tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post800195531360034837..comments2023-12-28T17:14:24.356-08:00Comments on Monkey Trials: HOPEFULLY, NOT THE NORMScott Hatfield . . . .http://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-23177649880975394152008-07-26T22:10:00.000-07:002008-07-26T22:10:00.000-07:00Scott, Evangelical Realism has been picking apart ...Scott, Evangelical Realism has been picking apart "The Irrational Atheist" for some time now (a post on TIA is published every Tuesday).<BR/><BR/>http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/J Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02239837727739373280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-46394616790313395802008-07-22T20:58:00.000-07:002008-07-22T20:58:00.000-07:00Scott, I wrote a response to your assertion of emo...Scott, I wrote a response to your assertion of emotionalism, but I am gonna settle for this:<BR/><BR/>Discuss with me the conclusion of the Grants in "Evolutionary Dynamics of a Natural Population" (Darwin's finches on the Galapagos) where they claim to have found a regression toward the genetic norm (return to stasis, "loss of variation"), and did not find any sign of actual speciation.<BR/><BR/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-50616619525928098052008-07-22T09:18:00.000-07:002008-07-22T09:18:00.000-07:00I recall Norm saying somewhere (a comment at Phary...I recall Norm saying somewhere (a comment at Pharyngula, I think) that Vox had accused him of criticizing a paragraph which was not in the book; Norm had the MS Word file which Vox had sent him and was looking for a public place to post it. He may have taken down the posts in the interim.Blake Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13977394981287067289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-1380707662944443382008-07-21T23:20:00.000-07:002008-07-21T23:20:00.000-07:00Hi, Richard! Vox interests me because he isn't 't...Hi, Richard! Vox interests me because he isn't 'the same old, same old'. I think he's fundamentally misguided in his skepticism, but his arguments are not those of a YEC or an IDevotee. They are original arguments that turn on the ontological status of scientific claims. You may have noticed I've taken Stan (who I think is one of Vox's regular readers) to task for the same reason. The Scott Hatfield . . . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-77859602640853923312008-07-21T16:49:00.000-07:002008-07-21T16:49:00.000-07:00Scott, you have had quite a bit of back and forth ...Scott, you have had quite a bit of back and forth with Vox Day -- I am curious what keeps you interested? When I read his stuff (including the latest) -- it appears to be no more than the usual misapplication of logic to the natural world. Am I missing some clever argument he makes (because he surrounds it with so much ad hominem attacks and other nonsense)?R. Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17827657170197625528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-30021933175399141462008-07-21T14:06:00.000-07:002008-07-21T14:06:00.000-07:00The "Richard Dawkins is wrong. Daniel Dennett is w...The "Richard Dawkins is wrong. Daniel Dennett is wrong..." is a fine example of the kind of humorous writing I find to be completely worthless. It has a snarky tone, which some may appreciate, but it is otherwise without substance. The easiest way to determine if a piece of writing falls into this category is to substitute the subjects with their polar opposites:<BR/><BR/>"Alister McGrath is so Cody Cobbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05401973890767631344noreply@blogger.com