I previously wrote about Tom Bethell, the blathering buffoon and faux journalist who never met an anti-evolutionary argument that was too stupid for him to parrot.
Now he's back again in the New Oxford Review. It's not surprising at all that the forum he chose is a self-described "orthodox Catholic magazine". What other magazine would publish this drivel? (Well, maybe National Review.) It takes a lot of chutzpah to call evolution "dogma" and then later publish in a rag that boasts its "unswerving loyalty to her Pope and Magisterium".
Bethell doesn't give any indication that he interviewed anyone except ID hacks for his screed. That's journalism? No. A real journalist interviews people who don't agree with his preconceptions. And the text shows it. How many misrepresentations, selective quotations, and misunderstandings can you find? No creationist chestnut is too stupid to repeat. He even drags out the corpse of the Colin Patterson quote! (It was debunked long ago.)
But the single funniest line is the claim that "Doug Axe and his assistants at the Biologic Institute may end up surpassing the Darwinists in pure research". Not bloody likely, especially if Axe continues to publish in an ID vanity journal where he is the Managing Editor.
Naturally, ID's other faux journalist, Denyse O'Leary is fully on board with Bethell. The funniest thing about O'Leary is that she calls herself the "UD News team", and suffers from recurring fantasies that her blog is going to replace the New York Times.
It's depressing how predictable Bethell's nonsense is. At the start of every 'science' article he writes, it's-- "A" is dogma among scientists, but cracks are showing in the facade..." blah blah blah.
ReplyDeleteOf course, "A" is, take your pick, evolution, relativity, HIV causes AIDS.
What's with all the creationist bashing? The Big Bang Theory could be a form of creationism. The catholic church says god is the first cause. So is god behind the Big Bang? Has this line of reasoning been debunked Shallit? It has been around for a long time now.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: So is god behind the Big Bang? Has this line of reasoning been debunked Shallit?
ReplyDeleteThe argument from ignorance? Yes, it has been debunked for a very very long time. If you have evidence that God was behind the Big Bang, feel free to present it.
Really, where is the evidence that god was not behind the big bang? Feel free to present it. Actually, I would like a proof. Do you have one?
ReplyDeleteYour beliefs are as baseless as any creationist belief. Nothing is debunked. So I ask again, why all the childish meaness? Never mind.
I think it was Churchill who said, "Never hold discussions with the monkey while the organ grinder is in the room.".
If you guys would like me to stop polluting this blog with my posts I will. Just say the magic word.
A) An endless series of caused causes.
ReplyDeleteB) An uncaused cause.
Pick your poison.
the magic word
ReplyDeleteA) An endless series of caused causes.
ReplyDeleteB) An uncaused cause.
That illustrates the problem I have with classical philosophy. Vague terms like "cause" need to be defined with much more rigor before we decide that your (A) and (B) are the only choices.
The mathematical models break down at dimension 0. So the definition of "cause" will need to wait I suppose. Find a process to create hydrogen atoms, and you don't need the big bang.
ReplyDeleteMagic is magic.
That was 3 words Bayboy.
> "Find a process to create hydrogen atoms, and you don't need the big bang."
ReplyDeleteYou'll still need a big bang to create those things that create the hydrogen atoms, no?
"If you guys would like me to stop polluting this blog with my posts I will. Just say the magic word."
ReplyDeleteStop
"That illustrates the problem I have with classical philosophy. Vague terms like "cause" need to be defined with much more rigor before we decide that your (A) and (B) are the only choices."
ReplyDeleteI think vague terms like "rigor" need to be defined with much more rigor before we decide that your wait-and-see attitude is the best way to go.
Re Anonymous
ReplyDeleteThe material making up the universe could have been generated from a discontinuity in the quantum vacuum. Now if Mr. anonymous wants to ask where the quantum vacuum came from that is an impossible question as we sit here today because the quantum vacuum exists and at the same time it doesn't exist. Another example why nobody understands quantum mechanics.
Miranda:
ReplyDeleteI have two atoms of U-238 in front of me. One decays. The other doesn't. Was the decay "caused" and if so, by what?
I think the more relevant question is how did the atom get there in the first place.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we can get around the sticky question about the definition of "cause" if I reworded my two choices:
A) There was always "something"
B) Once, there was nothing, and then there was something.
Pick your poison.
SLC, I think you have only identified the discontinuity in your thought processes. Let go of silly paradigms.
ReplyDeleteShallit: With God all things are possible.
A) There was always "something"
ReplyDeleteB) Once, there was nothing, and then there was something.
Oh, dear, I see you have a rather naive, folk view of time. Maybe reading some modern physics might help. Consider this: why do many physicists believe that "what came before the Big Bang" is a meaningless question?
With God all things are possible.
ReplyDeleteYes, I know that with your god, things like the Holocaust are possible, and that's one reason why I'm an atheist.
My relatives in Vitebsk were murdered by the Einsatzgruppen - roving bands of locals who probably went to church every week. Indeed, with your god, the most hideous things are possible.
My Jewish family lost loved ones in the Holocaust as well, in the camps. Yet, though deeply hurt, they are still Jewish.
ReplyDeletethey are still Jewish
ReplyDeleteMost people understand that "being Jewish" doesn't require a belief in a deity.
Exactly which subset of Jewish holidays do you observe?
ReplyDeleteExactly which subset of Jewish holidays do you observe?
ReplyDeleteThe empty set. Why should I observe any Jewish holidays at all, seeing as I am not Jewish?
Not that it's any of your business, anonymous coward.
Why give you a name to sling mud at? Why don't you just say the magic word? That way you could stop losing these debates of ours.
ReplyDelete"Consider this: why do many physicists believe that "what came before the Big Bang" is a meaningless question?"
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with those physicists (thus your calling my view of time a naive folk-view is just a case of your jumping to conclusions.)
That way you could stop losing these debates of ours.
ReplyDeleteOnly in the mind of a cowardly anonymous creationist could your pointless meanderings be considered a "debate".
calling my view of time a naive folk-view
ReplyDeleteOh, I will look forward to your explanation of Malament-Hogarth spacetime. Feel free to discourse at length - I would like to know more about it.
Here is a scenario that shows your two choices are not the only ones possible. I am not claiming this is what happened, or even that it is plausible; merely a thought experiment to show that common terms like "always" and "then" need more rigor than you are providing.
Consider a timeline where a particle comes into existence at every time t = 1/n for n = 1,2, ...., but time begins at t = 0. Then there was not "always" something, since there was nothing at t = 0. On the other hand, you can't say "and then there was something", because what is "then"? If it is any positive time, then there was a previous event when there was something.
The universe can be much stranger than we can describe with our ordinary language. Hence the need for more rigorous definitions.
Shallit, oh my gosh. Let's see what you mean, Hogarth: the boy from The Iron Giant movie?
ReplyDeleteIn your silly example of time, you placed an end to it at n=1. It's crap like that which shows your weaknesses. Stick to math dude.
Let's not forget your abuse of the limit operator...
National Review has apparently published Tom Bethell exactly ONCE. American spectator oth publishes him regularly. Try getting your factoids straght next time, schmucko.
ReplyDeleteNational Review has apparently published Tom Bethell exactly ONCE.
ReplyDeleteDid I say or imply anything else? Poor sad anonymous commenter; can't even find anything wrong to complain about. How empty your life must be...
Thanks for confirming you know nothing about how physicists view time.
ReplyDeleteYou can look up Malament-Hogarth spacetime on wikipedia.
You place yourself a finite length from 0. Yet you ignore the case were you could be on the tailend headed towards n=1. Thanks for confirming your lazy thought processes. When you can actually take a picture of the first moment of time, then talk with me.
ReplyDeleteRe Anonymous
ReplyDeleteMr./Ms. Anonymous demonstrates by his/her moronic comment that his/her lack of knowledge about evolution is exceeded only by his/her lack of knowledge of quantum mechanics. Another example of someone speaking to knowledgeably from such a vast fund of ignorance.