You only have to remember that Egnor argues that the fact that brain cancer does not lead to the evolution of improved brains - in cancer patients - that this falsifies evolutionary theory. He's also argued against the idea of microevolution in drug resistant bacteria - something that even young earth creationists like Kent Hovind accept.
Prof. Moran That letter was interesting if it was an attempt at satire (a very bad attempt), but very disturbing if it was serious. If it was indeed serious, take care. People like this are not exactly compos mentis. I'm still visiting, and still learning. And keep up the good fight. BTW, I mentioned your name and blog to my daughter a few days ago. She was at UTM (a venue with which she was not happy) and is now at Ryerson, yet she recognized your name and has advised me that she will be checking out this blog because of the very positive impression she has had from her friends, who are enrolled in your courses. I only mention it because your field is not in the same sphere as my daughter's courses, yet she recognized your name. It is a tribute to you that undergraduates outside of your speciality know about you.
I thought "Darwinism" was a religious belief too. I guess not! Interesting Freudian slip there. Oops!
Another creationist's BS sophistry trips his own tongue yet again. They know it's really science and not religion. They call it religion just out of sheer spite. Goal -> own. Score.
Egnor must have had his sense of humor surgically removed.
But yeah, he seems definitely touched by Larry's writings. At the rate his answers are slowing down, one could hope he may have lost his taste for perverting science.
If it's supposed to be satire (C.D. = Charles Darwin?), that's not why I'm laughing. And if we're supposed to take this seriously, surely there's some ethical consideration to Egnor posting a personal correspondance that was clearly not meant for him?
That wasn't "correspondence" not meant for him, Egnor totally made it up. There is no "Central Committee Office of Framing", it was intended to suggest that there is a big-brother type organization that is "in charge" of promoting "darwinism". All very lame. Does Egnor actually believe he is being clever?
Anybody else notice the subtle links to Hitler/Holocaust that Egnor dropped, like "ultimate solution", "rallies", and "torchlight"? Talk about an example of Godwin's Law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)
That wasn't "correspondence" not meant for him, Egnor totally made it up.
Yes, I realize that it's not a real correspondence, but perhaps the intended audience is meant to believe it. I wouldn't put it past Egnor. Either way, it's lame.
What a doof. And somebody please, please explain why being a frothing Jesus freak destroys the humor centers of the brain? I've not come across one yet who knows what true humor and satire are.
20 comments :
Ze inanity, zhe is breathtaking, non?
Larry, you'll never be more than a bitter old man, isolated from the general public. Leave science journalism to the science journalists.
I guess we can definitiely say now that humor isn't brain surgery.
I would say, by this reaction, you really got to him.
Keep up the good work.
You only have to remember that Egnor argues that the fact that brain cancer does not lead to the evolution of improved brains - in cancer patients - that this falsifies evolutionary theory. He's also argued against the idea of microevolution in drug resistant bacteria - something that even young earth creationists like Kent Hovind accept.
Was that letter a joke?
Anyone have any idea what he is talking about?
Oh and the Ed vs PZ thing is soooooo last year.
This man is a medical doctor?
Terrifying.
Prof. Moran
That letter was interesting if it was an attempt at satire (a very bad attempt), but very disturbing if it was serious. If it was indeed serious, take care. People like this are not exactly compos mentis.
I'm still visiting, and still learning. And keep up the good fight.
BTW, I mentioned your name and blog to my daughter a few days ago. She was at UTM (a venue with which she was not happy) and is now at Ryerson, yet she recognized your name and has advised me that she will be checking out this blog because of the very positive impression she has had from her friends, who are enrolled in your courses. I only mention it because your field is not in the same sphere as my daughter's courses, yet she recognized your name. It is a tribute to you that undergraduates outside of your speciality know about you.
C.D.: The only method of ferreting out religious believers that you left out was pre-natal testing.
I thought "Darwinism" was a religious belief too. I guess not! Interesting Freudian slip there. Oops!
I thought "Darwinism" was a religious belief too. I guess not! Interesting Freudian slip there. Oops!
Another creationist's BS sophistry trips his own tongue yet again. They know it's really science and not religion. They call it religion just out of sheer spite. Goal -> own. Score.
CD = cretinous dipstick = egnor?
So egnor hasn't the courage to sign his drivel with his own name?
Pathetic!
As to anonymous . . . GET A LIFE!
Don't confuse bitter and BITING.
And don't confuse science journalists with religious hacks either.
Egnor must have had his sense of humor surgically removed.
But yeah, he seems definitely touched by Larry's writings. At the rate his answers are slowing down, one could hope he may have lost his taste for perverting science.
If it's supposed to be satire (C.D. = Charles Darwin?), that's not why I'm laughing. And if we're supposed to take this seriously, surely there's some ethical consideration to Egnor posting a personal correspondance that was clearly not meant for him?
That wasn't "correspondence" not meant for him, Egnor totally made it up. There is no "Central Committee Office of Framing", it was intended to suggest that there is a big-brother type organization that is "in charge" of promoting "darwinism". All very lame. Does Egnor actually believe he is being clever?
Anybody else notice the subtle links to Hitler/Holocaust that Egnor dropped, like "ultimate solution", "rallies", and "torchlight"? Talk about an example of Godwin's Law.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)
Also, there seemed to be quite a lot of quote mining of Larry's statements. Was anything important left out in any of the ellipses?
That wasn't "correspondence" not meant for him, Egnor totally made it up.
Yes, I realize that it's not a real correspondence, but perhaps the intended audience is meant to believe it. I wouldn't put it past Egnor. Either way, it's lame.
I would guess that Egnor is trying his best to be honest while somebody duped him. I see this as a case of honest incompetence.
I don't know which is more pathetic: That Egnor thinks he's clever, or that Egnor thinks he's relevant.
What a doof. And somebody please, please explain why being a frothing Jesus freak destroys the humor centers of the brain? I've not come across one yet who knows what true humor and satire are.
Post a Comment