Book on evolution and intelligent design

[T'ai Chi]

Anyone read this book yet on evolution and intelligent design?

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Darwinism-Intelligent-Design/dp/1596980133

[Mojo]

Have you? If so, what did you think of it?

[T'ai Chi]

It looked interesting.

[CFLarsen]

Why do you think that?

[HappyCat]

You think you know about Darwinism and intelligent design, but did you know: *There is no overwhelming evidence for Darwinism; *Intelligent design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief; *What many public schools teach about Darwinism is based on known falsehoods; *Scientists at major universities believe in intelligent design; *Scientists who question Darwinism are punished --by public institutions using your tax dollars. Battle-hardened veteran with doctorates in biology and theology sets the record straight in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwin and Intelligent Design.
I don't believe I have to have read this book to know what is in it. My guess: watchmaker argument, lucy was a fraud, piltdown man was a fraud, shells on land prove that there was once a great flood, etc. I think this book will simply contain the same old arguments creationists give that have been refuted a million times over. If you have done independent research into the arguments for and against creationism, my guess is you will see nothing new in this book.

[T'ai Chi]

I don't believe I have to have read this book to know what is in it.

That is sig material if I ever saw it.
:D

[Fronzel]

The Panda's Thumb Blog has been doing a chapter by chapter review of it.

I've not read all of them, but what I've read so far has show the book to be creationist nonsense.

[Mercutio]

I saw this in the bookstore, and took a look. Utter crap. After the Panda trial, you'd think someone would be ashamed to recycle the same old manure.

When you said "it looked interesting", what was your point? It was interesting enough to pick up at the bookstore, but your link already shows more than enough in the reviews to make the same determination I did: the book is a waste of trees. Hell, it's a waste of resources even if it was printed on recycled toilet paper.

In case you were wondering--no, I did not read the whole thing. One does not need to take more than a sip to know the milk is sour. I looked through it enough to consider buying it as a resource for one class I teach, but thought it best not to pay full price and encourage the author or publisher.

[T'ai Chi]

It looked interesting.

[Mercutio]

Thank you for clarifying.

[Mojo]

It looked interesting.Have you read it?

[Ririon]

It looked interesting.
If you were to look at a book about evolution and ID by Richard Dawkins (just an example), would you have described it as "looking interesting"?

[CFLarsen]

The question is, why does T'ai find it "interesting"?

Is it interesting because it presents convincing arguments in favor of Creationism?

Is it interesting because it is a good example of how Creationists argue, using false claims, faulty logic, etc?

Simply saying it is "interesting" says nothing. It is a vapid statement.

[T'ai Chi]

One is not obligated to explain a basic and obvious opinion to anyone.

You should write it into the forum rules perhaps.

[Ririon]

The question is, why does T'ai find it "interesting"?

He doesn't find the book the least bit interesting. Playing with you, on the other hand... :D

[T'ai Chi]

What about the book, specifically, do you find convincing?

[Hawk one]

One is not obligated to explain a basic and obvious opinion to anyone.
Did anyone -demand- that you explained anything? They asked, and you then, typical of your style, evaded actually answering. Why do you oppose people asking questions of you?

And what is so obvious about the same old creatonist lies - such as the TOE, which they keep on calling "Darwinism" is an active opponent against religion - that is being repeated yet again being interesting? I mean, I guess it could be interesting from a psychological point of view (one could make a thesis on the escape from reality these kind of people do)... But otherwise, it's in itself rather boring to read the same old crap, naturally complete with such feats as quote-mining, following the highest traditions of creationists for more than a century now.

[Mojo]

What about the book, specifically, do you find convincing?Did anyone say that they found anything about the book convincing?

[T'ai Chi]

Did anyone -demand- that you explained anything?


Where did I claim that they demanded me to answer?


And what is so obvious about the same old creatonist lies - such as the TOE, which they keep on calling "Darwinism" is an active opponent against religion -


Actually, many people use Darwinism. Dawkins, for example, often says Darwinism. There's nothing inherently wrong with using that word.

[Mercutio]

One is not obligated to explain a basic and obvious opinion to anyone.
What about an ambiguous opinion? You have more than one person asking you to elaborate; might one deduce from that, that one's opinion was not "basic and obvious"?

And you are right, the only obligations are those we put on ourselves. I try, for myself, to clarify my views. Others may not hold themselves to the same standard; that is their prerogative.

[Mojo]

Where did I claim that they demanded me to answer? Your use of the word "obligated" implies compulsion.

[Hawk one]

Your use of the word "obligated" implies compulsion.
Indeed. Justin, why is it so damn hard for you to simply answer the original questions that people ask of you, instead pulling off this same lame evasion stunt you've been doing for so many occassions now? Don't you understand how annoying it is to start such hit&run threads where you give us basically nothing from the start, and where you don't present any thoughts that can in any way be called useful? Again, just saying something is "interesting" is so amigious both in and of itself, it requires a whole lot of previous context to have an inkling of an idea what is actually meant.

Of course, for those of us that do have all the previous context of Justin's previous posts to work with, it can be argued that he is saying "this book is great and you're all wrong" in his standard totally non-commiting manner. Not only dishonest, but cowardly so, not even daring to stand up for his views. And as always, when the questions start coming, he starts pouting for everyone not immediately agreeing with him, even though it shouldn't be any surprise.

If I wanted to make a thread about a non-fiction book (or at least a book meant to be about non-fiction), I'd first of all actually read the book in its entirety, to make sure I understood it well, and could then debate its merits and defend its points of views.

I also notice that Justin evades my actual point by focusing on how I call the book out for saying "Darwinism" in what is meant to be a degoratory manner. Which he'd have found out if he'd done what I've done, and found at least a few excerpts of the book to read. Which is the least he could have done, considering he made a thread about it. At least, it's the least he could have done if he wanted to make a point.

And that isn't even my main point in that partial sentence anyway, it's that they use the classic "evolution is opposed to religion (and specifically christianism)" strawman that that creationists been keeping up for decades now. But Justin is of course completely silent on this part, choosing instead to nitpick on something that is comparatively inconsequential.

[Zep]

It looked interesting.So was it the cover art that convinced you of its stature?

[Morrigan]

Why make a thread if you don't want to elaborate on your opinions?



It seemed bizarre, until I remembered T'ai Chi was a master in intellectual dishonesty.

[HarryKeogh]

If you're the type who when they stumble upon a difficult problem would rather say "God did it" than "maybe we should look harder" then this book is for you.

[TobiasTheViking]

ok, it has to be said

YOU ARE ALL ****** TROLLS.

well, except for those of you that aren't, you know who you are.

that doesn't mean you T'ai Chi, you are a troll

[T'ai Chi]

What about an ambiguous opinion? You have more than one person asking you to elaborate; might one deduce from that, that one's opinion was not "basic and obvious"?


This was aready addressed. No further explanation is needed or required.

[T'ai Chi]

Did you have a point, "Morrigan" ?

[Mercutio]

This was aready addressed. No further explanation is needed or required.

"It looked interesting." As "basic and obvious" opinions go, it is expressed in a bare minimum of words. The only thing missing is why it looked interesting.

Was the cover shiny? Was it a particularly large, small, or odd-shaped book, in your opinion? Did you find it in an unusual place, say, the toilet-paper roll holder? Were there words that you did not understand? Did you actually open it and look inside? (There is no indication that you did.) If you did, did you think it made any particular point? Did you think it would act as good trolling material?

You are half right; no further explanation is required, in the sense that we cannot require it of you. But if you think that your comment was thorough enough to answer any questions...well, I find it hard to belive you think this.

[T'ai Chi]

If you say so.

[Mercutio]

If you say so.

If you'd like me to clarify, I'd be happy to.

[hgc]

Hey, T'ai Chi. This book looks interesting. You should check it out.

http://www.amazon.com/Yiddish-Dick-Jane-Ellis-Weiner/dp/0316159727/sr=8-7/qid=1159553558/ref=sr_1_7/102-1928061-5808915?ie=UTF8&s=books

[ponderingturtle]

Did anyone say that they found anything about the book convincing?

Several people seemed convinced that it was a load of horse crap, if that helpd. So that is something about the book