression,
xenophobia, selective infanticide and the subjugation of women offered
Darwinian advantages to our hunter-gatherer ancestors a million years ago on
the African savannahs. Such a conclusion could not validate the moral worth
of these or any other behaviors, either then or now.
Perhaps I should be flattered that my own field of evolutionary biology has
usurped the position held by cosmology in former centuries, and by
Freudianism earlier in our own times, as the science deemed most immediately
relevant to deep questions about the meaning of our lives. But we must
respect the limits of science if we wish to profit from its genuine
insights. G. K. Chesterton's famous epigram -- "Art is limitation; the
essence of every picture is the frame" -- applies equally well to science.
Darwin himself understood this principle in suspecting that the human brain,
evolved for other reasons over so many million years, might be ill equipped
for solving the deepest and most abstract questions about life's ultimate
meaning. As he wrote to the American botanist Asa Gray in 1860: "I feel most
deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect.
A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton."
Those who would misuse Darwin to advance their own agendas should remember
the biblical injunction that provided the title to a great play about the
attempted suppression of evolutionary theory in classrooms: "He that seeketh
mischief, it shall come unto him. . . . He that troubleth his own house
shall inherit the wind."
Stephen Jay Gould, a professor of paleontology at Harvard, is the author,
most recently, of "Questioning the Millennium."
To the Editor:
Stephen J. Gould (Op-Ed, May 29) argues that a biological window on human
behavior provides little help in the search for sensible political
structures. He thus must either believe that biology tells us little about
human behavior or that human behavior does not much constrain our politics.
But he cannot believe the first without rejecting the main proposition of
Darwinism that man is an animal shaped by natural selection. He cannot
believe the second without rejecting political philosophers like James
Madison, who rested his support for the Constitution on his analysis of
human nature.
Mr. Gould's view that the biology of sexuality and aging is largely
irrelevant to politics makes one wonder what he would consider in making
social policy. For example, if sexuality is such a powerful urge that men
often do not think through its consequences, the absence of institutions
like child support will allow them to transfer the costs of their acts to
society.
JOHN O. MCGINNIS
Turin, Italy, May 29, 1998
Roger Schlafly
David Johnston wrote in message <3572F0...@telusplanet.net>...
>> Gould treats Darwin's writings as Holy Writ.
>
>Does he? And yet, he amends them.
Maybe Gould thinks he is God, or a Prophet.
Dave Horn
Poor, pitiful Pagano...
[Posted and emailed]
A Pagano wrote in message <3573190F...@fast.net>...
>Dave Horn wrote:
>Pagano presumed to respond to my "And Pagano Ran Away"
>article; but left off the following items under the pretense that my
>argumentation didn't get any better. I countered that it was
>REALLY because questions were asked that Pagano couldn't
>answer and I will add that he likely couldn't find ways to obfuscate
>around them, either. For the record, here's the rest of that article.
>
> Pagano replies:
>One will notice of course that the foaming-at-the-mouth...
As we have seen in the past and as we see now, hypocritical Pagano whines
considerably about _ad hominem_ in others but does not pass up a chance to
indulge in it, himself.
So, Pagano, WHY was my commentary "foaming-at-the-mouth?"
>Horn doesn't claim that I evaded or obsfucated on the topics
>to which I did respond.
There was no need. Just minutes before, I had received and answered that
message and pointed out the evasion and obfusation that did occur with those
few comments that Pagano DID muster up the courage to respond to. (I
realize this is bad grammar, folks, but I'm a bit pressed for time at the
moment.) Pagano may find that repeating himself incessantly is a good
tactic and it goes without saying that he can't say "hello" without making a
speech, but Pagano DID obfuscate about those points and I did point it out.
Interestingly enough, Pagano is avoiding that commentary to respond to this
one. But that commentary was emailed to Pagano as well as posted to this
newsgroup -- he couldn't have missed it, since I did NOT email the
commentary to which he DOES respond. I didn't see the need since I had
already emailed a copy of those points to him.
>He simply assumes that my decision to ignore his other
>points is indication of inability.
If this had happened only once, I would not assume such a thing; but it
happens with every specific question on every specific point put to Pagano
(say THAT fast ten times).
>This is characteristic of evolutionists: in the absence of
>evidence they assume away.
Oh, we have significant evidence of Paganoesque evasion, obfuscation,
misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and intellectual tomfoolery. If we
likewise did not have this evidence, I would likewise not assume Pagano of
being incapable of responding to the points that he didn't answer. The fact
that he did not respond and is even now avoiding the cogent points provided
in that message demonstrates that Pagano is, indeed, incapable of a
rational, straight-forward answer to any of the questions put to him. He is
a fraud.
>At any rate you have provided me with sufficient
>amuzement to last for a while, so you're going to
>have to find someone else to satisfy your rantings
>and ravings.
In other words, Pagano knows he is thoroughly incapable of dealing with the
direct questions put to him, so he will again ignore them. That doesn't
mean that I won't ask them again.
>...Oh and please don't forget to take your medication...
Ah, those questions about your alleged psychological expertise also await
answers, o' verbose and hypocritical one.
Get over yourself, Pagano. I've already explained this to you: You will be
challenged. If you answer, at least that will be honest -- even if you're
wrong. If you don't answer, it will be assumed that you cannot answer --
and this is a reasonable assumption.
Like I said: Welcome to the crosshairs, Pagano. Perhaps you should pray
for Karl's return.
Still waiting, Pagano.
Laurence A. Moran
In article <6kvced$qk5$1...@camel0.mindspring.com> "Roger Schlafly"
>
>Dave Horn wrote in message <6kv1d3$5...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>>Roger Schlafly wrote in message <6kuu3q$ps6$1...@camel0.mindspring.com>...
>>>Gould just wrote a whole article in the NY Times whining
>>>about people quoting Darwin.
>>
>>Really! Identify the specific "whine," tell us why it is "whining," and
>why he is wrong.
>
>
>Here is the May 29, 1998 NY Times, with a May 31 response that explains one
>of Gould's errors. I think he is whining because he is upset that someone
>would criticize his 3 favorite idols: Freud, Marx, and Darwin.
Stephen Jay Gould writes at a level that's way above kindergarten. He uses
words that have more than two syllables and he expresses ideas that are
complex. It requires a certain amount of education and intelligence to
fully appreciate what Gould has to say about evolution and society. The
average high school graduate should be up to the task if they've been
taught evolution in school.
Perhaps this explains why Roger Shlafly is having so much trouble?
Larry Moran
may...@andrews.edu
In article <3573190F...@fast.net>,
A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> Dave Horn wrote:
> Pagano presumed to respond to my "And Pagano Ran Away" article; but left
> off the following items under the pretense that my argumentation didn't
> get any better. I countered that it was REALLY because questions were
> asked that Pagano couldn't answer and I will add that he likely couldn't
> find ways to obfuscate around them, either. For the record, here's the
> rest of that article.
>
> Pagano replies:
> claim that I evaded or obsfucated on the topics to which I did respond.
> the absence of evidence they assume away.
The evidence overwhelmingly favors evolution.
At any rate you have provided
> me with sufficient amuzement to last for a while, so you're going to
> have to find someone else to satisfy your rantings and ravings.
>
> ...Oh and please don't forget to take your medication...
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
--vince
Hal Vickery
In article <6kvchc$4so$1...@camel0.mindspring.com>, "Roger Schlafly"
<nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
Or perhaps you have no idea what you are talking about. I lean towards
this view.
H. Vickery
stu...@kaku.soest.hawaii.edu
In article <6kuu3q$ps6$1...@camel0.mindspring.com>,
"Roger Schlafly" <nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dave Horn wrote in message <6kuamv$p...@news1.newsguy.com>...
> >John is right about this. As much as there is obvious admiration for
> Darwin
> >in Gould's writings, it is clear that Darwin is viewed as a pioneer rather
> >than any sort of diety from which is derived "Holy Writ."
>
> people quoting Darwin. He appears to be deeply offended. Kind of
> like taking the Lord's name in vain. Why would he be so offended if
> Darwin were just a pioneer?
Probably because Gould himself has been quoted out of context by so many idiot
creationists....
Stuart
>
> >response was that the only people who ever actually refer to Darwin's
> >writings as "Holy Writ" are creationists.
>
> Is Gould a creationist? He acts like it sometimes.
>
>
Clevester Jones
Are you any relation to Phyllis?
Roger Schlafly wrote:
[snip]
Dave Horn
Well, well, well...I see we have another creationist who likes to snip and
paste and doesn't really answer the points...as well as a creationist who
likes to run from support for his claims:
Roger Schlafly wrote in message <6kvced$qk5$1...@camel0.mindspring.com>...
>Dave Horn wrote in message <6kv1d3$5...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>>Roger Schlafly wrote in message <6kuu3q$ps6$1...@camel0.mindspring.com>...
>>>Gould just wrote a whole article in the NY Times whining
>>>about people quoting Darwin.
>>
>>Really! Identify the specific "whine," tell us why it is "whining,"
>>and why he is wrong.
>
>Here is the May 29, 1998 NY Times, with a May 31 response
>that explains one of Gould's errors. I think he is whining because
>he is upset that someone would criticize his 3 favorite idols: Freud,
>Marx, and Darwin.
This is probably a setup for later criticism of Gould as a Marxist. I
wonder if ol' Rog here will ever get around to showing us what other
creationists have failed to show us, i.e., that Gould's political views
somehow falsify whatever science he might be doing.
>Let's Leave Darwin Out of It
>
>By STEPHEN JAY GOULD
This is a copyrighted article that was posted by Schlafly without apparent
permission. I read it -- then snipped it.
Schlafly ignores what I have already said to him earlier in this discussion.
He ignores my reply to the complaint that Gould provided no evidence for
evolution while challenging Bork to provide a "pillar-of-salt" evidence." I
will say it again: This exchange appeared on on OpEd page of a major
newspaper. It did not appear in the SCIENCE section (if, indeed, there is
one in the _New York Times_ as there is in my local _Rocky Mountain News_ on
occasion). Schlafly then wanted to disagree with my assertion that Gould
does not view the writings of Darwin as "Holy Writ." In reply to my
explanation as to why that is not likely, Schlafly posts copyrighted
material that really doesn't address that point. To compound this, Schlafly
includes an apparent letter to the editor that he claims "explains one of
Gould's errors" but which is, in fact, only an "is NOT" argument that
doesn't "explain," at all. It simply disagrees.
I have no interest in Gould's political views or those who disagree with
him. *I* disagree with a lot of his political views. So what? The
particular point of contention here is the claim that Gould views Darwin's
writings as "Holy Writ." I am challenging THAT.
Schlafly, where is your evidence? Try to provide it without the seven basic
creationist dance movements.
Mark Isaak
In article <6kvchc$4so$1...@camel0.mindspring.com>,
Roger Schlafly <nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>David Johnston wrote in message <3572F0...@telusplanet.net>...
>>> Gould treats Darwin's writings as Holy Writ.
>>
>>Does he? And yet, he amends them.
>
>Maybe Gould thinks he is God, or a Prophet.
You're the one claiming knowledge despite contrary evidence. Where did
you get the idea that *you* are a God or Prophet?
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"That which you know, you ignore because it is inconvenient. That
which you do not know, you invent." - J. Michael Straczynski
Ken Cox
Roger Schlafly wrote:
> Here is the May 29, 1998 NY Times, with a May 31 response that explains one
> of Gould's errors.
Have someone explain "copyright" to you.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Roger Schlafly
Mark Isaak wrote in message <6l16su$ldg$1...@shell6.ba.best.com>...
>You're the one claiming knowledge despite contrary evidence. Where did
>you get the idea that *you* are a God or Prophet?
I posted some of my evidence, Gould's own writings. For the record, I
am not a God or a Prophet.
Roger Schlafly
Dave Horn wrote in message <6l15am$h...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>Well, well, well...I see we have another creationist who likes to snip and
>paste and doesn't really answer the points...as well as a creationist who
>likes to run from support for his claims:
I am not a creationist. I posted Gould's whole article to end criticisms
that I was taking him out of context.
>This is probably a setup for later criticism of Gould as a Marxist. I
>wonder if ol' Rog here will ever get around to showing us what other
>creationists have failed to show us, i.e., that Gould's political views
>somehow falsify whatever science he might be doing.
I was criticizing a *political* column that Gould wrote, and one in which
Gould mentioned Marx. As such, Gould's Marxism is relevant.
>I have no interest in Gould's political views or those who disagree with
>him. *I* disagree with a lot of his political views. So what? The
I don't find his political views very interesting either, except to the
extent
they might offer an explanation for erroneous thinking.
>particular point of contention here is the claim that Gould views Darwin's
>writings as "Holy Writ." I am challenging THAT.
Does "Holy Writ" have a precise definition? From Gould's writings,
I get the impression that Gould idolizes Darwin, and he rereads and
quotes Darwin in a manner analogous to the way some people quote
the bible. That is my impression. If you disagree, fine.
Dave Horn
Roger Schlafly wrote in message <6l1e52$2nq$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
Your evidence was insufficient. For the record, you did NOT post evidence
that Gould views the writings of Darwin as "Holy Writ," even though you
would claim that he did. It never seems to occur to creationists that
perhaps the problem is that the writings are not accurately represented by
those whom don't happen to agree with them. Since Gould, himself, has been
on the receiving end of such treatment by creationists, one can hardly blame
him if there's righteous indignation in some of his words.
Dave Horn
Roger Schlafly wrote in message <6l1f88$m5j$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
>Dave Horn wrote in message <6l15am$h...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>>Well, well, well...I see we have another creationist who
>>likes to snip and paste and doesn't really answer the
>>points...as well as a creationist who likes to run from
>>support for his claims:
>
>I am not a creationist.
Uh, huh...we'll see. If time demonstrates that you are not, I will retract;
but you wouldn't be the first to come into this newsgroup claiming not to be
a creationist and then it turns out that you are.
>I posted Gould's whole article to end criticisms
>that I was taking him out of context.
I didn't make that claim and, at the moment, I don't care. However, you DID
post an copyrighted article without permission; and you STILL haven't dealt
with the "Holy Writ" issue as we will see below.
>>This is probably a setup for later criticism of Gould as
>>a Marxist. I wonder if ol' Rog here will ever get around to
>>showing us what other creationists have failed to show
>>us, i.e., that Gould's political views somehow falsify
>>whatever science he might be doing.
>
>I was criticizing a *political* column that Gould wrote, and
>one in which Gould mentioned Marx. As such, Gould's
>Marxism is relevant.
As we can see, you DID avoid the issue. What does this have to do with
topical discussions in this newsgroup and how is Gould's SCIENCE
demonstrated to be somehow deficient because of his political views?
>>I have no interest in Gould's political views or those
>>who disagree with him. *I* disagree with a lot of his
>>political views. So what? The
>
>I don't find his political views very interesting either,
>except to the extent they might offer an explanation for
>erroneous thinking.
And that "erroneous thinking" would be...?
>>particular point of contention here is the claim that
>>Gould views Darwin's writings as "Holy Writ." I am
>>challenging THAT.
Let's watch the evasion?
>Does "Holy Writ" have a precise definition?
Pretty much...yes. This has already been noted by another correspondent.
Still, it was YOUR contention that Gould DOES view Darwin's writings as
"Holy Writ." *Now* you want us to define "Holy Writ" for you? If you
didn't know what you were talking about, why did you comment?
"Holy Writ" is generally viewed (especially in the context of the
Buckna-Pagano post) as divinely inspired (if not actually written by a
divine entity of some sort). That's real general and somewhat simplified;
but it makes the point.
How do YOU define "Holy Writ?"
>From Gould's writings, I get the impression that Gould
>idolizes Darwin...
I idolize John Wayne. That doesn't mean I would view "The Alamo" as a
revelation. As writers go, I tend to idolize Saul Bellow, but I would never
view his writings as "Holy Writ." There are many others I tend to idolize,
as most people do.
>...and he rereads and quotes Darwin in a manner analogous
>to the way some people quote the bible.
Nonsense. Gould writes extensively on evolutionary science in a manner
similar to Carl Sagan did with general science and astronomy. He's been
writing a monthly column on the subject in _Natural History_ for over two
decades. Darwin is, for all worths and purposes, the father of modern
evolutionary thought. Of COURSE he's going to appear and be referenced
frequently in Gould articles. That's just common sense. But I couldn't
help but notice that in your zeal to brand Gould as some sort of wild-eyed
acolyte, you have ignored those of us whom have pointed out that while Gould
may very well admire Darwin quite a bit, he also has worked to correct
errors in what Darwin wrote or said. Gould has no unrealistic expectations
of Darwin, the man, and I am still waiting for you to demonstrate otherwise
with something other than:
>That is my impression. If you disagree, fine.
It goes beyond disagreement. You are wrong. Now, I can demonstrate why --
and some of us already have. Do you have any plans to support your
contentions or is this just another variation of "because I say so" from a
stealth creationist?
Time will tell.
geo...@usa.net
In article <6l1f88$m5j$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
"Roger Schlafly" <nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dave Horn wrote in message <6l15am$h...@news1.newsguy.com>...
> >Well, well, well...I see we have another creationist who likes to snip and
> >paste and doesn't really answer the points...as well as a creationist who
> >likes to run from support for his claims:
>
> that I was taking him out of context.
>
> >wonder if ol' Rog here will ever get around to showing us what other
> >creationists have failed to show us, i.e., that Gould's political views
> >somehow falsify whatever science he might be doing.
>
> I was criticizing a *political* column that Gould wrote, and one in which
> Gould mentioned Marx. As such, Gould's Marxism is relevant.
>
Since you have the article, it should be easy to confirm that
the only mention of Marx is inside quote marks - Gould is
quoting Bork, who mentioned Marx (twice). Does the fact that Bork
mentioned Marx make him a Marxist? Gould does mention in the
article that he is a liberal, but the question remains, of
what relevance is that to the truth of his statements in the
article?
> >I have no interest in Gould's political views or those who disagree with
> >him. *I* disagree with a lot of his political views. So what? The
>
> I don't find his political views very interesting either, except to the
> extent
> they might offer an explanation for erroneous thinking.
>
> >particular point of contention here is the claim that Gould views Darwin's
> >writings as "Holy Writ." I am challenging THAT.
>
> Does "Holy Writ" have a precise definition? From Gould's writings,
> I get the impression that Gould idolizes Darwin, and he rereads and
> quotes Darwin in a manner analogous to the way some people quote
> the bible. That is my impression. If you disagree, fine.
>
>
You are ignoring the fact that some of Gould's theories contradict
Darwin.
Roger Schlafly
Dave Horn wrote in message <6l1jo2$o...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>how is Gould's SCIENCE
>demonstrated to be somehow deficient because of his political views?
I didn't say that it was, but since you asked -- Gould has a Marxist
world view in which he doesn't believe there is any such thing as
objective scientific truth. As a result, his supposedly scientific
conclusions have admittedly unscientific biases.
>"Holy Writ" is generally viewed (especially in the context of the
>Buckna-Pagano post) as divinely inspired (if not actually written by a
>divine entity of some sort). That's real general and somewhat simplified;
>but it makes the point.
Under that definition, it is not Holy Writ. Gould doesn't even believe in
God, AFAIK. But he does revere Darwin's writings in a way that is
well beyond what is reasonable, IMO.
> Darwin is, for all worths and purposes, the father of modern
>evolutionary thought.
I object to this characterization. There are a lot of fine modern
evolutionary biologists. What distinguishes Gould is that he is a popular
expositor. In the process, he often makes a fool out of himself.
The NY Times article is an example. If the article had been anonymous,
I would have concluded that the author was an idiot. Since Gould is
the author, I assume that he is smart enough to know better, but his
view is distorted by his political and philosophical biases.
Roger Schlafly
geo...@usa.net wrote in message <6l1pu0$p1a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> Does the fact that Bork mentioned Marx make him a Marxist?
No. Bork was critical of Marx.
> Gould does mention in the
>article that he is a liberal, but the question remains, of
>what relevance is that to the truth of his statements in the
>article?
Obviously Gould thought it was relevant -- that's why he mentioned it.
Gould was talking about citing Gould in a political context. He disagrees
with some of the political conclusions. That's how Gould's politics are
relevant.
>You are ignoring the fact that some of Gould's theories contradict
>Darwin.
Some of Gould's theories contradict common sense, too. This is hardly
a fact in his favor.
Dave Horn
Roger Schlafly wrote in message <6l261j$sfs$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
>geo...@usa.net wrote in message <6l1pu0$p1a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> Does the fact that Bork mentioned Marx make him a Marxist?
>
>No. Bork was critical of Marx.
As noted (in the portion of this message that you snipped out), Gould only
mentioned Marx. How does this make him a Marxist?
>>Gould does mention in the article that he is a liberal,
>>but the question remains, of what relevance is that to
>>the truth of his statements in the article?
>
>Obviously Gould thought it was relevant -- that's why he
>mentioned it.
You weren't asked why Gould thought it was relevant. You were asked "of
what relevance is that to the truth of his statements in the article?"
Why did you avoid the question?
>Gould was talking about citing Gould in a political context.
>He disagrees with some of the political conclusions. That's
>how Gould's politics are relevant.
More evasion. Explain this statement.
>>You are ignoring the fact that some of Gould's theories
>>contradict Darwin.
>
>Some of Gould's theories contradict common sense, too.
>This is hardly a fact in his favor.
And which theories would THESE be? Be prepared to explain WHY.
Roger Schlafly
Dave Horn wrote in message <6l27be$6...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>As noted (in the portion of this message that you snipped out), Gould only
>mentioned Marx. How does this make him a Marxist?
It doesn't. I don't know what made Gould a Marxist. He is, however, a
self-professed Marxist.
>You weren't asked why Gould thought it was relevant. You were asked "of
>what relevance is that to the truth of his statements in the article?"
I don't think there is very much truth to Gould's statements in his article.
Gould was talking about citing Marx in a political context.
wf...@enter.netxx
On 1 Jun 1998 17:13:37 -0400, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> Pagano replies:
This is characteristic of evolutionists: in
>the absence of evidence they assume away.
says the guy who assumes, without evidence, the earth is 6000 yrs old
and ignores evidence which refutes his statement that the big bang was
'never tested'...
sounds like pagano has little use for evidence...
may...@andrews.edu
In article <357420...@research.bell-labs.com>,
Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
> Roger Schlafly wrote:
> > Here is the May 29, 1998 NY Times, with a May 31 response that explains
one
> > of Gould's errors.
>
you so much, why don't you sue him? Is posting copyrighted material on the
internet really illegal or even "unethical"?
--vince
may...@andrews.edu
In article <6l1f88$m5j$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
"Roger Schlafly" <nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dave Horn wrote in message <6l15am$h...@news1.newsguy.com>...
> >Well, well, well...I see we have another creationist who likes to snip and
> >paste and doesn't really answer the points...as well as a creationist who
> >likes to run from support for his claims:
>
> I am not a creationist. I posted Gould's whole article to end criticisms
> that I was taking him out of context.
>
> >This is probably a setup for later criticism of Gould as a Marxist. I
> >wonder if ol' Rog here will ever get around to showing us what other
> >creationists have failed to show us, i.e., that Gould's political views
> >somehow falsify whatever science he might be doing.
>
> I was criticizing a *political* column that Gould wrote, and one in which
> Gould mentioned Marx. As such, Gould's Marxism is relevant.
>
> >him. *I* disagree with a lot of his political views. So what? The
>
> I don't find his political views very interesting either, except to the
> extent
> they might offer an explanation for erroneous thinking.
>
> >particular point of contention here is the claim that Gould views Darwin's
> >writings as "Holy Writ." I am challenging THAT.
>
> Does "Holy Writ" have a precise definition? From Gould's writings,
> I get the impression that Gould idolizes Darwin, and he rereads and
> quotes Darwin in a manner analogous to the way some people quote
> the bible. That is my impression. If you disagree, fine.
>
plays in the acceptance of a given idea; this emphasis is especially
misplaced when we are dealing with someone as talented and iconoclastic as
Gould.
Alexey Merz
Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> Dave Horn wrote in message <6ktc26$6...@news3.newsguy.com>...
> >>7. You can refer to articles by atheists Stephen Jay Gould and
> >>RichardDawkins as "Holy Writ".
> >
> >Only creationists have ever been noted doing this -- at least by me. Name
> >anyone in any scientific field concerned with the subject matter whom has
> >ever referred to any writings by Gould or Dawkins as "Holy Writ."
>
> Gould treats Darwin's writings as Holy Writ.
But NOT as infallible. There are MANY places in Gould's work where
he points out errors in Darwin's.
..........................................................................
Alexey Merz | URL: http://www.webcom.com/alexey | email: ale...@webcom.com
| PGP public key: http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu/ | voice:503/494-6840
| "I had also thought that Vanna was the ultimate TV creature,
| a Dada artist who does not speak but methodically destroys
| language by revealing cliches letter by letter, day after
| day, year after year." -Andrei Codrescu
Roger Schlafly
may...@andrews.edu wrote in message <6l2kt8$13c$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>People unfamiliar with science often overemphasize the role that authority
>plays in the acceptance of a given idea; this emphasis is especially
>misplaced when we are dealing with someone as talented and iconoclastic as
>Gould.
Agreed. Gould should know better.
Laurence A. Moran
>Dave Horn wrote in message <6l27be$6...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>>As noted (in the portion of this message that you snipped out), Gould only
>>mentioned Marx. How does this make him a Marxist?
Roger Schlafly responds,
>It doesn't. I don't know what made Gould a Marxist. He is, however, a
>self-professed Marxist.
Gould is not a Marxist. He has never claimed to be a Marxist. Gould's
ignorant enemies make this false claim quite often. It's typical of the
way they try to discredit him. (Although Gould himself points out that
the "charge" of Marxism reveals more about the accuser than the victim.)
>>You weren't asked why Gould thought it was relevant. You were asked "of
>>what relevance is that to the truth of his statements in the article?"
>
>
>I don't think there is very much truth to Gould's statements in his article.
How would you know?
Larry Moran
PZ Myers
In article <6l2c2k$d0r$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>, "Roger Schlafly"
<nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
>Dave Horn wrote in message <6l27be$6...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>>As noted (in the portion of this message that you snipped out), Gould only
>>mentioned Marx. How does this make him a Marxist?
>
>
>It doesn't. I don't know what made Gould a Marxist. He is, however, a
>self-professed Marxist.
Really? Then I presume you would be able to cite some specific piece of
text in which Gould professes this. I certainly haven't seen it, and I
haven't yet seen any of the ignorant yahoos who bring this up show any
evidence for the claim.
>
>>You weren't asked why Gould thought it was relevant. You were asked "of
>>what relevance is that to the truth of his statements in the article?"
>
>
>I don't think there is very much truth to Gould's statements in his article.
>
>Gould was talking about citing Marx in a political context.
>He disagrees with some of the political conclusions. That's
>how Gould's politics are relevant.
There was a brief mention of Marx, in the context of criticizing
this latest round of illogical nonsense from the creationist camp. They
are fond of trotting out Darwin, Marx, and Freud, and claiming that
since the last two are fading fast, Darwin is next on the list. You
are aware of the obvious fallacy in that silly bit of logic, aren't you?
The whole point of that article was to castigate people, both liberal
and conservative, who try to use Darwin to support or attack political
causes. Evolution is apolitical, although it can be abused for political
ends. Gould is basically saying that although he is a liberal (hmmm, is
that the same as a Marxist to you?), he can't use his science to
advance his own agenda, and neither should anyone else. He is attempting
to divorce the science from the politics. From that you get the idea
Gould is some Marxist trying to foist his politics on the public? Did you
actually read and understand the article you cited at such length?
--
PZ Myers
geo...@usa.net
In article <6l2c2k$d0r$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
"Roger Schlafly" <nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dave Horn wrote in message <6l27be$6...@news1.newsguy.com>...
> >As noted (in the portion of this message that you snipped out), Gould only
> >mentioned Marx. How does this make him a Marxist?
>
> It doesn't. I don't know what made Gould a Marxist. He is, however, a
> self-professed Marxist.
>
> >what relevance is that to the truth of his statements in the article?"
>
> I don't think there is very much truth to Gould's statements in his article.
>
> Gould was talking about citing Marx in a political context.
> He disagrees with some of the political conclusions. That's
> how Gould's politics are relevant.
>
>
You, Mr. Schlafly, are unable to support your assertions about
Gould without quoting out of context, are are unable to
carry on a usenet debate without snipping away most of the text
of the people you are arguing with. Enough said.
Dick
Let me see. You are blaming Gould for your shortcomings.
Interesting. Those of us who have some knowledge of science,
and have read Gould's works, often disagree with him. You, who
apparently have little knowledge of it, are trying to show that Gould
is a Marxist, which he isn't, and that if he were, it would somehow
taint his science. And then you say he should know better than to
write an opinion because someone like you doesn't have a clue and
will misunderstand it.
Dick (Chris) Craven
University of Ediacara
email: dic...@drizzle.com
Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr
MJR
Roger Schlafly wrote:
> I didn't say that it was, but since you asked -- Gould has a Marxist
> world view in which he doesn't believe there is any such thing as
> objective scientific truth. As a result, his supposedly scientific
> conclusions have admittedly unscientific biases.
Gould may well be a marxist but, having read practically all of his
books, I find it very difficult to believe that he denies objective
scientific truth. I fear that you have confused the popular stereo-
type of a marxist with the popular stereotype of a post-modernist, an
error somewhat similar to the confusion of a mormon with a baptist.
Mogens Johansonsen-Rasmussen
Ken Cox
may...@andrews.edu wrote:
> Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
> > Roger Schlafly wrote:
> > > Here is the May 29, 1998 NY Times
> you so much, why don't you sue him?
I am not the holder of the copyright, so have no standing. That
would be either Gould or the Times.
> Is posting copyrighted material on the
> internet really illegal or even "unethical"?
Yes to the first. As to the second, it depends on your ethics.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Dave Horn
You seem to be snipping away lots of stuff -- is there a problem with
answering the points made?
Roger Schlafly wrote in message <6l25jg$lih$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
>Dave Horn wrote in message <6l1jo2$o...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>>how is Gould's SCIENCE demonstrated to be somehow
>>deficient because of his political views?
Such a question would require you to cite specific items and show how they
are wrong or "deficient because of his political views." You didn't do
that. Instead, you tried to avoid the point:
>I didn't say that it was, but since you asked -- Gould has a
>Marxist world view...
DOES he, now? And you can provide direct quotes from Gould that will
support this?
Gould says he's NOT a marxist. Why do YOU get to say that he is?
>...in which he doesn't believe there is any such thing as
>objective scientific truth.
It's amazing how often you creationists (stealth or otherwise) try to assert
that a person is "this" or "that" or believes something when that person has
never said or indicated such a thing.
So Gould "doesn't believe there is any such thing as objective scientific
truth," eh? Okay...first define "objective scientific truth" and then
support your claim with some EVIDENCE.
>As a result, his supposedly scientific conclusions have
>admittedly unscientific biases.
"Admittedly?" Okay...show us some of his scientific conclusions that are
not scientific (you did say "supposedly," which implies that at least YOU
view them as not scientific) and that were based on his "admittedly
unscientific biases."
>>"Holy Writ" is generally viewed (especially in the context of the
>>Buckna-Pagano post) as divinely inspired (if not actually written
>>by a divine entity of some sort). That's real general and somewhat
>>simplified; but it makes the point.
>
>Under that definition, it is not Holy Writ.
Bingo.
>Gould doesn't even believe in God, AFAIK.
So what? How is the SCIENCE affected and why do we care about anything
else?
I like Gould and I like his writings and his science; but I don't give a
damn whether his religious views agree with mine (or anyone else's) and I
don't care if he wrote in "Hitler" in the last presidential election. I
don't care if he's a "commie, pinko fag" (with a tip of the nonexistent cap
to George Carlin) who buggers sheep on Friday nights as long as his SCIENCE
is right (and it's a consenting sheep).
YOU are claiming that his science IS affected but you are not giving us any
specifics. You have been asked several times now. Why are you not
supporting your claims?
>But he does revere Darwin's writings in a way that is
>well beyond what is reasonable, IMO.
Why is it "beyond reasonable" and be prepared to explain and give examples.
Your opinion isn't worth the bandwidth you use to transmit it without at
least SOME evidence or rationale.
Do you have any?
>>Darwin is, for all worths and purposes, the father of modern
>>evolutionary thought.
>
>I object to this characterization.
And the reason I should care is...?
>There are a lot of fine modern evolutionary biologists.
Agreed. So?
>What distinguishes Gould is that he is a popular expositor.
Uuummm...I was talking about DARWIN with this particular point.
>In the process, he often makes a fool out of himself.
>The NY Times article is an example. If the article had been
>anonymous, I would have concluded that the author was an
>idiot.
Really! And your qualifications to make such a judgement are...?
>Since Gould is the author, I assume that he is smart enough
>to know better, but his view is distorted by his political and
>philosophical biases.
You, of course, are immune to such things, eh?
Dave Horn
Roger Schlafly wrote in message <6l2c2k$d0r$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
>Dave Horn wrote in message <6l27be$6...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>>As noted (in the portion of this message that you snipped
>>out), Gould only mentioned Marx. How does this make him
>>a Marxist?
>
>It doesn't.
Bingo.
>I don't know what made Gould a Marxist. He is, however, a
>self-professed Marxist.
Provide any specific quote directly from Gould that says this.
>>You weren't asked why Gould thought it was relevant. You
>>were asked "of what relevance is that to the truth of his
>>statements in the article?"
>
>I don't think there is very much truth to Gould's statements
>in his article.
Oh...so YOU don't think there was "very much truth to Gould's statements."
Okay...cite specific statements and EXPLAIN *WHY* they are not true.
>Gould was talking about citing Marx in a political context.
>He disagrees with some of the political conclusions. That's
>how Gould's politics are relevant.
I think you're rambling, squirming, and you have no idea what you're talking
about. You make a lot of vague statements but I have yet to see any
specific support for any specific point.
Roger Schlafly
Ken Cox wrote in message <35755E...@research.bell-labs.com>...
>I am not the holder of the copyright, so have no standing. That
>would be either Gould or the Times.
So if you have no standing, and don't even know who does, why are
you complaining?
Roger Schlafly
Laurence A. Moran wrote in message <6l3beh$h74$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
>Gould is not a Marxist. He has never claimed to be a Marxist. Gould's
>ignorant enemies make this false claim quite often. It's typical of the
>way they try to discredit him. (Although Gould himself points out that
>the "charge" of Marxism reveals more about the accuser than the victim.)
Has he denied that he is a Marxist? If Gould disavows Marxism, I'll take
his
word for it. But he has talked about how he admires many of Marx's views,
and his politics and world view appear to be consistent with Marxism.
Dave Horn
Roger Schlafly wrote in message <6l3sgp$43s$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
Regardless, the posting of copyrighted material (without permission and
beyond the provisions of "fair use") is wrong. You *can* be prosecuted for
it.
What's hard about that?
Dave Horn
Roger Schlafly wrote in message <6l3sui$7oi$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
>Laurence A. Moran wrote in message
<6l3beh$h74$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
>>Gould is not a Marxist. He has never claimed to be a Marxist.
>>Gould's ignorant enemies make this false claim quite often.
>>It's typical of the way they try to discredit him. (Although Gould
>>himself points out that the "charge" of Marxism reveals more
>>about the accuser than the victim.)
>
>Has he denied that he is a Marxist?
How much clearer could Larry have made it for you?
Yes...he has denied it. But YOU claim that he is.
Get us a specific reference.
>If Gould disavows Marxism, I'll take his word for it.
Oh, I'm sure he loses lots of sleep at night wondering about how YOU feel on
the subject.
Sheesh.
>But he has talked about how he admires many of
>Marx's views, and his politics and world view appear
>to be consistent with Marxism.
Specifically where might we find specific statements that support these
claims?
Roger Schlafly
MJR wrote in message <3575D4...@octane.kemi.aau.dk>...
> Gould may well be a marxist but, having read practically all of his
>books, I find it very difficult to believe that he denies objective
>scientific truth. I fear that you have confused the popular stereo-
>type of a marxist with the popular stereotype of a post-modernist, an
>error somewhat similar to the confusion of a mormon with a baptist.
Gould says that his approach to evolutionary biology was inspired
by Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Roger Schlafly
geo...@usa.net wrote in message <6l3ef9$vus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>You, Mr. Schlafly, ... are are unable to
>carry on a usenet debate without snipping away most of the text
>of the people you are arguing with. Enough said.
This is usenet. Read one of the FAQs on net etiquette. If you want to read
prior messages in full, get a news reader that will allow you to do that.
Ken Cox
Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> Ken Cox wrote in message <35755E...@research.bell-labs.com>...
> >I am not the holder of the copyright, so have no standing. That
> >would be either Gould or the Times.
>
> So if you have no standing, and don't even know who does, why are
> you complaining?
For much the same reason that I would report a person I saw
shoplifting, even though I would have no standing to prosecute
that person in court. It's against the law. Are you really
having trouble with this concept?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Roger Schlafly
PZ Myers wrote in message ...
>There was a brief mention of Marx, in the context of criticizing
>this latest round of illogical nonsense from the creationist camp. They
>are fond of trotting out Darwin, Marx, and Freud, and claiming that
>since the last two are fading fast, Darwin is next on the list. You
>are aware of the obvious fallacy in that silly bit of logic, aren't you?
That would have a fallacy, all right, but it wasn't the argument that
Gould was attacking. Bork's attack on Darwin was based on the
fossil record (which may have another fallacy, but that's a different
matter).
What is amusing about this is that Darwin, Marx, Freud are Gould's idols.
>to divorce the science from the politics. From that you get the idea
>Gould is some Marxist trying to foist his politics on the public?
Gould is presenting his non-science views to the public. That's why
he writes a NY Times op-ed article. Whether or not he subscribes to
enough of Marx's views to be called a Marxist is a matter of some
debate.
It is much more damaging that Gould is a Freudian. No real
scientist would admit to Freudianism.
Dave Horn
Roger Schlafly wrote in message <6l3tt1$1c6$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
>MJR wrote in message <3575D4...@octane.kemi.aau.dk>...
>>Gould may well be a marxist but, having read practically
>>all of his books, I find it very difficult to believe that he denies
>>objective scientific truth. I fear that you have confused the
>>popular stereotype of a marxist with the popular stereotype
>>of a post-modernist, an error somewhat similar to the
>>confusion of a mormon with a baptist.
>
>Gould says that his approach to evolutionary biology was
>inspired by Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Did you take instruction in "how to participate in newsgroup discussions"
from Karl Crawford or Mark Harpt?
What does THIS have to do with anything? Do you have specific examples of
scientific error on the part of Gould -- Hell, I'll even accept error that
is NOT based on his alleged marxism.
My guess is that you know less about Kuhn than you do about Gould; and
considering that Kuhn wrote the book in the early 60s ('62, I believe),
well, there's certainly been more time to get to know what's in it.
Do you have any evidence to show us? Or do you always rely on vague
assertions and innuendo?
>
>
>
Dave Horn
Roger Schlafly wrote in message <6l3u70$kl3$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
Been there...done that. The POINT is that you snip away most of the
commentary containing questions and challenges put to you and your
participation is vague, at best.
And, frankly, I don't think we need lessons in net etiquette from someone
who illegally posts obviously copyrighted material and then complains when
it's pointed out to him.
PZ Myers
In article <6l3up6$bkq$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>, "Roger Schlafly"
<nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
>PZ Myers wrote in message ...
>>There was a brief mention of Marx, in the context of criticizing
>>this latest round of illogical nonsense from the creationist camp. They
>>are fond of trotting out Darwin, Marx, and Freud, and claiming that
>>since the last two are fading fast, Darwin is next on the list. You
>>are aware of the obvious fallacy in that silly bit of logic, aren't you?
>
>
>That would have a fallacy, all right, but it wasn't the argument that
>Gould was attacking. Bork's attack on Darwin was based on the
>fossil record (which may have another fallacy, but that's a different
>matter).
>
>What is amusing about this is that Darwin, Marx, Freud are Gould's idols.
Marx and Freud are Gould's idols? Wherever did you get that twisted idea?
Darwin and DiMaggio, yes. But Freud and Marx?
I suppose there is no point in asking, since I asked it in the previous
comment and you have quietly snipped it out, but where is your evidence
for these silly claims?
>
>>to divorce the science from the politics. From that you get the idea
>>Gould is some Marxist trying to foist his politics on the public?
>
>Gould is presenting his non-science views to the public. That's why
>he writes a NY Times op-ed article. Whether or not he subscribes to
>enough of Marx's views to be called a Marxist is a matter of some
>debate.
I see. He writes an article suggesting that it is absurd to use Darwinian
biology to prop up political views, and he mentions Marx along the way,
so now he's a Marxist pushing his political opinions on the public.
You sure seem fixated on Marxism, and have mentioned it numerous times in
this forum while pushing your political views. I guess that makes you a
Marxist, attempting to foment bloody revolution through this medium.
>
>It is much more damaging that Gould is a Freudian. No real
>scientist would admit to Freudianism.
You are either an idiot or a troll. I suspect you are both.
--
PZ Myers
Dave Horn
Boy, you're just all over the place, aren't you?
Roger Schlafly wrote in message <6l3up6$bkq$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
>PZ Myers wrote in message ...
>>There was a brief mention of Marx, in the context of
>>criticizing this latest round of illogical nonsense from
>>the creationist camp. They are fond of trotting out Darwin,
>>Marx, and Freud, and claiming that since the last two
>>are fading fast, Darwin is next on the list. You are aware
>>of the obvious fallacy in that silly bit of logic, aren't you?
>
>That would have a fallacy, all right, but it wasn't the argument
>that Gould was attacking. Bork's attack on Darwin was based
>on the fossil record (which may have another fallacy, but that's
>a different matter).
And I challenged you even then to show us WHY the fossil record "may have
another fallacy" but you snipped that out and didn't reply.
>What is amusing about this is that Darwin, Marx, Freud
>are Gould's idols.
Still waiting for a specific citation from Gould's writings that supports
this.
>>to divorce the science from the politics. From that you
>>get the idea Gould is some Marxist trying to foist his
>>politics on the public?
>
>Gould is presenting his non-science views to the public.
Which "non-science views would these be? And even if they WERE
"non-science," so what? It WAS an op-ed page -- not the science section.
Anyone can print a letter -- even a COLUMN -- there, if he or she is
inclined enough to write one. I've seen some pretty ridiculous stuff in
op-ed pages -- sometimes it's funnier than the funnies.
>That's why he writes a NY Times op-ed article.
He's also written for _Parade_ magazine and I think there's a baseball
article or two out there.
Gould is a scientist. Is there some reason he has to be limited to science?
Can't he have interests and opinions outside of science?
>Whether or not he subscribes to enough of Marx's views
>to be called a Marxist is a matter of some debate.
Gee...it didn't seem to be so debatable to you yesterday...
>It is much more damaging that Gould is a Freudian.
Why? What does that have to do with evolutionary science or the science in
which Gould is an acknowledged authority? Is Gould not allowed to have an
opinion either way on Freud?
>No real scientist would admit to Freudianism.
Define "freudianism" (my first degree is in psychology so let's see if your
commentary there is any less off-beat than your commentary on evolution).
Then tell us why "no real scientist would admit to" it.
MoE
Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> PZ Myers wrote in message ...
> >There was a brief mention of Marx, in the context of criticizing
> >this latest round of illogical nonsense from the creationist camp. They
> >are fond of trotting out Darwin, Marx, and Freud, and claiming that
> >since the last two are fading fast, Darwin is next on the list. You
> >are aware of the obvious fallacy in that silly bit of logic, aren't you?
>
> That would have a fallacy, all right, but it wasn't the argument that
> Gould was attacking. Bork's attack on Darwin was based on the
> fossil record (which may have another fallacy, but that's a different
> matter).
>
References, please.
> >to divorce the science from the politics. From that you get the idea
> >Gould is some Marxist trying to foist his politics on the public?
>
> Gould is presenting his non-science views to the public. That's why
> he writes a NY Times op-ed article. Whether or not he subscribes to
> enough of Marx's views to be called a Marxist is a matter of some
> debate.
>
> It is much more damaging that Gould is a Freudian.
References, please.
Chris
may...@andrews.edu
In article <6l2s7r$ltf$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
"Roger Schlafly" <nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>
> may...@andrews.edu wrote in message <6l2kt8$13c$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >People unfamiliar with science often overemphasize the role that authority
> >plays in the acceptance of a given idea; this emphasis is especially
> >misplaced when we are dealing with someone as talented and iconoclastic as
> >Gould.
>
> Agreed. Gould should know better.
>
Like I say, in science authority counts for zero (note how luminaries like
Linus Pauling, Albert Einstein, and Fred Hoyle have been mocked for the
ridiculous ideas they held in their later years).
--vince
Laurence A. Moran
In article <6l3up6$bkq$1...@camel18.mindspring.com> "Roger Schlafly"
<nospam....@cruzio.com> writes:
>It is much more damaging that Gould is a Freudian. No real
>scientist would admit to Freudianism.
Stephen Jay Gould is not a Freudian. This is just another one of your
own stupid ideas.
Larry Moran
Adamski
Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> What is amusing about this is that Darwin, Marx, Freud are Gould's idols.
The holy trinity. Throw in people like Nietzsche, Weber, Lacan, half bake
them and voila! instant left field 'Theory'.
> >to divorce the science from the politics. From that you get the idea
> >Gould is some Marxist trying to foist his politics on the public?
>
> Gould is presenting his non-science views to the public. That's why
> he writes a NY Times op-ed article.
Yes, apparently his readership composing 'his real constituency, the New York
intelligentsia' (ie.aka Jews according to Silberstein).
I liked Gould's characterisation of 'real' religion, something vague to do
with morals. Probably an off shoot of the 'death of god' theology which had a
brief vogue in the 70's (no transcendent deity, but you get to admire the lovely
music, give your humanism a bit of a theological rub without the need for
chanting Eastern mantras, that sort of thing). Has an attraction among people
who like the idea of feeling spiritual but don't believe in 'organised' religion;
akin to a warm bath sensation.
> Whether or not he subscribes to
> enough of Marx's views to be called a Marxist is a matter of some
> debate.
Actually I sent an email awhile back to Phil Johnson on exactly this topic.
The relevant snippets of his reply:
Lewontin publicly and proudly claims to be a Marxist, and argues that
ideology has a strong effect on scientific work. For example, see his book
titled (as I recall) *Biology as Ideology.* Far from wishing to discredit
Lewontin, I thoroughly agree with his view that Darwinism is founded on an
a priori commitment to materialism. See my article "The Unraveling of
Scientific Materialism,"
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9711/johnson.html
Gould is not so easy to classify. In one of the "punk eek" papers, he
referred to himself as having "learned Marxism at his father's knee." (The
quote is from memory.) That has led many people to think that he is a
Marxist, but I believe he has disavowed that label more recently. In any
case, Gould is clearly a man of the Left, but his views are in no way
extremist. He is a conventional Harvard liberal. (He may consider that
more insulting than being called a Marxist.) For my recent article on
Gould, see "The Gorbachev of Darwinism," [End quote]
--
This little thing between me and Spassky is bigger than Frazier and Ali.
It's the free world against the lying, cheating, hypocritical Russians.
Bobby Fischer
Roger Schlafly
may...@andrews.edu wrote in message <6l46o0$3f7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>I don't find it disturbing or uncomfortable that Gould has been wrong,
Roger.
>Like I say, in science authority counts for zero (note how luminaries like
>Linus Pauling, Albert Einstein, and Fred Hoyle have been mocked for the
>ridiculous ideas they held in their later years).
Yes. But I find disturbing that people might consider Gould the "father of
modern evolution" and defend his every word.
Roger Schlafly
Ok, fine. I'll accept that. Lewontin is a Marxist. Gould is not a
Marxist.
Gould is a leftist influenced by Marx. The point is that Gould idols are
Darwin, Marx, Freud. And DiMaggio too, as someone pointed out.
If Bork had criticized DiMaggio also, Gould would have been really upset!
may...@andrews.edu
In article <6l3t31$b...@news3.newsguy.com>,
"Dave Horn" <nos...@mymail.box> wrote:
>
> Roger Schlafly wrote in message <6l3sgp$43s$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
>
> >Ken Cox wrote in message <35755E...@research.bell-labs.com>...
>
> >>I am not the holder of the copyright, so have no
> >>standing. That would be either Gould or the Times.
>
> >So if you have no standing, and don't even know who
> >does, why are you complaining?
>
> beyond the provisions of "fair use") is wrong. You *can* be prosecuted for
> it.
>
> What's hard about that?
>
book?
Roger Schlafly
Laurence A. Moran wrote in message <6l4852$ovn$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
>Stephen Jay Gould is not a Freudian.
So why does he always quote Freud, and cite Freud as a great scientist?
may...@andrews.edu
In article <6l3tj0$b...@news3.newsguy.com>,
"Dave Horn" <nos...@mymail.box> wrote:
>
> Roger Schlafly wrote in message <6l3sui$7oi$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
>
> >Laurence A. Moran wrote in message
>
> >>Gould is not a Marxist. He has never claimed to be a Marxist.
> >>Gould's ignorant enemies make this false claim quite often.
> >>It's typical of the way they try to discredit him. (Although Gould
> >>himself points out that the "charge" of Marxism reveals more
> >>about the accuser than the victim.)
> >
> >Has he denied that he is a Marxist?
>
> How much clearer could Larry have made it for you?
Dave, all that Larry said was that Gould has never claimed to be a Marxist;
no mention is made of "denying" the claim. What is clear from the quote,
however, is that Larry believes that Gould is not a Marxist, and that Gould
doesn't want to be thought of as one.
> Yes...he has denied it. But YOU claim that he is.
You're just making that up. I understand, though; your emotions got the
better of you, I guess.
> Get us a specific reference.
>
> >If Gould disavows Marxism, I'll take his word for it.
>
> Oh, I'm sure he loses lots of sleep at night wondering about how YOU feel on
> the subject.
>
> Sheesh.
>
> >But he has talked about how he admires many of
> >Marx's views, and his politics and world view appear
> >to be consistent with Marxism.
>
> Specifically where might we find specific statements that support these
> claims?
>
I've heard that punctuated equilibria somehow has its roots in the philosophy
of Marxism; I guess the idea is that Darwinism is capitalistic, and
punctuated equilibria is sort of non-Darwinian in a trivial sort of way,
therefore punctuated equilibria is non-capitalistic (= Marxist).
Laurence A. Moran
In article <6l4a1r$27e$1...@camel18.mindspring.com> "Roger Schlafly"
<nospam....@cruzio.com> writes:
He frequently quotes Freud to show where he (Freud) is wrong. Sometimes he
refers to some of Freud's correct ideas. I know of no instance where Gould
refers to Freud as a great scientist. Perhaps you could enlighten us all
since you seem to be such an expert on Gould?
Larry Moran
may...@andrews.edu
may...@andrews.edu
In article <6l403r$c...@news3.newsguy.com>,
"Dave Horn" <nos...@mymail.box> wrote:
>
> Boy, you're just all over the place, aren't you?
>
>
> >PZ Myers wrote in message ...
> >>There was a brief mention of Marx, in the context of
> >>criticizing this latest round of illogical nonsense from
> >>the creationist camp. They are fond of trotting out Darwin,
> >>Marx, and Freud, and claiming that since the last two
> >>are fading fast, Darwin is next on the list. You are aware
> >>of the obvious fallacy in that silly bit of logic, aren't you?
> >
> >That would have a fallacy, all right, but it wasn't the argument
> >that Gould was attacking. Bork's attack on Darwin was based
> >on the fossil record (which may have another fallacy, but that's
> >a different matter).
>
> another fallacy" but you snipped that out and didn't reply.
>
> >are Gould's idols.
>
> this.
>
> >>get the idea Gould is some Marxist trying to foist his
> >>politics on the public?
> >
> >Gould is presenting his non-science views to the public.
>
> "non-science," so what? It WAS an op-ed page -- not the science section.
> Anyone can print a letter -- even a COLUMN -- there, if he or she is
> inclined enough to write one. I've seen some pretty ridiculous stuff in
> op-ed pages -- sometimes it's funnier than the funnies.
>
>
> article or two out there.
>
> Gould is a scientist. Is there some reason he has to be limited to science?
> Can't he have interests and opinions outside of science?
>
> >to be called a Marxist is a matter of some debate.
>
>
>
> which Gould is an acknowledged authority? Is Gould not allowed to have an
> opinion either way on Freud?
>
>
> commentary there is any less off-beat than your commentary on evolution).
>
Sorry to keep refuting you, Dave, but Freudianism is acknowleged bullshit.
There is about as much empirical support for it as there is for creationism.
Personally, I think Gould is too sophisticated to believe in Freudianism; I
don't know where Roger got this idea from.
may...@andrews.edu
In article <35757C...@research.bell-labs.com>,
Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
> Roger Schlafly wrote:
> >
> > Ken Cox wrote in message <35755E...@research.bell-labs.com>...
> > >I am not the holder of the copyright, so have no standing. That
> > >would be either Gould or the Times.
> >
> > So if you have no standing, and don't even know who does, why are
> > you complaining?
>
> shoplifting, even though I would have no standing to prosecute
> that person in court. It's against the law. Are you really
> having trouble with this concept?
>
> --
> Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
>
Roger Schlafly
Dave Horn wrote in message <6l403r$c...@news3.newsguy.com>...
>And I challenged you even then to show us WHY the fossil record "may have
>another fallacy" but you snipped that out and didn't reply.
Maybe the question made no sense. I never claimed that the fossil record
has a fallacy. The fossil record is the fossil record.
>Which "non-science views would these be? And even if they WERE
>"non-science," so what? It WAS an op-ed page -- not the science section.
You answer your own question.
>Gould is a scientist. Is there some reason he has to be limited to
science?
No. But if he says someone idiotic, then he is going to get criticized.
That goes for science and non-science subjects. I would prefer it if he
would limit his public opinions, because he gives some people the
impression that scientists are idiots.
>Why? What does that have to do with evolutionary science or the science in
>which Gould is an acknowledged authority? Is Gould not allowed to have an
>opinion either way on Freud?
Sure, he can have an opinion. But the more he admires Freud, the more it
draws his scientific judgment into question. Would you trust the scientific
work of someone who talks about his belief in astrology?
R. Tang
In article <6l49vj$rct$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
Roger Schlafly <nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
>Ok, fine. I'll accept that. Lewontin is a Marxist. Gould is not a
>Marxist.
>Gould is a leftist influenced by Marx. The point is that Gould idols are
>Darwin, Marx, Freud.
Non sequiter.
The second does not follow from the first.
Almost all modern economists are influenced by Marxism (if only to
the point of know how and why it breaks down). They do not, however, take
them as idols.
This is, as Doc Smith would put it, loose and muddy thinking.
>If Bork had criticized DiMaggio also, Gould would have been really upset!
Well, so would have a whole LOT of people....
>
>
>
--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/arts/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
R. Tang
In article <6l494f$ksa$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
Roger Schlafly <nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>
>Yes. But I find disturbing that people might consider Gould the "father of
>modern evolution" and defend his every word.
This is a blatant mistatement.
Please retract.
Richard Harter
"Roger Schlafly" <nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
>I was criticizing a *political* column that Gould wrote, and one in which
>Gould mentioned Marx. As such, Gould's Marxism is relevant.
I suspect that you are going to have a great deal of difficulty establishing
that Gould is a Marxist. Lewontin avowedly is. Gould's parents were IIRC. But
Gould, himself, no.
IIANM "Gould is a Marxist" is one of those made up facts that circulates in
creationist and neo-conservative circles.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us.
Pigs treat us as equals. -- Winston Churchill
Roger Schlafly
Ken Cox wrote in message <35757C...@research.bell-labs.com>...
>For much the same reason that I would report a person I saw
>shoplifting, even though I would have no standing to prosecute
>that person in court. It's against the law. Are you really
>having trouble with this concept?
>
>--
>Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
I see you work for Ma Bell. I had a neighbor who once owned his own
telephone at a time in which it was illegal to own your own phone.
I've been wanting to turn him in ever since. If I send you the particulars,
can you see to it that justice is done?
geo...@usa.net
In article <6l3u70$kl3$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
"Roger Schlafly" <nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>
> geo...@usa.net wrote in message <6l3ef9$vus$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >You, Mr. Schlafly, ... are are unable to
> >of the people you are arguing with. Enough said.
>
> This is usenet. Read one of the FAQs on net etiquette. If you want to read
> prior messages in full, get a news reader that will allow you to do that.
>
>
they say? Based on your inability to
comprehend what Gould says, I don't have
much confidence in your ability to interpret
the FAQs either.
You seem to want to hide the full content of
previous posts, just as you quote Gould out of
context. The reason is that that your position
cannot be supported by any evidence, and
therefore there is no reason for me to continue
discussing this topic.
Your method of quoting seems dishonest to me. You
may not intend to be dishonest, in which case
you should make an explicit indication of where
you are editing the previous post. For example,
your ... above is ambiguous since it is
impossible to tell whether I wrote that originally
or whether you truncated my quotation. Most
people indicate editing by writing
[snip]
where the original text was.
Rick Gillespie
In article <6l48v3$6or$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <may...@andrews.edu> wrote:
>Gould might be a Marxist.
"I have in my hand a list of 205 cases of individuals who appear to be either
card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party."
It worked in the '50s, but I doubt it will now.
Rick Gillespie
Ken Cox
Roger Schlafly wrote:
> I see you work for Ma Bell. I had a neighbor who once owned his own
> telephone at a time in which it was illegal to own your own phone.
> I've been wanting to turn him in ever since. If I send you the particulars,
> can you see to it that justice is done?
I am continually amazed at the number of people who still
think there is such a thing as "The Phone Company". To fill
you in on the world where we all live, Bell Labs is now part
of Lucent Technologies, which was produced when AT&T broke
up a few years ago. AT&T was itself at that time only the
long-distance and equipment portion of "The Phone Company",
which was broken up by court order into AT&T and the regional
Bells. And that breakup was itself some time after it became
legal to own your own phone.
So to answer your question, no, I can't help you; the company
for which I work has neither standing nor interest in trying
to prosecute. I'm not sure who would have standing, but
would guess the appropriate RBOC, if anyone. I also suspect
the statute of limitations for that law is long past.
Now, answer a question for me. Does the fact that other people
commit crimes in any way justify your own violation of the
copyright law?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Roger Schlafly
geo...@usa.net wrote in message <6l4efd$f46$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>your ... above is ambiguous since it is
>impossible to tell whether I wrote that originally
>or whether you truncated my quotation
Does it matter? Did I misrepresent you?
Richard Harter
"Roger Schlafly" <nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
>may...@andrews.edu wrote in message <6l46o0$3f7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>I don't find it disturbing or uncomfortable that Gould has been wrong,
>Roger.
>>Like I say, in science authority counts for zero (note how luminaries like
>>Linus Pauling, Albert Einstein, and Fred Hoyle have been mocked for the
>>ridiculous ideas they held in their later years).
>Yes. But I find disturbing that people might consider Gould the "father of
>modern evolution" and defend his every word.
I don't know if there are any such people but I wouldn't be surprised. No
matter how silly a notion is one can generally find someone who believes it.
OTOH I really do doubt that you know of any such people. Why you get disturbed
about the possibility of these hypothetical people is your own problem.
I commend your decision to abandon reality for fantasy but I don't think much of
your taste in shoddy unrealities.
stu...@kaku.soest.hawaii.edu
In article <6l3sui$7oi$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
"Roger Schlafly" <nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>
> Laurence A. Moran wrote in message <6l3beh$h74$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
> >Gould is not a Marxist. He has never claimed to be a Marxist. Gould's
> >ignorant enemies make this false claim quite often. It's typical of the
> >way they try to discredit him. (Although Gould himself points out that
> >the "charge" of Marxism reveals more about the accuser than the victim.)
>
> his
> word for it. But he has talked about how he admires many of Marx's views,
> and his politics and world view appear to be consistent with Marxism.
>
>
Stuart
John Wilkins
In article <6l4852$ovn$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>,
lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
|In article <6l3up6$bkq$1...@camel18.mindspring.com> "Roger Schlafly"
|<nospam....@cruzio.com> writes:
|
|>It is much more damaging that Gould is a Freudian. No real
|>scientist would admit to Freudianism.
|
|Stephen Jay Gould is not a Freudian. This is just another one of your
|own stupid ideas.
Absolutely. Of all Schlafly's silly statements, I think this is the one
that most amazed me. The Gould is a Marxist canard reappears with only
mild semantic contortions from time to time and we've come to expect that,
and all antievolutionists want to claim that Darwin is a religious figure
- as it makes them feel better about their own religious devotion - but I
never thought anyone could stretch Gould's writings so far as to make him
a Freudian.
Gould mentions Bishop Ussher, too, so I suppose he's a young-earther...
--
John Wilkins
Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Melbourne, Australia
<mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
John Wilkins
In article <6l3tt1$1c6$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>, "Roger Schlafly"
<nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
|MJR wrote in message <3575D4...@octane.kemi.aau.dk>...
|> Gould may well be a marxist but, having read practically all of his
|>books, I find it very difficult to believe that he denies objective
|>scientific truth. I fear that you have confused the popular stereo-
|>type of a marxist with the popular stereotype of a post-modernist, an
|>error somewhat similar to the confusion of a mormon with a baptist.
|
|
|Gould says that his approach to evolutionary biology was inspired
|by Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
No he doesn't Otto. He and Eldredge mentioned paradigms in their 1972
paper as something that was congenial to their approach, but at that time
we had essays on Kuhn and the uses of advertising, so it doesn't count for
much. Gould rarely mentions paradigms since (in fact I can't recall him
ever doing so, and I'm sensitive to the term,for it makes me want to reach
for my revolver), so it's hardly a major influence, is it.
You're reaching again.
Hal Vickery
In article <6l3sui$7oi$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>, "Roger Schlafly"
<nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
> Laurence A. Moran wrote in message <6l3beh$h74$1...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
> >Gould is not a Marxist. He has never claimed to be a Marxist. Gould's
> >ignorant enemies make this false claim quite often. It's typical of the
> >way they try to discredit him. (Although Gould himself points out that
> >the "charge" of Marxism reveals more about the accuser than the victim.)
>
>
> Has he denied that he is a Marxist?
Do you deny that you still beat your wife?
If Gould disavows Marxism, I'll take
> his
> word for it. But he has talked about how he admires many of Marx's views,
Specific citations?
> and his politics and world view appear to be consistent with Marxism.
i.e. "I am a liberal."
Liberal = Marxist?
Hal Vickery
Dave Horn
Roger Schlafly wrote in message <6l4bb0$cc5$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
>Dave Horn wrote in message <6l403r$c...@news3.newsguy.com>...
>>And I challenged you even then to show us WHY the
>>fossil record "may have another fallacy" but you snipped
>>that out and didn't reply.
>
>Maybe the question made no sense.
No, the question made no sense because the statement that prompted it --
YOUR statement (i.e., the fossil record "may have another fallacy") --
contained YOUR words.
Hello? [Tapping keyboard] Is this thing on?
>I never claimed that the fossil record has a fallacy.
Oh, really?
>The fossil record is the fossil record.
And "parts is parts." Do you have a criticism about the fossil record or
not? Bork sure did; and Gould responded.
>>Which "non-science views would these be? And even if
>>they WERE "non-science," so what? It WAS an op-ed
>>page -- not the science section.
>
>You answer your own question.
You're being evasive -- deliberately so, I believe. Shall I go back and
show where you claimed something critical about Gould's "non-science" views?
>>Gould is a scientist. Is there some reason he has to be
>>limited to science?
>
>No. But if he says someone idiotic, then he is going to
>get criticized.
Problem is that you don't seem to have enough understanding to be critical.
I have already asked you what SPECIFICALLY was "idiotic" and WHY. Why can't
you answer that question?
>That goes for science and non-science subjects. I would
>prefer it if he would limit his public opinions, because he
>gives some people the impression that scientists are idiots.
Well, I guess for THIS to have any validity, you have to demonstrate what
was "idiotic" as I have already requested.
>>Why? What does that have to do with evolutionary science
>>or the science in which Gould is an acknowledged authority?
>>Is Gould not allowed to have an opinion either way on Freud?
>
>Sure, he can have an opinion. But the more he admires Freud,
>the more it draws his scientific judgment into question.
You have already been challenged more than once to provide evidence of this
alleged admiration of Freud. Do you ever plan on doing that? Do you ever
provide evidence of any claim you might make in a forum such as this?
>Would you trust the scientific work of someone who
>talks about his belief in astrology?
As someone trained in science, I would probably evaluate the work in
question on its own merits; but this is a bad analogy.
I'm going to give you a reading assignment. Check out "Bully For
Brontosaurus," pages 133-136. Does that read like someone enamored of
Freud? In three other books that I have handy at my desk, "The Flamingo's
Smile," Eight Little Piggies," and "The Panda's Thumb," there is only one
other mention of Freud on a single page out of a total of 1297 pages
(including indexes and such). Does that sound like admiration to you? Does
that really sound like Freud is an idol to Gould?
You really need to get a clue...understand what you would presume to
criticize.
may...@andrews.edu
In article <6l4bb0$cc5$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
"Roger Schlafly" <nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dave Horn wrote in message <6l403r$c...@news3.newsguy.com>...
> >And I challenged you even then to show us WHY the fossil record "may have
> >another fallacy" but you snipped that out and didn't reply.
>
> has a fallacy. The fossil record is the fossil record.
>
> >Which "non-science views would these be? And even if they WERE
> >"non-science," so what? It WAS an op-ed page -- not the science section.
>
> You answer your own question.
>
> science?
>
> No. But if he says someone idiotic, then he is going to get criticized.
> would limit his public opinions, because he gives some people the
> impression that scientists are idiots.
>
> >which Gould is an acknowledged authority? Is Gould not allowed to have an
> >opinion either way on Freud?
>
> Sure, he can have an opinion. But the more he admires Freud, the more it
> work of someone who talks about his belief in astrology?
>
support? Freud was such an idiot.
--vince
Roger Schlafly
Hal Vickery wrote in message ...
>Liberal = Marxist?
No. Most liberals would have nothing to do with Marxism. Gould is
not a typical liberal.
Roger Schlafly
Dave Horn wrote in message <6l51s6$2...@news3.newsguy.com>...
>I'm going to give you a reading assignment. Check out "Bully For
>Brontosaurus," pages 133-136. Does that read like someone enamored of
>Freud? In three other books that I have handy at my desk, "The Flamingo's
>Smile," Eight Little Piggies," and "The Panda's Thumb," there is only one
>other mention of Freud on a single page out of a total of 1297 pages
>(including indexes and such). Does that sound like admiration to you?
Does
>that really sound like Freud is an idol to Gould?
Yes. Does he say Freudianism is BS? Keep reading, and I am sure you
will find some more Freud references.
Roger Schlafly
Rick Gillespie wrote in message <6l4f4t$f...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>...
Thank God it did work. Others have also criticized Gould, so don't give
up hope.
Ian Musgrave
G'Day All
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 3 Jun 1998 12:32:06 -0400, "Roger Schlafly"
<nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>MJR wrote in message <3575D4...@octane.kemi.aau.dk>...
>> Gould may well be a marxist but, having read practically all of his
>>books, I find it very difficult to believe that he denies objective
>>scientific truth. I fear that you have confused the popular stereo-
>>type of a marxist with the popular stereotype of a post-modernist, an
>>error somewhat similar to the confusion of a mormon with a baptist.
>
>Gould says that his approach to evolutionary biology was inspired
>by Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
>
With this sentence you have clearly shown you know nothing about
either Marxism or the Philosophy of Science (or Goulds approach to P
of S).
Ian, for once lost for words.
(of course, you could prove me wrong by showing that 1930 Marxist
social/dialetic materialism critiques of science have _anything_ to do
with Kuhns allegiance swapping ideas, or accumulation of anomalies)
--------------------------------
Peta, Ian and Jack Francis
reynella at werple dot mira dot net dot au
Aitch Tee Tee Pee colon slash slash werple dot mira dot net dot au slash tilde reynella
Terry Pratchet fans, tree planters and sometime scientists (De Chelonian Mobile!)
Roger Schlafly
Ian Musgrave wrote in message
<358b4a78...@newsserver.cc.monash.edu.au>...
>(of course, you could prove me wrong by showing that 1930 Marxist
>social/dialetic materialism critiques of science have _anything_ to do
>with Kuhns allegiance swapping ideas, or accumulation of anomalies)
Academic Marxists have extended Marx to a theory that is far sillier than
what Marx himself thought. I am not sure it has anything to do with Kuhn,
except that the same leftist head-in-the-clouds academics seem to have
a fondness for both.
Roger Schlafly
Did I give you permission to quote my message?
may...@andrews.edu
In article <6l4ba5$1pre$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
gwan...@u.washington.edu (R. Tang) wrote:
>
> In article <6l494f$ksa$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>,
> Roger Schlafly <nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Yes. But I find disturbing that people might consider Gould the "father of
> >modern evolution" and defend his every word.
>
>
> Please retract.
So you think that there is definitely no possibility that people "might
think" this way?
Hal Vickery
In article <6l5jok$b61$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>, "Roger Schlafly"
<nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
And, as you've been asked before, your evidence of this?
H. Vickery
Hal Vickery
In article <6l5l5c$b6u$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>, "Roger Schlafly"
<nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
Ah, yes, those wonderful days of McCarthyism, the HUAC, and a commie under
every bed. Those were the days, my friend.
H. Vickery
PZ Myers
In article <6l49vj$rct$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>, "Roger Schlafly"
<nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
>Ok, fine. I'll accept that. Lewontin is a Marxist. Gould is not a
>Marxist.
>Gould is a leftist influenced by Marx. The point is that Gould idols are
>Darwin, Marx, Freud. And DiMaggio too, as someone pointed out.
That someone also pointed out that he knows of no evidence that Marx or
Freud are Gould's idols.
Can you back this claim up at all?
>If Bork had criticized DiMaggio also, Gould would have been really upset!
--
PZ Myers
PZ Myers
In article <6l5kdl$fsf$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>, "Roger Schlafly"
<nospam....@cruzio.com> wrote:
You are? Then you must have read these books too. How about saving us all
a little trouble and citing a few sentences in which Gould praises Freud?
--
PZ Myers
MJR
Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> MJR wrote in message <3575D4...@octane.kemi.aau.dk>...
> > Gould may well be a marxist but, having read practically all of his
> >books, I find it very difficult to believe that he denies objective
> >scientific truth. I fear that you have confused the popular stereo-
> >type of a marxist with the popular stereotype of a post-modernist, an
> >error somewhat similar to the confusion of a mormon with a baptist.
>
> Gould says that his approach to evolutionary biology was inspired
> by Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
There is a certain resemblence between Kuhn's argument that Science
does not progess in a smooth fashion by the simple accumulation of data
and Gould's argument that Evolution does not progess in a smooth fashion
by the simple accumulation of adaptations, but neither is connected with
the notion that objective truth can not exist. The very idea is silly.
Mogens Johansonsen-Rasmussen
may...@andrews.edu
In article <6l4f4t$f...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>,
r...@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (Rick Gillespie) wrote:
>
> In article <6l48v3$6or$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <may...@andrews.edu> wrote:
> >Gould might be a Marxist.
>
> "I have in my hand a list of 205 cases of individuals who appear to be
either
> card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party."
>
> It worked in the '50s, but I doubt it will now.
>
I have come to believe that Gould is a Marxist. I can't prove it, but then
it's just a belief.