Ray Comfort’s new video, Evolution vs. God, will be available for free in a few weeks. You can download it now for $20. I went ahead and did so and it was fantastic. He had a fabulous presentation of the law and the Gospel. And he tied countless scientists, including PZ Myers, in knots. Myers and Richard Dawkins are in full personal attack mode and, oddly enough, helping draw attention to the movie. So thanks for that, guys!
I won a contest by coining a phrase over at Uncommon Descent a couple years ago: Noviewer — Someone who writes a review on something he hasn’t read or seen. Apparently some people haven’t evolved enough to realize how it impacts their credibility when they lie to support their worldview.
Looks like the noviewers are out in force with the release of Stephen Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. There are lots of 1 star reviews at Amazon already and the content makes it obvious that they haven’t read it. These close-minded people really, really don’t like to hear alternate views or to let others have the opportunity to hear them. I wish Amazon required reviewers to pass a brief quiz before posting about controversial books.
Now, Darwin’s Doubt runs to 413 pages, excluding endnotes and bibliography. Neither the book’s publisher, HarperOne, nor its author sent Matzke a prepublication review copy. Did Matzke in fact read its 400+ pages and then write his 9400+ word response — roughly 30 double-spaced pages — in little more than a day?
Perhaps, but a more likely hypothesis is that he wrote the lion’s share of the review before the book was released based upon what he presumed it would say. A reviewer who did receive a prepublication copy, University of Pittsburgh physicist David Snoke, writes:
A caution: this is a tome that took me two weeks to go through in evening reading, and I am familiar with the field. Like the classic tome Gödel, Escher, Bach, it simply can’t be gone through quickly. I was struck that the week it was released, within one day of shipping, there were already hostile reviews up on Amazon. Simply impossible that they could have read this book in one night.
I’ve started Darwin’s Doubt and it is amazing so far. The preface alone is worth the money. It is interesting how the critics of Meyer’s last book so thoroughly miss his points. Perhaps it is because they don’t actually take the time to read them?
Also see Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer.
The Mess of the Message: Denying Christ On The Printed Page — I’ve written before about serious problems with The Message, but this post added a host of new and serious issues. Also note how it removes a reference to homosexuality and inserts a “green” passage. Friendly reminder: It isn’t a Bible. In many places it is the opposite of the Bible.
People have lost their minds. Remember that these are educators coming up with these things.
The Affordable Care Act — and by affordable, we mean more expensive — They were caught lying. Again. Although we didn’t have to wait until now to know it.
COULD A CHRISTIAN BAKER WHO REFUSED TO MAKE WEDDING CAKE FOR A GAY COUPLE REALLY GO TO JAIL? — Why don’t they try this with Muslim bakers?
This is bizarre “tolerance” of Liberals:
- It is bad to judge. [What they claim Conservatives do and what they themselves do non-stop.]
- It is good to judge others for judging. [What Liberals do.]
- It is very bad to judge others for their hypocrisy of judging others for judging. [What Liberals don’t like for us to point out.]
Ergun Caner Cover-Up — This is such a sad case. The guy was caught lying over and over and too many Christian leaders, churches and schools looked the other way or helped him cover his tracks. The documentation is very thorough, even though he is working hard to cover it up. If the guy had repented it would be different, but he shows no remorse.
Profiles in Countermoonbattery: Ondray Harris — here’s a great guy who quit when he was told not to hire any conservatives or whites. We need more courage like that. Oh, and he’s black.
The Contempt of PZ Myers — He really, really opposes schools that teach critical thinking.
None of the above keeps PZ from frothing at the mouth that: “There is no controversy!” Evolution happened…get over it. Really, PZ, “no controversy”? Guess PZ’s been too busy ranting and raving about ID and “Creationism” to keep up with what is actually happening in his own field of biology. Let’s see, can anyone name one aspect of evolution and its supposed mechanisms that isn’t hotly debated and controversial even among evolutionary biologists? Pick one – common descent, natural selection, gene transfer, phylogentics, gene duplication, genetic drift, mutation, etc etc – not one single supposed driving engine of evolution is uncontroversial within evolutionary biology itself. It continually amazes me that every single aspect of Darwinian evolution is hotly debated and controversial, yet the Darwinian faithful, like PZ pound their fists on their desks yelling “evolution is a fact, Fact, FACT!” What is telling, is how rabidly PZ and others of his ilk want to keep students in public schools from ever knowing about or even hearing about such controversies.
DOMA is the law of the land, but the rogue Obama Regime refuses to enforce it.
A year later, the Master Sergeant is still bogged down in a legal battle. The lesson is passed down from Obama through the military as clearly as it is through the IRS: do not say, do, or even think anything that a liberal might not like, or you will suffer consequences.
A few more examples:
One service member received a severe reprimand for expressing his faith’s religious position about homosexuality in a personal religious blog.
A chaplain was relieved of his command over a military chapel because he could not allow same-sex weddings to take place in the chapel.
And a chaplain who asked senior military officers whether religious liberty would be protected in the wake of the repeal of the law against open homosexual behavior in the military was told to “get in line” or resign.
The world has seen other governments that forcibly repressed Christianity. But not even the Soviet Union attempted to impose reverence for sexual perversion. It wasn’t sufficiently morally depraved.
Apparently this “Belief in Evolution Versus National Wealth” graph is supposed to prove that the lack of widespread support for Darwinian evolution in the U.S. is directly tied to our per capita GDP. I saw this at a site that worships secularism plus another site that thought the graph was “brilliant.” Then I Googled it and realized that it got virtual high-five’s at a bunch of atheist sites, including those of Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers.
Carefully consider what it shows, then let’s see what it proves. I think you’ll see a triple-fail of cherry-picking data points that (allegedly) support your cause, a confusion of correlation vs. causation and an ironic misreading of the results.
Here’s what the graph really proves: That people predisposed to cheer on Darwinian evolution (or their pet topic) will be quick to grab something that seems to prove their point. That is something we should all be wary of.
First, think of some of the Middle Eastern countries left off the list. They have roughly zero belief in evolution and high GDP per capita. That’s odd how the graph’s author forgot those, eh? Deliberately ignoring key data points is cheating.
Next, the graph shows that the author and those who revel in his work were not taught the distinction between causation and correlation. Just because the U.S. has a lower percentage of belief in evolution doesn’t mean that is what drove our GDP per person (did I really have to just type that?!).
You could draw endless conclusions to prove your points playing this game. Here’s a freebie: Compare belief in Darwinian evolution to which country has the most military power, then draw a graph. Wow, the skeptics of Darwinian evolution must be right! We’re the most powerful, and by Darwinian definition we are the most fit!
Finally, it isn’t like the U.S. trails the pack. We’re #2 after Norway, and I doubt that many people think the only reason Norway is better is because of their evolutionary beliefs. If anything, you should draw the conclusion that we are better off because we don’t drink the Darwinian Kool-Aid.
What a train wreck of bad thinking! It seriously fails on three levels but was all the rage on many Darwinian sites.
If the author of the graphs and its supporters came from the same environment, then perhaps that would be reason to mock that educational model. Darwinian dogma has dominated public schools, government, media and entertainment in the U.S. for decades, yet it still hasn’t convinced us. So those entities have all failed and/or we just have better critical thinking skills to analyze important topics like this.
Sort of like how we understand the difference between causation and correlation.
It is a sad sort of irony: They think they are more logical, but they do things like this over and over. Remember, these are the same type of folks pushing the global climate change hoax.
There is one important take away from this graph: The remarkably high percentage of “Brights” who reflexively and uncritically trumpeted it as evidence for their view. This helps me understand why they are so passionate about their other “scientific” claims.
P.S. If you want some more real science and logic see this post on the cosmological argument.
OK, not violence, but a little smack-talk where a fellow atheist Oxford don takes Richard Dawkins to task for being scared to debate William Lane Craig. Via New vid uses authentic clips to taunt Richard Dawkins for refusing to debate William Lane Craig | Uncommon Descent.
Watch and enjoy.
Via Uncommon Descent Contest: What do we call people who refuse to read books they are attacking? The idea was to come up with a pithy term for critics of Intelligent Design who slam books without reading them. It isn’t just your random Amazon reviewer, either. Even leading Darwnists do it, although to PZ Myers’ sort-of credit, he threatened to read one of the books — so take that!
The second award offer in the recent contest, a copy of Don Johnson’s Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability, asks “What do you call a guy who reviews/trashes a book without reading it?”
It goes to homerj1 at 3 for
The review is a noview and the reviewer is a noviewer.
This won because it can be used effortlessly in a sentence, as in:
Prof. Retro Darwin’s noview of biochemist Michael Behe’s latest …
Rev. Darwin Santa, noviewer of Steve Meyer’s …
Recently, Dimbo Darwin, science writer, noviewed Bill Dembski’s latest …
Ease of use is important. And dropping the pretense of reading makes for more honest communication: He didn’t read it because he wouldn’t like it and wouldn’t learn anything from it, plus he can find an audience who wants to hear from him for precisely that reason. Don’t forget how many people out there know they are “for science” because they believe any nonsense talked in Darwin’s name.
While I’m glad to have won and to have a tiny part in ID slang history, I thought “re-skewer” or “hypocritic” would win. But I’m keeping the book.
This is a two-way street, of course. We shouldn’t give 5 stars on Amazon to pro-Christian books if we haven’t read them.
P.S. I suspect that most of those who gave 1 start to Ann Coulter’s new book are noviewers as well.
Uncommon Descent has a contest where they ask, “Why do people refuse to read books they are attacking?” It is about critics of Intelligent Design who don’t even read books before trashing them. (To PZ Myers’ sort-of credit, he threatened to read one of the books — so take that!)
Here are the questions and my suggestions, which already concede that the ID-critic community not only permits such behavior but seems to encourage it (all in the name of science, eh?):
1. Why would a scientist or scholar actually volunteer to do it?
Assuming original sin is too broad, I’ll go with one of these:
A. He loves his worldview more than his integrity.
B. He hasn’t evolved enough to have intellectual honesty.
2. What do you call a guy who reviews/trashes a book without reading it?
The review is a noview and the reviewer is a noviewer.