Joined: Aug. 2007
|Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ July 10 2008,08:36)|
|Quote (CeilingCat @ July 10 2008,06:34)|
|UD has weighed in on the Kwok-Heddle fight. And of course, being UD, they have "settled" the argument by making an Ugly Picture of Kwok.|
We can't fight these people, they're much too smart for us. Can anybody name even one science-minded adult who would have thought this one up?
Davescot forgets that UD's policies don't extend to the civilised world:
|I wonder if Abbie “Potty Mouth” Smith will do him a big favor and flush this down the memory hole (in the words of Jerry Pournelle) “Real Soon Now”.|
Denys o'reality made me laugh, however.
|*He once referred to this site as “Usually Down” (due to server problems, as it happens) and he seemed not to understand when I was making a joke. (But - it must be admitted - the Canadian sense of humour can be recessive.)|
It must be a curse to be such a fantastic writer and have no humour with to have express it which.
PS. Kwok really is looking like a twat.
Forget what I just said.
What strikes me is the vast gap between the substance of the book and the presentation and comments on it in the linked blog post.
I began to wonder what was going on when I saw, in the original post — not counting the “Creationism” mislabelling, that is now a standard slander/smear — the following: “You just KNOW their bizarrely erotic book on Creationism for kids is gonna be something new and awesome!”
It turns out, that some sicko in an onward linked page has turned a picture of the simulation of life in the cell — and issue well worth serious reflection on — into a nasty distortion. That tells us a lot about the level and mindset involved.
In such a delusional, slanderous, contemptuous, un-civil, Plato’s Cave environment — and Mr John Kwok, this especially and with abundant reason means YOU — it is unsurprising that one who stands up for so basic a point as that one should READ a book before reviewing it, is now himself attacked.
Sad, but utterly revealing.
I found this comment particularly illuminating by way of sad contrast:
I downloaded the sample chapter and made it about four pages into it before the lies, distortions and down right [XXXX] made me so angry I couldn’t read on. These people are claiming the moral high ground but seem to have no issue with lying to children. It makes me sick.
Posted by: Anderw Dart July 3, 2008 11:27 AM
Now, after a bit of follow-up — broken link — I have found and looked at the sample chapter. It is a motivating and context-setting discussion about worldview level challenges faced by teens and college students, and of how issues connected to Intelligent Design are relevant to that set of challenges.
It is plain from the chapter that Mr Dart, sadly, cannot distinguish between disagreement and deception; he also seems to wish to reject what appears to be real cases of people facing challenges to their worldview because of one-sided presentations on the science, as if this is lying — that is where the chapter starts. And, he directly illustrates the point Aristotle warned of in his The Rhetoric: “Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are very different from those we make when we are pained and hostile.”
Mr Dart, rage is a BLINDING emotion. Please calm down and think again.
[BTW, I did think that the reference to Darwisnims as "propaganda" [p. 15, 6 of 20 in the PDF] was a bit overblown, as it to easily invites the inference that genuine science is the same as evolutionary materialist/ Naturalistic Scientism. Mind you, the context does make the point that this is in a phil and rhetorical/ “educational”/ advocacy not a sci context. But we must recognise the real reading level of those we are dealing with!]
Note to original poster: ERV, one who holds a PhD in philosophy, i.e. Dr Wm A Dembski, is plainly qualified to speak on worldviews matters. And, he is qualified to do so to teens and their parents who are concerned that Science is being hijacked in service to atheism.
GEM of TKI
PS: ERV, there is much more to the story of modernist theology and its promotion of unwarranted, worldview level question-begging hyper-skepticism than you seem to be aware of.
I'm glad someone on UD knows about theology. I was getting bored with all the science.