Sunday, November 13, 2011

Jonathan Wells Sends His Regrets

Paulmc visited Uncommon Descent in order to defend junk DNA [Here’s Jonathan Wells on destroying Darwinism – and responding to attacks on his character and motives]. Now Wells has responded to several of paulmc's points [Jonathan Wells on Darwinism, Science, and Junk DNA].

We'll get to those issues in another post but right now I want to take note of something Wells said at the end of his article.
Oh, one last thing: “paulmc” referred to an online review of my book by University of Toronto professor Larry Moran—a review that “paulmc” called both extensive and thorough. Well, saturation bombing is extensive and thorough, too. Although “paulmc” admitted to not having read more than the Preface to The Myth of Junk DNA, I have read Mr. Moran’s review, which is so driven by confused thinking and malicious misrepresentations of my work—not to mention personal insults—that addressing it would be like trying to reason with a lynch mob.
I can understand why Wells might decline to post a comment on Sandwalk. Many of us know what it's like to try and argue with the readers of the intelligent design blogs. Wells would meet the same reception here that we get over there.

But that doesn't preclude Wells from posting on Uncommon Descent or Evolution News & Views. If he really believes that my review of his book is an example of "confused thinking and malicious misrepresentations of my work"1 then why not back up such a statement with a thoughtful response on a friendly blog? Evolution News & Views would be ideal since comments are banned.

1. Wells has accused other scientists of misrepresentation. It's a common theme in The Myth of Junk DNA and in Icons of Evolution. I quoted this passage in Junk & Jonathan: Part 13—Chapter 10.
Coyne and Avise are professors of genetics at major universities, so they cannot claim ignorance of the genomic evidence without thereby admitting negligence or incompetence. In fact, one of Coyne's colleagues at the University of Chicago is James Shapiro, co-author of the 2005 article cited in Chapter 6 that listed over 80 known functions for non-protein-coding repetitive DNA. [The other author is Richard (von) Sternberg ... LAM] But if Coyne and Avise were not ignorant of the evidence, then they misrepresented it—and they continue to do so. Like Dawkins, Shermer and Kitcher they have forfeited any claim they might have to be speaking for science.
I can understand why Wells is reluctant to defend such statements. It's because they are indefensible.


  1. Geez Larry- evotards always accuse IDists of misrepresentation and never back it up....

  2. I'm not going to speak for anyone else but I have backed up all of my accusations of misrepresentation on the part of the IDiots.

    You, for example, have seriously misrepresented intelligent design theory. I was hoping that some of the leading proponents would set you straight but I guess that's not going to happen.

  3. This is interesting. IDiots like Klinghoffer whine around because PZ Myers doesn't pay attention to "big fish" like Wells, and now Wells doesn't want to address your review because you're rude and mean and call him an IDiot. And you don't even need to give them the Comic Sans treatment! Myers won't be happy to know IDiots think you're ruder than him.

  4. Wells would meet the same reception here that we get over there.

    Not really. I would offer one or two sound technical reasons why his arguments do not hold up BEFORE I started calling him a poopy-head.

  5. Wells is a such a wimp that he wouldn't tangle with debaters who called out his bluff in an article in the Moonie rag Wash-out Times! We know about Wells. If his ideas had any traction he would be presenting them where it mattered. The guy is a scared little runt who knows he's been pwned. His IDiocy is the least of his problems.

  6. The guy is a scared little runt

    No, he's not. he is an ass-hole determined to comply with a stupid mission. No matter how dishonest he has to be to accomplish it.

  7. joe g vomited:

    "Geez Larry- evotards always accuse IDists of misrepresentation and never back it up...."

    Your own words and the words of the other IDiots back up accusations of misrepresentation on your part. You IDiots are your own worst enemies.

    The concept of ID cannot be put forth without a religious foundation. Even if you IDiots say that the designer is or could be some alien on another planet, you'd still have the problem of who or what designed that alien, and it's abundantly obvious anyway (by the claims of you IDiots) as to 'who' you believe the so-called designer is.

    Your so-called ID inference/hypothesis/theory completely relies on the existence and actions of a supernatural, intelligent, all powerful, all knowing entity, and an entity like that is always referred to as a god, and gods are under the heading of religion.

    Other words may be used besides the words religion or god, but they mean the same thing. Therefor, the ID agenda is a religious agenda, yet you IDiots outright LIE and say it isn't, and that's far from the only thing you misrepresent.

    There's literally nothing you IDiots won't make up, distort, mis-define, ignore, lie about, or falsely accuse non-IDiots of to push your religious (and political) agenda.

    You IDiots have absolutely NO positive evidence to support ID, and your constant bashing of science and Darwin demonstrates your trembling fear that science will uncover even more evidence that shows how asinine your religious beliefs are.

    Even a cursory look at the people involved in the ID agenda shows that it's populated by psychotic, paranoid, arrogant crackpots. Not one of you has the slightest clue as to what science is or how it works.

    You IDiots constantly whine about being expelled and you say that you're not allowed to have an ID inference. Actually, you can have any inference you like, but don't expect science to take it seriously. There are lots of inferences in the minds of many people, including many real scientists, but that doesn't mean that they're automatically accepted by science. An accepted inference or hypothesis or theory is one that has something evidential and testable to support it. Fairy tales based on supernatural gods are not scientific inferences, hypotheses, or theories.

    One thing you IDiots just won't get through your empty skulls is that you have to have positive evidence, and you have to use good scientific methods to verify and explain that evidence. You can't just baldly assert crap and expect real scientists to accept it. Science isn't Sunday school and you IDiots don't have a captive audience of children to forced feed your drivel to.

    All of the efforts of you IDiots are spent on talking and preaching and talking and preaching and bashing science and Darwin. You don't do any actual science. You obviously believe that the more you talk and preach and bash, the more your IDiotic sermons will gain credibility with science, but that's not the way things work in science.

    No one is stopping any of you from finding, studying, testing, verifying, or explaining any evidence that you think is out there that will support your ID claims. You just whine because you either want to shut down all real scientific inquiry or you want science to do all of your work for you and apply the ID label to whatever is found, regardless of whether that label is supported by the evidence.

    You're a joke, joe, and so are your fellow IDiots.

  8. Wells: Well, saturation bombing is extensive and thorough, too

    Yes, and it can be quite effective.