Intelligent Design

Meet Mathgrrl

Spread the love

Ladies and gentlemen, meet Mathgrrl. Mathgrrl is a New Yorker named _______ ___. He has a chemical engineering degree from M.I.T.

Here is an excerpt from his Web page:

“As a father, I want my children to get the best education possible and to grow up in a world of opportunity. These goals are being threatened by right-wing fundamentalist creationists, including supporters of Intelligent Design, and by the typically left-wing ‘woo masters’ with their crystals, chakras, and gross abuse of the concepts of quantum mechanics. Both are anti-science and both pose a significant threat to the quality of education in the U.S. Some of the material I provide here is intended to help in some small way to counter these destructive influences on American culture.”

A page on his Web site reveals his interest in genetic algorithms, the Steiner problem and Dawkins’ Weasel program.

One major give-away that helped me identify Mathgrrl was his inadvertent use of his real name in another forum.

(Update: The next paragraph has been removed, as it mistakenly identified Mathgrrl with another anonymous contributor to Uncommon Descent, on the basis of a remark by the latter contributor which was intended as a joke. Evidently the joke went over my head. My apology to Mathgrrl can be found here.)

The final link that made the penny drop was a post by Alan Fox two years ago on another forum, listing his name.

However, Mathgrrl has his own life to lead, so I’ve decided that his name shall be removed from this post henceforth. Readers may refer to this post for my subsequent reflections and apology.

That’s all for now.

46 Replies to “Meet Mathgrrl

  1. 1
    Upright BiPed says:

    Mathgrrl was ideologically driven…say it ain’t so.

    So Patrick, if you say I am equivocating on terms, then you must know of a distinction between that which acts as a code versus that which is a code.

    What is the distinction?.

  2. 2
    CannuckianYankee says:

    I don’t like the idea of outing someone if they don’t choose to be so outed, but Patrick left a hint to this effect on Markf’s blog by posting under “Patrick.” I pointed this out several weeks ago. He then explained: “I was using my father’s laptop.” That did not make any logical sense to me.

    It was my suspicion all along that MG was not MG.

  3. 3
    Graham says:

    So, can someone now answer his original question ?

  4. 4

    we are having an outbreak of middle-aged men pretending to be women, as Denyse linked to a Mark Steyn article on the same topic. Steyn suggested that these men feel that their opinions won’t get the same hearing if they use their real identities. Somehow, being a woman is supposed to help their argument.

    I don’t know which is more amusing, the idea that adopting a feminine persona is advantageous for the web, or the idea that such persons lack confidence in their logic that they must rely on emotional appeals.

  5. 5
    ute says:

    I thought mathgrrl was a lady.

    I read mathhgrrl as mathgirl.

  6. 6
    Joseph says:

    The sad part is that he is a father…

    Hopefully they are adopted or stepchildren.

    Just sayin’

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Alas as with Evolutionary Algorithms so it is with MathGrrl;

    Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain – video

  8. 8
    O'Leary says:

    Kudos to Torley for Internet sleuthing.

    I knew MathGrrl wasn’t a girl, of course, and had said so earlier in private correspondence. He “wrote like a girl” which girls don’t normally do in a situation like this. ‘Cause the guys would be all over them …

    When a girl wants her arguments taken seriously in difficult situations, she – TYPICALLY! – represents herself as a guy.

    Consider “Portia” in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice: Girl makes self out to be guy (lawyer), to save a friend’s life. Zillions of similar stories …

    Re Grrl: Brief flurry of feminist interest in spelling the word that way. In some places, stuck. In most, discarded.

  9. 9
    Blue_Savannah says:

    Well done vj!! 😉

  10. 10
    O'Leary says:

    Joseph, REALLY! He doubtless cares about his kids. It’s only the direction of his interests one would reasonably question. ID types are not the big issue for his kids’ education.

  11. 11
    Joseph says:

    My apologies but natural selection has to be good for something.

    Also I would think the chakra-types would be more into ID as chakras don’t exactly jibe with materialism.

    Just sayin’

  12. 12
    ScottAndrews says:

    The character of Mathgrrl usually seemed rather polite. I’m disappointed to see repeated references to “Intelligent Design Creationism.” Given that the difference between the two could not be more clearly defined, it demonstrates an obstinate willingness to believe according to his preference rather than the evidence. Having demonstrated that, why should anyone take anything else he says seriously?
    His “real” persona is unable to hide the emotion driving his belief system. No wonder he had to invent a new one.

  13. 13
    MathGrrl says:

    Fascinating. At first I was supposed to be a professor at a university in Virginia, now I’m a man. I wonder who I’ll be next week. If you really want to know, you could try something silly like asking me. My email address is, as Mrs. O’Leary, JonathanM, and one or two others here know.

    May I assume that you’ll be attempting to find the real names of PaV, Upright BiPed, Mung, and every other pseudonym used here? Surely you’re not limiting yourself to stalking only people who disagree with you? That would be a very creepy double standard.

    Speaking of standards, I know that kairosfocus has some very strong views regarding people who attempt, successfully or not, to peek behind pseudonyms. I’m a bit surprised that he hasn’t yet appeared in this thread to give you a good scolding. I’m sure he’ll get around to it.

  14. 14
    O'Leary says:

    Well, MathGrrl, at least you are here. Are you who Vince Torley thinks, or not? I take it you are.

    Guess what, I’m who you might think.

    Here’s my phone number, for heaven’s sake: 416 485-2392 Phone me. We like to deal with people we know.

    I thought we did right by you. We gave you 30 days free authorship to reply to comments in a way that would stand out. But given the story that you had somehow been wronged, we figured we had better follow up.

    (If a bunch of stupid trolls, listening in, want to phone me, they could do well by themselves to first read up on Canada’s laws on stalking before proceeding. Persons who don’t have any legitimate business with me: = Don’t. Do. It.)

  15. 15
    Mung says:

    But I really am Mung!

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Oh what a tangled web we weave,
    When first we practise to deceive!
    Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.
    Scottish author & novelist (1771 – 1832)

    Lies-Evanescence-Origin – video

    This lack of honesty issue is a peculiar trait Darwinists seem have even when confronted directly with the truth:

    Richard Dawkins Lies About William Lane Craig AND Logic! – video

  17. 17
    Upright BiPed says:


    Lots of people here know who I am. I just prefer to save myself the email attacks, so I don’t broadcast it, and don’t intend to.

    As for you, I really don’t care who you are, I just want you to answer the question.

  18. 18
    Graham says:

    To bornagain77: When first we practise to deceive

    Who is deceiving ? Mathgrll used a pseudonym, just like yourself.

    Perhaps you could reveal your own identity ? (but no phone nos. thanks).

  19. 19
    Mapou says:

    Not true. I am Mathgrrl. ahahaha…

  20. 20
    computerist says:

    Interesting Gmail address choice MathGirl (I mean MathGrrl).

    I presume the “id” portion does not stand for Intelligent Design and was not created for this purpose 🙂

  21. 21
    steve_h says:

    Good catch VJ. Mathgrrl accused ID of not being science because its basic concepts such as FSCI/O had no strict mathematical definitions. These revelations demonstrate the vacuity of that point of view. Well done.

    And watch out “Reader from Riesel” and “Gloppy” whomever you are. VJ is on your trail. Ditto for GEM of TKI whom I suspect is a woman trying to boost his or her influence by feigning a Y chromosome (but that’s just my suspicion talking).

    My full name is apparent from my email address registered here. Go on, VJ, I know you want to.

  22. 22
    mike1962 says:

    From Patrick’s site: “Implementing the Weasel program is a mildly amusing lunch hour hack, but ultimately why does it matter what some Intelligent Design Creationist blathers about on an anti-science blog?”

    And yet for some reason he can’t seem to get enough. Hahaha.

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    mike1962; that and the cited rant reminds me of this article:

    When Atheists Are Angry at God – 2011
    Excerpt: I’ve never been angry at unicorns. It’s unlikely you’ve ever been angry at unicorns either.,, The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him.

  24. 24

    bornagain77 @20, that is very interesting. Kind of funny as well.

    I haven’t been following the Mathgrrl discussion, but is he really saying that the Weasel “program” is anything else other than an exercise in self-delusion by Dawkins?

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    Eric Anderson you ask;

    ‘I haven’t been following the Mathgrrl discussion, but is he really saying that the Weasel “program” is anything else other than an exercise in self-delusion by Dawkins?’

    You would have to see it to believe it, and then after seeing it you may still not believe it. The extreme patience, and effort to ‘baby-step’ explanation, afforded to MathGrrl (Patrick) is nothing but a testament to the refined Christian character of many UD bloggers, a level of refinement I am envious of for I certainly have fallen way short of such patience many times in dealing with neo-Darwinists!

    Of related note; Robert Marks has a recent video on Avida and ev;

    Roberts Marks on Avida and ev – video – 6:00 minute mark

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    semi-OT; beautiful song by a beautiful young lady:

    Jackie Evancho – Angel (live) – Inspirational Videos

  27. 27
    Atom says:

    I disagree with outing Mathgrrl, or anyone else. Mathgrrl, please know that not all ID proponents agree with what has been done.

    We hate when ID proponents are outed, so there’s no reason to do it to someone else. As long as no one is in danger of being physically harmed, anonymity should be respected on principle.

  28. 28
    jurassicmac says:

    Well, if you can’t attack the arguments, try and attack the arguer.

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    MathGrrl, though I don’t necessarily agree that your deception of being, or pretending to be, a young woman on this website should have been revealed in such a public way, I feel a more important urgency that you might find the honesty within yourself through this disclosure to set your soul ‘honestly’ straight with God.

    I Lift My Eyes Up – Brian Doerksen – music video

  30. 30
    kairosfocus says:

    UB at 16:

    Ditto, and as repeatedly stated.

    I find it saddening that the very same who said oh, you made it “easy” to find out your real name, so we can do all sorts of nastiness that is abusive (and BTW, feeds right into email spam waves) want to protrect heir own identities.

    And, the willfully deceptive reference to “intelligent Design Creationism” tells us a lot about the context of PM, and underscores that my observation that here was a pattern of such passive lying by insistent repetition of false claims that should have been known to be false, was correct.

    It now turns out that, credibly, the whole context of MG was a lie.

    No wonder we found that utter unresponsiveness to the truth that was corrective that was noted over and over again.

    I do not like outing behaviour, and request that MG/PM not be spammed. But this is a case of BOOM, one is hoist on his own petard.

    So, in conclusion, let us note the state of play on the material issue raised over three months ago, noting now that we have clear evidence as to who is credible on the matter and who is using a fake persona to push an ideological talking points agenda in the teeth of the evident truth:

    On CSI and its “rigour,” that has been addressed over and over again, in most specificity to the issue of rigour, at 34 – 5 in the CSI footnote thread. Similarly, the talking points MG tends to use over and over as thought they have not been cogently answered, were last dissected in 23 – 24 in the same thread. And, the overall summing up of the issues MG has needed to explain her [HIM]self on has been kept up in the editorial response to Graham at no 1 in the CSI newsflash thread; which MG has persistently ignored.

    When it comes to ev, 137 in the same shows my links to the places in the CSI Newsflash thread where it is dissected by Mung.

    (NB: One of MG’s tactics seems to be to wait until something is buried under enough posts in a thread, or has been continued in a successor thread, before repeating the assertion that was rebutted.)

    She [HE] knows or should know better than she [HE] has consistently acted.

    GEM of TKI

    PS: Note, Darwinists do not face career harrassment or busting if they are publicly identified, design theory activists or even those interested in a giving a fair hearing do. That is a crucial asymmetry in the situation.

  31. 31
    allanius says:

    MathGrrl is a BOY??? OMG, I’m traumatized.

  32. 32
    Neil Rickert says:

    I completely fail to understand the point of this post and discussion.

    It was obvious from that start that “MathGrrl” was a net identity, and not the real name of a real person. It could be that it was used by an AI system, or a committee, for all I know.

    I respect the contributions of MathGrrl based on the quality of the posts and reasoning in them. Tying that name to a real person (one whom I do not know, and of whose existence I was not aware) does not in any way impact the value of those posts.

  33. 33
    kairosfocus says:


    Cf 26 above, and VJT’s remarks here also.

    All is by no means so innocent or simple as you suppose.

    GEM of TKI

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    As to the importance of speaking the truth,,,, I would like to point out that the Theistic presupposition that God’s ‘eternal word’ IS TRUTH, is verified from studies trying to find variance in the universal constants,,,

    Psalm 119:89-91
    Your eternal word, O Lord, stands firm in heaven. Your faithfulness extends to every generation, as enduring as the earth you created. Your regulations remain true to this day, for everything serves your plans.

    ,,, it should be noted that the four primary forces/constants of the universe (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces) are said to be ‘mediated at the speed of light’ by mass-less ‘mediator bosons’, yet the speed of light constant is shown to be transcendent of any underlying material basis in the first place.

    GRBs Expand Astronomers’ Toolbox – Nov. 2009
    Excerpt: a detailed analysis of the GRB (Gamma Ray Burst) in question demonstrated that photons of all energies arrived at essentially the same time. Consequently, these results falsify any quantum gravity models requiring the simplest form of a frothy space.

    I would also like to point out that since time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light this gives these four fundamental universal constants the characteristic of being timeless, and thus unchanging, as far as the temporal mass of this universe is concerned. In other words, we should not a-prori expect that which is timeless in nature to ever change in value. Yet, contrary to what would seem to be so obvious a implication about our a-piori presupposition about the stability of constants, when materialistic scientists try to establish slight variance in the fundamental constants, to accord with their preconceived materialistic bias, they always end up being ‘surprised’ by the stability they find:

    Latest Test of Physical Constants Affirms Biblical Claim – Hugh Ross – September 2010
    Excerpt: The team’s measurements on two quasars (Q0458- 020 and Q2337-011, at redshifts = 1.561 and 1.361, respectively) indicated that all three fundamental physical constants have varied by no more than two parts per quadrillion per year over the last ten billion years—a measurement fifteen times more precise, and thus more restrictive, than any previous determination. The team’s findings add to the list of fundamental forces in physics demonstrated to be exceptionally constant over the universe’s history. This confirmation testifies of the Bible’s capacity to predict accurately a future scientific discovery far in advance. Among the holy books that undergird the religions of the world, the Bible stands alone in proclaiming that the laws governing the universe are fixed, or constant.

    This following site discusses the many technical problems materialistic scientists had with a paper that recently (2010) tried to postulate variance within the fine structure constant:


    also of related interest:

    ‘In chapter 2, I talk at some length on the Schroedinger Equation which is called the fundamental equation of chemistry. It’s the equation that governs the behavior of the basic atomic particles subject to the basic forces of physics. This equation is a partial differential equation with a complex valued solution. By complex valued I don’t mean complicated, I mean involving solutions that are complex numbers, a+b^i, which is extraordinary that the governing equation, basic equation, of physics, of chemistry, is a partial differential equation with complex valued solutions. There is absolutely no reason why the basic particles should obey such a equation that I can think of except that it results in elements and chemical compounds with extremely rich and useful chemical properties. In fact I don’t think anyone familiar with quantum mechanics would believe that we’re ever going to find a reason why it should obey such an equation, they just do! So we have this basic, really elegant mathematical equation, partial differential equation, which is my field of expertise, that governs the most basic particles of nature and there is absolutely no reason why, anyone knows of, why it does, it just does. British physicist Sir James Jeans said “From the intrinsic evidence of His creation, the great architect of the universe begins to appear as a pure mathematician”, so God is a mathematician to’. – Granville Sewell

    i.e. the Materialist is at a complete loss to explain why this should be so, whereas the Christian Theist presupposes such unchanging ‘transcendent’ control,,,

    John 1:1
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    of note; ‘the Word’ is translated from the Greek word ‘Logos’. Logos happens to be the word from which we derive our modern word ‘Logic’.

    To solidify Dr. Sewell’s observation that transcendent ‘math’ is found to be foundational to reality, I note this equation:

    0 = 1 + e ^(i*pi) — Euler

    Believe it or not, the five most important numbers in mathematics are tied together, through the complex domain in Euler’s number, And that points, ever so subtly but strongly, to a world of reality beyond the immediately physical. Many people resist the implications, but there the compass needle points to a transcendent reality that governs our 3D ‘physical’ reality.

    God by the Numbers – Connecting the constants
    Excerpt: The final number comes from theoretical mathematics. It is Euler’s (pronounced “Oiler’s”) number: e*pi*i. This number is equal to -1, so when the formula is written e*pi*i+1 = 0, it connects the five most important constants in mathematics (e, pi, i, 0, and 1) along with three of the most important mathematical operations (addition, multiplication, and exponentiation). These five constants symbolize the four major branches of classical mathematics: arithmetic, represented by 1 and 0; algebra, by i; geometry, by pi; and analysis, by e, the base of the natural log. e*pi*i+1 = 0 has been called “the most famous of all formulas,” because, as one textbook says, “It appeals equally to the mystic, the scientist, the philosopher, and the mathematician.”

    (of note; Euler’s Number (equation) is more properly called Euler’s Identity in math circles.)

    Moreover Euler’s Identity, rather than just being the most enigmatic equation in math, finds striking correlation to how our 3D reality is actually structured,,,

    The following picture, Bible verse, and video are very interesting since, with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), the universe is found to actually be a circular sphere which ‘coincidentally’ corresponds to the circle of pi within Euler’s identity:

    Picture of CMBR

    Proverbs 8:26-27
    While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,

    The Known Universe by AMNH – video – (please note the ‘centrality’ of the Earth in the universe in the video)

    The flatness of the ‘entire’ universe, which ‘coincidentally’ corresponds to the diameter of pi in Euler’s identity, is found on this following site; (of note this flatness of the universe is an extremely finely tuned condition for the universe that could have, in reality, been a multitude of different values than ‘flat’):

    Did the Universe Hyperinflate? – Hugh Ross – April 2010
    Excerpt: Perfect geometric flatness is where the space-time surface of the universe exhibits zero curvature (see figure 3). Two meaningful measurements of the universe’s curvature parameter, ½k, exist. Analysis of the 5-year database from WMAP establishes that -0.0170 < ½k < 0.0068.4 Weak gravitational lensing of distant quasars by intervening galaxies places -0.031 < ½k < 0.009.5 Both measurements confirm the universe indeed manifests zero or very close to zero geometric curvature,,,

    This following video shows that the universe also has a primary characteristic of expanding/growing equally in all places,, which 'coincidentally' strongly corresponds to e in Euler's identity. e is the constant used in all sorts of equations of math for finding what the true rates of growth and decay are for any given problem trying to find as such:

    Every 3D Place Is Center In This Universe – 4D space/time – video

  35. 35
    bornagain77 says:


    Towards the end of the following video, Michael Denton speaks of the square root of negative 1 being necessary to understand the foundational quantum behavior of this universe. The square root of -1 is ‘coincidentally’ found in Euler’s identity:

    Michael Denton – Mathematical Truths Are Transcendent And Beautiful – Square root of -1 is built into the fabric of reality – video

    I find it extremely strange that the enigmatic Euler’s identity would find such striking correlation to reality. In pi we have correlation to the ‘sphere of the universe’ as revealed by the Cosmic Background radiation, as well pi correlates to the finely-tuned ‘geometric flatness’ within the ‘sphere of the universe’ that has now been found. In e we have the fundamental constant that is used for ascertaining exponential growth in math that strongly correlates to the fact that space-time is ‘expanding/growing equally’ in all places of the universe. In the square root of -1 we have what is termed a ‘imaginary number’, which was first proposed to help solve equations like x2+ 1 = 0 back in the 17th century, yet now, as Michael Denton pointed out in the preceding video, it is found that the square root of -1 is required to explain the behavior of quantum mechanics in this universe. The correlation of Euler’s identity, to the foundational characteristics of how this universe is constructed and operates, points overwhelmingly to a transcendent Intelligence, with a capital I, which created this universe! It should also be noted that these universal constants, pi,e, and square root -1, were at first thought by many to be completely transcendent of any material basis, to find that these transcendent constants of Euler’s identity in fact ‘govern’ material reality, in such a foundational way, should be enough to send shivers down any mathematicians spine. Further discussion can be found here relating Euler’s identity to General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics:

    Here is a very well done video, showing the stringent ‘mathematical proofs’ of Euler’s Identity:

    Euler’s identity – video

    The mystery doesn’t stop there, this following video shows how pi and e are found in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1

    Euler’s Identity – God Created Mathematics – video
    This following website, and video, has the complete working out of the math of Pi and e in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Greek languages respectively, for Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1:

    Fascinating Bible code – Pi and natural log – Amazing – video (of note: correct exponent for base of Nat Log found in John 1:1 is 10^40, not 10^65 as stated in the video)

    Another transcendent mathematical structure that is found imbedded throughout our reality is Fibonacci’s Number;

    Fibonacci Numbers – Euler’s Identity – The Fingerprint of God – video – (See video description for a look at Euler’s Identity)

    etc.. etc.. etc..

  36. 36
    kairosfocus says:



    GEM of TKI

  37. 37
    Mung says:

    Tying that name to a real person (one whom I do not know, and of whose existence I was not aware) does not in any way impact the value of those posts.

    The only value in MathGrrl’s posts were in the responses to them.

  38. 38
    Jammer says:

    Is exposed fraud Patrick May also the former poster known as Seversky, as was alluded to in the original post? I’m unsure if that was meant as a joke or not.

  39. 39
    DonaldM says:

    Well, clearly I’m using my real name. I mean, if I had a pseudonym, I could certainly come up with something better than Donald!!! I’m open to suggestions….

  40. 40
    vjtorley says:


    I wasn’t joking. (However, it now turns out that my identification of Mathgrrl with this anonymous contributor to Uncommon Descent was incorrect. I took literally a remark that was intended as a joke. Please see here for an update and apology.)

  41. 41
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: It seems MG/PM would benefit from a reading of the Weak Argument Correctives, this and every UD page, top right. She/he should pay particular attention to the first eight or so specific points, before spreading a false, strawman caricature smear again.

  42. 42
    Eocene says:

    kairosfocus said:

    “F/N: It seems MG/PM would benefit from a reading of the Weak Argument Correctives, this and every UD page, top right. She/he should pay particular attention to the first eight or so specific points, before spreading a false, strawman caricature smear again.”

    Again, this ONLY proves the point that it’s NOT about science, it’s about the ideology, philosophy, politics and worldview and nothing more. If they actually had hard evidence that the average human being on earth could easily comprehend without injecting mysticism and eye of faith statements into most everything thru story fabrication, then we could all honestly agree it would be science. But it’s clearly not in this subject instance and it does infect all other sciences to a degree.

  43. 43
    kairosfocus says:


    The root issue of design theory is very simple, and patently subject to scientific analysis.

    As I pointed out in a background post in was it Jan:

    I: [si] –> O, on W

    I observe a pattern of signs and infer to an objective state of affairs on a warrant, per Hippocrates of Cos on signs, and Peirce on abduction, or inference to best explanation.

    I: deer signs –> deer passed this way, as that is best explanation.

    The issue then is what warrants the inference from signs claimed to indicate design as cause. Signs such as FSCI.

    trhe answer is at basic level that complex specific info beyond a certain degree of complexity is utterly unlikely to occur by chance, as posts in this thread highlight by way of example/ (In recent threads some objectors were wiling to entertain the notion that posts could have been caused by lucky noise, If you know your stat thermodynamics principles, not on the gamut of our observed cosmos.)

    Reducing the Dembski metric to a simple form:

    Chi_500 = I*S – 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold.

    If you have at least 500 functionally specific bits of information, such is so isolated it the space of configs that it overwhelms the quantum state resources of the solar system, our effective universe unless we master an interstellar drive. 10^150 states is 48 orders of magnitude beyond the 10^102 P-time quantum states of the solar systems atoms since formation per the usual dates. 10^30 such P-time states are needed for a fast chemical reaction.

    Turns out, DNA is full of FSCI.

    Points to design, though this does not identify as within or beyond the cosmos. As was stated for the outset of modern design theory, in 1985; on a thermodynamic analysis.

    Evolutionary materialism advocates have gone ballistic, and have made all sorts of demonstrably false accusations and strawman caricatures laced in slanders. Which they don’t like being called on.

    That is the context in which I am pointing PM to a way he can get himself set to rights.

    GEM of TKI

  44. 44
    Mung says:

    In time, I may forget Patrick’s name.

    But I will never forget MathGrrl.

  45. 45
    PaV says:

    We are all entitled to privacy, and I’m happy that vjtorley has chosen not to give it (though I’m terribly curious). However, let’s take a good look at what’s happened.

    Whoever MathGrrl is, there is another woman, a math professor at some university, that is using this same screenname. Whoever MathGrrl is, he has chosen to hide behind somebody else’s identity. I would presume he did this so that he could throw us off the track, hiding behind someone with a credible math proficiency.

    MathGrrl’s behavior, whoever he is, borders on the despicable.

  46. 46
    kairosfocus says:


    That is another layer of willfulness.

    Sad really.


Leave a Reply