Friday, March 07, 2008

Michael Egnor Is an IDiot

Michael Egnor rises to the defense of Jonathan Wells. Readers may recall that Wells made a really stupid claim that studying antibiotic resistance in bacteria had nothing to do with evolution.

When the authors of the paper in question rejected this silly claim, Wells bent over backwards to justify his stupidity. Now Michael Egnor joins him [Dr. Wells’ Observation about the King’s Clothes].

There's one small part of that posting that really caught my eye.
The viscous personal attacks on Dr. Wells are an example. If you were a scientist, how candid about questioning the relevance of Darwinism would you be if your livelihood depended on Darwinist professors like Dr. Myers and Dr. Moran?
Anyone with an IQ above 50 knows that neither PZ or I are Darwinists [Why I'm Not a Darwinist]. We have both posted numerous articles attacking adaptationism and the emphasis on natural selection as the only mechanism of evolution. We have questioned all kinds of things about the modern orthodoxy from punctuated equilibria to evo-devo.

In other words, both of us have as much of a reputation for questioning fellow evolutionists as for challenging IDiots like Wells and Egnor.

The fact that Michael Egnor cannot see this speaks volumes.


  1. It would seem that a "viscous attack" would be one that seriously affects the subject of that attack. Perhaps "weighty attack" would be close to what is meant by that term.

    A non-viscous attack, on the other hand, would seem to be of little consequence.

    What do you know, Egnor, your ignorance of the English language seems to lead you to stating truth that you will not acknowledge.

    But come on now, Egnor, you must be capable of something. Evolution and writing aren't it, maybe neuroscience? I'd suggest that you concentrate on what you can handle, which is neither evolution nor English.

    Glen Davidson

  2. Some people take stimulants, such as coffee, to help them think better. I suspect that others take "ridiculants", which I would define as follows:

    Ridiculants: chemical substances, usually taken orally, for the sole purpose of making one seem incomprehensible or foolish to others.

  3. What does 'viscous' attack look like? Is it like what the creature did in the movie 'The Blob'?

    A 'viscous' attack: Now that *would* be vicious.

  4. George in Oregon

    Jeez. I thought this guy had faded away.

    Seems that having no scientific rebuttal, they all have taken to whining about the criticisms of their repeated, ignorant, blathering. I thought Ian had done a fine job on his criticism and held his tongue fairly well, given that he knows full well that this is intentional lying.

    I am always struck by the attempts to find some sort of moral high ground, when they are speaking lies.

    They all strike as similar to a teenager whose life is ruined because their parents refused to buy them a Porsche!

  5. Evolution and writing aren't it, maybe neuroscience? I'd suggest that you concentrate on what you can handle, which is neither evolution nor English.

    Well, if you go over to Dr. Steven Novella's NeuroLogica Blog, you'll see Egnor isn't competent in neuroscience either. Apparently his only capability is as a highly skilled meat cutter.

  6. You hurt Dr. Egnor's feelings.

    See for details.

  7. Who does he think he's fooling:
    The letter is an outrageous fake