Darwinism Education Evolution Philosophy

Doctor “Doom” Pianka – St. Edwards Transcript

Spread the love

Transcript of St. Edwards Speech

MP3 of Seguin-Gazzette Question

Stand by for a transcript of the Lamar speech (at the Texas Association of Scientists ceremony) which I’m given to understand makes the St. Edwards speech look rather tame. My take on the St. Edwards speech is it paints Pianka as an alarmist crackpot, and nothing else, confirming my first impression of him trying to be a poster boy for “Keep Austin Weird”.

The guy rags on about microbes taking over and putting us in our place. Uh, like duh. Microbes have us for dinner in the end in any case. All Pianka is saying is that they should have us for lunch instead of dinner. The microbes appear to be smarter than Eric as the microbes allow us to reproduce before they consume us. That would be like us eating all the chickens before any get a chance to lay an egg. What a dumbass.

In any case, I’ll wait for the Lamar transcript before I bother elevating this loon’s ranting beyond crotchety, frustrated, depressed old hermit’s nitwittery.

3 Replies to “Doctor “Doom” Pianka – St. Edwards Transcript

  1. 1
    glennj says:

    Eric Pianka seems to want to improve on the work of Thomas Malthus who wrote:
    “The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction; and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague, advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.”

    The only problem with Malthus’ prediction is that it has never materialized. Malthus wrote those words in 1798 when the entire world population was less than 1 billion. Now it is 6+ billion.

    Here’s another interesting little tidbit.

    “Malthus’s theory was also a key influence on both of the co-founders of modern evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Darwin, in his book The Origin of Species, called his theory an application of the doctrines of Malthus in an area without the complicating factor of human intelligence. Darwin, a life-long admirer of Malthus, referred to Malthus as “that great philospher” (Letter to J.D. Hooker 5th June, 1860) and wrote in his notebook that “Malthus on Man should be studied”. Wallace called Malthus’ essay “…the most important book I read…” and considered it “the most interesting coincidence” that both he and Darwin were independently led to the theory of evolution through reading Malthus.”

    Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus .

    From Pianka’s St. Edwards’ speech…
    Pointing to a graph that shows the collapse of the world’s population *when( we run out of oil….
    “But you notice the estimated population red line with a collapse and without a collapse and things are gonna get better after the collapse because we won’t be able to decimate the earth so much.

    And, I actually think the world will be much better when there’s only 10 or 20 percent of us left.

    It would give wildlife a chance to recover — we won’t need conservation biologists anymore. Things are gonna get better.”

    Malthus, Darwin, Pianka…
    Malthus was wrong. Darwin was wrong. Pianka is wrong.

    Pointy-headed elitists, all. Death and destruction their only vision.

    Human beings, proceeding in love and faith, guided and aided by a Loving God, have employed their God-given ingenuity to find more and more ways to produce more and more for more and more people.

    Free men will find a way. The only thing we have to fear is fear and mad men like Eric Pianka.

  2. 2
    Charlie says:

    The Gazette links are broken.
    But here is the St. Edwards transcript.

    http://72.14.207.104/search?q=.....ent=safari

    Note that the Gazette was INVITED by Pianka to this speech. This transcript is NOT of the TAS delivery which has caused the controversy. The Gazette claims that the transcript of that speech was shown to them but on the condition that they not publish it.

    Thanks Charlie. I couldn’t find it in google’s cache on Saturday. I updated the link in the article here to point to the cache instead of the Gazette’s website. I still think the Gazette pulled it because they didn’t have a right to publish that transcript and traded removing all mention of Pianka for immunity from prosecution. I believe Pianka gets paid for giving that speech and by recording it and publishing the transcript the Gazette deprived him of future earnings. Pianka might have taken the Gazette to the cleaners with actual damages, punitive damages, and legal fees. Even if it was only a quarter million altogether that’s a heavy hit for a local newspaper in a one-horse town like Seguin. They’d be foolish to not pull those articles from their website in that case. -ds

  3. 3
    Charlie says:

    I don’t disagree with that thought at all.
    I do think their withdrawal is most likely out of fear of economic reprisal – which is a tremendous weapon when dealing with small communities. Ask the ACLU about this strategy.
    The disappearance, I am certain, had nothing to do with being wrong.
    The Gazette saw the original transcripts before the pages went blank, and before following up on their story, including releasing the St. Edwards speech.

    Below is a little side note for any who might think that the St. Edwards speech is exactly the same delivery as the Lamar version. At least to some degree this biologist who attended both provides contrary evidence to that idea.

    The Gazette-Enterprise said it reviewed a transcript of the original speech, which was provided on the condition that it not be distributed.

    Allan Hook, a St. Edward’s biology professor who heard both speeches, said Pianka “wasn’t so perhaps adamant in his own personal views of what he thinks might happen” in his second lecture.

    But Hook declined to elaborate on what Pianka said in the earlier speech, which Pianka delivered while being honored as the academy’s 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.

    University of Texas officials don’t plan to take any action against Pianka, university spokesman Don Hale said.

    “Dr. Pianka has First Amendment rights to express his point of view,” Hale said. “We have plenty of faculty with a lot of different points of view and they have the right to express that point of view, but they’re expressing their personal point of view.”

    http://www.dfw.com/mld/startel.....255288.htm

Leave a Reply