Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Signature in the Cell: Darwinist demands to rewrite product copy

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

But why should that be a surprise? Of course, Darwinists don’t want anyone to read Signature in the Cell. Darwinism is a tax-funded origins cult, especially noxious in countries like the United States and Canada, which do not have and – for good reasons* – do not want established religions.

Yes, I have in my files a recent brownbagged letter, written to Amazon by a Darwinist, demanding that the editorial description of Signature be altered to reflect Darwinist bias.

Some useless flunky actually assured the Darwinist that these changes would indeed be made.

When I protested, I received an insulting e-mail assuring me that the ‘Zon guys understand that I might be upset, but that Amazon does not “support or promote hatred or criminal acts.”

Upset? That doesn’t cover the half of it.

I am a Canadian free speech journalist. A minor one to be sure but we have been kicking butt up and down the country with benighted sons of ditches like him, and their arrogant bosses.

I have had a good relationship with the ‘Zon over the years, and sold many books for them. But … if they cave to some aggrieved Darwin scammer – just another tax burden, really – I am transferring all my business to Barnes & Noble, and I recommend that all good citizens do the same.

It doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with me about Darwinism. Why on earth should these people have dictatorial rights over a private company’s business?

Oh wait, if you are a Darwinist, maybe you know that you are right, and you should rule, and that no one must be permitted to simply publish a book showing that your theories are inadequate to nature, without your interference.

Well then, the remaining good citizens must step into the breach.

*For one thing, countries tend to be more religious when the government avoids meddling. That’s why religious people here want the government out of religion. Except for Darwinists, who need to impose their unbelievable beliefs by law.

Anika Smith at the Discovery Institute also advises me that Meyer is World Magazine’s Daniel of the Year. I’m not sure how helpful that is. Basically, Darwinism is wrong no matter what one’s religion, unless it is atheistic materialism – in which case Darwinism is the only game in town, and tax-funded to boot. But re Daniels, I submit to more experienced judgement.

Also, from Evolution News and Views:

The continued success of Signature In The Cell has driven Darwinists crazy. They’re desperately making louder and ever more ridiculous denunciations of the book and anyone who might have the temerity to suggest people read it for themselves.

An interesting and informative back and forth has been taking place on the pages of the Times Literary Supplement, where last month noted atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel recommended SITC as one of the best books of the year. Not surprisingly, he was attacked (he responded, and he was attacked again) by a Darwinist who told people forgo reading SITC and instead just read Wikipedia. Is this what passes for civil discourse on important topics now? Just ignore the arguments you don’t like? A pretty pathetic state of affairs if true.

Go here for the rest and for the links.

Never mind what you think of Darwinism. If you think that ‘crats are not smart enough to run your life and do all your thinking for you – join the revolution now.

Go here for intellectual freedom news from Canada.

Comments
Mr BiPed, The nerve is called 'fairness'. How is asking for evidence, and an equal level of pathetic detail in evidence an ideological seive? Intelligent design is science, I have been told, and wants to be taught in science classes some day. Science is an evidence based enterprise. Mr Timaeus is right to ask for evidence, though he is naive in demanding it be produced to his timetable. Here is a question I am not asking rhetorically: Will it be possible in the future for the science of design detection to calculate the probabilities that specific characters, the bacterial flagella, the opposable thumb, etc. are designed? I'm not asking by next Tuesday, just your estimate, standing on your own two feet, without citation of thousands of obscure journal articles, of whether it ever will be possible. Will it ever be possible to ask of design detection scientists, as we do so commonly of our professors of physics and engineering, to "show your workings" - the step by step details of the calculation?Nakashima
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
Oh yes. I would say that struck a nerve. All things associated with ID must fit through an ideological sieve, yet the grand claims of materialism are never tested. Perhaps the stricken nerve is the one left atrophic, having never used it before.Upright BiPed
January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT
Mr Timaeus, Are you as demanding of all explanations? Do you want Mt Rushmore explained by the sculptor at the level of the chisel strike before you accept that it was sculpted? Is there some alternative to Darwinian evolution that you prefer, and what is the equivalent of your nucleotide by nucleotide demand of it? It is quite sad that there are not enough evolutionary biologists in the world, that even one could not write the book you are interested in. I think the only reasonable solution to this problem is to train more evolutionary biologists, and hope that one of them accepts the ambitious agenda that you have sketched out. You want something basic and simple and also detailed, nucleotide by nucleotide. Who gave you the idea that this is a reasonable request? Do you also ask astronomers for this pathetic level of detail in explaining the origin of the solar system? I would also like to see the next 150 years of biology delivered by next Tuesday, but I try to keep the childish petulance out of my voice when Tuesday arrives and only a week's worth of science has happened.Nakashima
January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
"Is a non answer. Timaeus and others want to know the details, the How." The more I think about it to use common descent as evidence for unguided evolutionary processes is a circular argument. What mechanism is responsible for common descent? Answer, Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms. What is the evidence for Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms? Answer, common descent. Vividvividbleau
January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
#41 and 42 Zach with all due respect to appeal to common descent as an answer to timaeus question "Timaeus: I have asked where I can find a book or article that tells me exactly how the foot evolved from the fin, or how the eye evolved from the light-sensitive spot. The silence from the evolutionary “experts” is deafening." Is a non answer. Timaeus and others want to know the details, the How. Vividvividbleau
January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
I could argue that common descent is nothing more than a designer making adjustments to the ecology as new organisms with different capabilities were needed at different points in time to ensure that a steady progression was proceeding toward a long term objective. Everything in biology and nature can be explained by such an idea. Or as a famous biologist once said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of an intelligent designer." Now do I believe this. No, because there is not enough information to support it. Could it be true. Possibly. But what I do know is that common descent is a construct that if true, can be explained by a lot of things but one thing it cannot be explained by is gradualistic changes of organisms over time because these gradualistic changes did not happen. If they did, someone would present them and we would all go home and call it a day. To evoke common does not point to anything in particular. So if one wants to worship common descent, find another reason to do so other than Darwinian principles.jerry
January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
Timaeus: I have asked where I can find a book or article that tells me exactly how the foot evolved from the fin, or how the eye evolved from the light-sensitive spot. The silence from the evolutionary “experts” is deafening.
Science isn't omniscient, so revealing the details of ancient history can take a bit of a detective work. From Common Descent, we know that land vertebrates evolved from fish. As the first land vertebrates are about 360 millions years old, and the earliest lobe-finned fish are about 380 million years old, in order to find a possible 'fishopod', you would look in geological strata in that range of ages. There's only a few places where rocks of that age are exposed on the Earth's surface. Researchers mounted an expedition to the Canadian Arctic to find at least part of the answer to your question, Tiktaalik, and this discovery not only provides a window on this historical transition, but also lends support to the Theory of Common Descent. This is not a trivial discovery.Zachriel
January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
Zachriel: The term “unguided” is subject to equivocation. Timaeus: Why do you suppose that the NCSE, the NABT, and many other scientific organizations have retreated from the language of “unguided” or “purposeless” evolution?
Because the term can be ambiguous, conflating empirical and theological senses. NCSE advocates religious-neutral teaching and allowing students to accomodate their religious views to science.
Timaeus: I call a theory “robust” if it can explain things. So explain to me how the camera eye evolved... By the way, how do you “know” that mice and men share a common ancestor, when you can’t provide anything even close to a detailed description of *how* the primitive ancestor was transformed into both mice and men?
Any discussion of evolution has to include the Theory of Common Descent. After many attempts, no one seems to want to engage the argument, and the moderation delays make detailed discussions difficult. The latest attempt has yet to establish whether we should group whales with mice or fish.
Timaeus: That’s like saying that you “know” that Mt. Rushmore was carved out by lightning, water erosion, and wind, even though you can’t give a coherent account of how those forces could have accomplished such a task.
Mt. Rushmore was manufactured by a peculiar species of primate known for such activities.
Timaeus: Common descent, even if entirely true, proves nothing about the adequacy of Darwinian or neo-Darwinian mechanisms.
True, but it's virtually impossible to have a reasonable discussions of the mechanisms involved in the divergence of life from common ancestors when you are not comfortable with the evidence for that common ancestry.
Timaeus: And in repeated confrontations with Ph.D.s in the life sciences ...
If you are really interested in the evidence, you should start with Common Descent. Organisms are the way they are because of what they once were. That mice and men share a common ancestor is one of the most profound discoveries in all of science.Zachriel
January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
Zachriel @ 38: Why do you suppose that the NCSE, the NABT, and many other scientific organizations have retreated from the language of "unguided" or "purposeless" evolution? These associations would certainly never change their language to please churches, creationists, or ID supporters. Their only motivation for changing their language is to avoid potential legal challenges. If you teach a ninth-grade biology student (who is forced to take biology by law) that we arose through a process which was "unguided", you are teaching that student that God was not involved, and therefore are using the power of the state to coerce belief in a theological statement. The establishment clause, at least as it has been interpreted in recent years, clearly forbids this. What do you mean when you say that the theory of evolution is "robust"? That is can do 50 push-ups without panting? I call a theory "robust" if it can explain things. So explain to me how the camera eye evolved. Give me the specific changes of nucleotide sequences please. By the way, how do you "know" that mice and men share a common ancestor, when you can't provide anything even close to a detailed description of *how* the primitive ancestor was transformed into both mice and men? That's like saying that you "know" that Mt. Rushmore was carved out by lightning, water erosion, and wind, even though you can't give a coherent account of how those forces could have accomplished such a task. Common descent, even if entirely true, proves nothing about the adequacy of Darwinian or neo-Darwinian mechanisms. The same fact might equally be explained by God or spacemen tinkering with existing genomes. If you can't show that Darwinian mechanisms are up to the task, you can't count Darwinian evolution as a "fact". And in repeated confrontations with Ph.D.s in the life sciences, I have asked where I can find a book or article that tells me exactly how the foot evolved from the fin, or how the eye evolved from the light-sensitive spot. The silence from the evolutionary "experts" is deafening. T.Timaeus
January 4, 2010
January
01
Jan
4
04
2010
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
Timaeus: This is very relevant to the schools controversy. If Darwinian evolution is inherently unguided, then it can’t be taught in the schools — it would violate the establishment clause by attacking the religion of the majority of Americans.
Sorry, but that is not correct. In the U.S. system, just because someone may believe that angels move planets on crystal spheres doesn't mean they can veto the teaching of Newtonian mechanics.
Timaeus: More important is that he did not address the problem of “infinite evolutionary pathways”. If one pathway is closed down, Darwinian theory can always invent another — until that’s disproved, and then it can invent another. The process can go on forever.
That's correct. However, that's not the basis of the Theory of Evolution. You have to start, as always, with Common Descent. From the strong support for that theory, we know that mice and men share a common ancestor, and the differences are due to descent with modification. That guides the search for the details of those transitions, including the discovery of fossils.
Timaeus: Mark Frank is wrong about “unguided”.
The term "unguided" is subject to equivocation. The Theory of Evolution, just like the Theory of Planetary Dynamics, is robust and intelligent intervention is extraneous to explaining the data. If someone posits a purpose that is beyond the available scientific evidence, then that would be considered a religious view—not a scientific one.
Timaeus: I don’t want the bedtime story-telling about the eye that Dawkins gives us, or that Darwin gave us — a purely qualitative line-up of different kinds of eyes, with a logically illegitimate inference that they represent an actual historical sequence — but a bloody-minded, technical “recipe for a camera eye”, or “recipe for a cardiovascular system”, or “recipe for a bacterial flagellum”.
Again, you have to start with the evidence for Common Descent.
Timaeus: Otherwise, God forbid, evolutionary biologists would have to survive like most Arts professors, having to live without grants on (gasp!) merely their salary, and a modest salary at that. And wouldn’t that be a shame?
Because we all know that most evolutionary biologists are millionaire playboys and playgirls. Nothing like a little sweet talk about phylogeny to get the opposite sex interested.Zachriel
January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
Timeaus, your comments @35 provide one of the best reasoned evaluations of the Darwinist paradigm I have ever read. It is nothing short of a mini-seminar, yet it wastes not a single word. May I offer my sincere congratulations!StephenB
January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Allen MacNeil, Would you now please rejoin the conversation?Upright BiPed
January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
Dear Stephen and Upright BiPed: Thanks for your welcome and your loyalty, and for taking up the argument with Allan MacNeill and Mark Frank for me. I saw that November 2009 thread, but didn't check on it daily, and didn't realize that Allan MacNeill had finally replied, or I would have seized on the opportunity to engage him again. Months earlier, Allan MacNeill's excuses for not replying to me were pathetic, on the level of "the dog ate my essay". He was asked on several occasions, by me and others, over a period of a few weeks, and had a different excuse each time. Finally I gave up. In his much belated, recent answer in November 2009, I note that he did not deal with the fact that sometimes the genomic evidence conflicts with the anatomical evidence, but that's a minor point. More important is that he did not address the problem of "infinite evolutionary pathways". If one pathway is closed down, Darwinian theory can always invent another -- until that's disproved, and then it can invent another. The process can go on forever. In any honest scientific theory, there is a point at which the theorist is duty-bound to admit that he should stop maintaining a weak and improbable thesis at all costs, but Darwinism is so open-ended ("mutation" and "natural selection" are such broad and loose causes than an infinite number of combination of the two can be imagined), that Darwinists never seem to need to admit this. I'd like to see Allan respond to David Berlinski's question about how many genetic and developmental adjustments (an approximate number, please!) it would take to turn a nostril into a blowhole, and to Michael Denton's question about how underwater nursing was achieved, when intermediate, incomplete stages would almost certainly be fatal to sea-going mammalian offspring. (On another topic, I'd like to be enlightened on how many steps, and which steps, it would take to turn a shrew-like animal into a bat.) Mark Frank is wrong about "unguided". Apparently he has not read Darwin (or any of the major neo-Darwinians up to recent years). The neo-Darwinians have recently downplayed "unguided", but purely for political reasons -- in their heart of hearts they still believe, almost to a man, that evolution is unguided. The reason that Ken Miller took "unguided" out of his book, and that organizations like the NABT took similar statements out of their public pronouncements, was that they wanted to be able to accuse ID of being "religious" for trying to suggest that evolution needed to be guided, and they could hardly do that if they were making a clearly equally religious statement about unguidedness. This is very relevant to the schools controversy. If Darwinian evolution is inherently unguided, then it can't be taught in the schools -- it would violate the establishment clause by attacking the religion of the majority of Americans. So the neo-Darwinians can't admit (though they nearly all privately believe, and clearly lead the public on to believe) that evolution was unguided. So they pretend that Darwinian theory is neutral regarding the question of guided versus unguided. This allows them to do the science *as if* evolution were entirely unguided, and thus to have things all their own way, without incurring court cases. Darwin himself would have regarded this as contemptible cowardice, as a failure of scientific nerve in the face of anti-scientific superstitions about "miracles". He certainly did not regard evolution as guided, and his own mechanism, indeed, precludes guidance. Darwinism is anti-teleological at its very heart, as every significant historian of ideas known to me has argued. (Richard Dawkins has that much right, and when Dawkins, in *Expelled*, spoke of Darwinians who were not being honest, I am quite sure that he had the NCSE people -- Scott and Miller and others -- in mind, though of course he would not knife his evolutionary allies in the back by saying so directly.) True, if you want to engage in proof-texting, you can find all kinds of statements in Darwin to the effect that God could just as easily have used a process of evolution to produce species and man, in place of direct creation. But those statements are political and social rhetoric on Darwin's part. The overwhelming sense of his work is that the process in inherently unguided, and people like Gaylord Simpson (a major player in the Modern Synthesis), Isaac Asimov, Robert Jastrow, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, and many, many others have always understood that, and even *stressed* it in popular presentations of evolution, until recently, when, in the wake of various court decisions, it became clear that Darwinism would have to be treated as "religion" unless it was stripped of the qualifier "unguided". If Allan MacNeill and Mark Frank can't see this, I suggest they read Darwin as slowly and carefully as I have, and I suggest they read Gaylord Simpson and the others slowly and carefully, too. I also recommend that they read the writings of Michael Flannery, an expert on Darwin and on Darwin's co-discover, Wallace, who later endorsed (to Darwin's great disgust) a form of intelligently guided evolution. I challenge either Mark Frank to Allan MacNeill to provide the members of this list with a step-by-step macroevolutionary account of the creation of even one major organ, system, or organism. (Eye, avian lung, cardiovascular system, etc.) I don't want citations of thousands of articles, but a plain-language description -- which part of the genome changes, what bases are substituted for what bases, how this produces a new organ, how the organ gives the creature an advantage, how the intermediate stages, where the organ is incomplete, are useful, etc. I don't want the bedtime story-telling about the eye that Dawkins gives us, or that Darwin gave us -- a purely qualitative line-up of different kinds of eyes, with a logically illegitimate inference that they represent an actual historical sequence -- but a bloody-minded, technical "recipe for a camera eye", or "recipe for a cardiovascular system", or "recipe for a bacterial flagellum". They won't be able to do this, I know, because even biologists much more competent than they are can't do it -- Orr can't do it, Coyne can't do it, Dawkins can't do it, Carroll can't do it -- but it would be interesting to see them try. It would show what all of us here already know, that Darwinians, when forced to stand on their own two feet, not allowed to appeal to authority or consensus, and compelled to argue wholly on the basis of their own personal biological knowledge of genetics, development, ecology, etc., can't explain how things happened, and can't even come close. Yet my physics and chemistry teachers could always stand up on their own two feet, and explain to me why things happened, without citing thousands of obscure journal articles, and without appealing to authority or consensus or political statements of scientific organizations or documents signed by 70 Nobel Prize Winners. Why can't the evolutionary biologists do what every physicist and chemist routinely does? The embarrassing answer is that they cannot explain how evolution happened, beyond offering purely qualitative general concepts (like mutation and drift and selection), and trivial examples of microevolution like finch beaks and antiobiotic resistance. They are utterly incapable of bridging the chasm between longer finch beaks and the creation of a new organ system. They can't tell me how it works, the way an engineer can tell me how to build a dam or a computer. It would be nice if they were modest enough to admit what they don't know. Of course, if evolutionary biologists were to frankly admit all they don't know, they would lose their monopoly position in the school system, as everyone would realize that design is just as good an explanation as anything they have to offer. Also, their requests for research grants would be turned down more often, and that scientific research money must keep on coming. Otherwise, God forbid, evolutionary biologists would have to survive like most Arts professors, having to live without grants on (gasp!) merely their salary, and a modest salary at that. And wouldn't that be a shame? T.Timaeus
January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
I do hope that Timaeus' comment to vjtorely marks an extended return to his commenting on this blog. I hope to see GP again soon as well.Upright BiPed
January 2, 2010
January
01
Jan
2
02
2010
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
Hello Timaeus, Happy New year. I had hoped you might have stopped by earlier, November 5th to be exact. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/civil-discourse-not-tolerated-by-darwinist/Upright BiPed
January 1, 2010
January
01
Jan
1
01
2010
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT
Timaeus, welcome back. You have been missed.StephenB
January 1, 2010
January
01
Jan
1
01
2010
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
vjtorley @ 16: What makes you think that John Kwok is an evolutionary biologist? Did he provide any links to his Ph.D. dissertation or any of his peer-reviewed scientific articles? If you reply to him on Amazon.com, ask him point-blank whether or not he holds a Ph.D.,and if so, where he got it, and whether he is a member of any scientific societies, and if so which ones, and whether he has published any peer-reviewed books or articles in any field of natural science, and to provide full references to them. The answers may give you some notion of how seriously you should take his reviews of scientific books. T.Timaeus
January 1, 2010
January
01
Jan
1
01
2010
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
Your efforts to spread the truth are appreciated O'leary.lamarck
December 25, 2009
December
12
Dec
25
25
2009
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
The editorial copy at the Zon hasn't changed yet. We shouldn't discount the possibly this is a result of Zon flunkies rethinking their kowtowing to Sir Peeve after they received O'Leary's notice that she'd move her business away from them if they went through with their assurance - in the correspondence originally brownbagged but not posted here - to change the description.waterbear
December 23, 2009
December
12
Dec
23
23
2009
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
PaulBurnett, I don't care what goes on re "reviews" on the 'Zon. I participate rarely and only in response to urgent requests I can't decently refuse without social fallout. I can only wish friends would see the matter as I do - proof positive that the Darwin people usually have nothing to do and all day to do it in, very often at tax expense. Now THAT is a matter waiting to be addressed ... I have no illusion that you understand this, but for others who may be listening: Tampering with a product description on the basis of a gripe from Sir Peeve or Lord Willies is totally different from nasty on-site reviews from people who probably couldn't get published in their local pennysaver. The publisher or independent reviewer usually supplies the copy. In the former case, the group paying for the project is reasonably allowed to describe it. In the latter, the job is farmed out, with whatever result. In no case, are Sir Peeve and Lord Willies allowed into the process. And if they are, I can no longer have confidence in the system. I do not have time to read every book I point to. I just want to be sure that normal industry rules are followed. Too much to ask in a system where Darwinists have a chokehold? Well, then, we must break that hold. O'Leary
December 22, 2009
December
12
Dec
22
22
2009
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
Amazon, Google, Wikipedia. Investigate where the early capital for these originated. As for me, I prefer to purchase books locally, and keep jobs close to home.toscents
December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
Denyse (#25) wrote: "I just want a system where I can be sure that the book house is not manipulating product copy in response to complaints by peeved establishment wallahs." So how would you feel about the very detailed revelation of how ID "wallahs" were gaming the review system at Amazon? See http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/12/expelled-intell.html for specifics. Or is that different?PaulBurnett
December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
I just want a system where I can be sure that the book house is not manipulating product copy in response to complaints by peeved establishment wallahs. I can find any book anywhere, thanks to computers and the Internet, no matter how the house chooses to shelve it - and I needn't even visit the store - so how much should I care where they shelve it? As a matter of fact, my local Big Book Store is crammed, on the ground floor, with house, gift, and party ware. If I needed all that stuff, I wouldn't have time to read books. SO I usually order via the 'Net. But if I think that their product copy has been doctored, I can't recommend the site.O'Leary
December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
PaulBurnett,
When I bought my copy of “Signature,” the clerk in the Barnes & Noble store I went to took me to the “Comparative Religion” section – but alas, there were no copies. It was in stock in the second Barnes & Noble I went to – in the “Comparative Religion” section – not the “Science” section.
It was also in the comparative religion section at the Barnes and Noble I went to. However, I was told by the manager that Barnes and Noble decides where to put these books, and Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth was also in the comparative religion section, along with Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens and David Berlinski's The Devil's Delusion. I think, quite honestly, that they don't know what to do with these books, and Comparative Religion is a catch-all. However, if I recall correctly, The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder was in the Science section. In short, I wouldn't allow my thinking, nor my reading list to be determined by a Barnes and Noble shelving system.Clive Hayden
December 21, 2009
December
12
Dec
21
21
2009
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
Denyse wrote: "I am transferring all my business to Barnes & Noble..." When I bought my copy of "Signature," the clerk in the Barnes & Noble store I went to took me to the "Comparative Religion" section - but alas, there were no copies. It was in stock in the second Barnes & Noble I went to - in the "Comparative Religion" section - not the "Science" section.PaulBurnett
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
The key issue is what the book is about, not what Darwinists believe.CannuckianYankee
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
OK, let me get this straight. Wheeler is miffed about the following quote: "One hundred fifty years ago, Charles Darwin revolutionized biology, but did he refute intelligent design (ID)? In Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer argues that he did not." Then he writes to Zon and states: "This is a lie. Based on his discovery of incalculable numbers of examples of the process of transmutation of species, Charles Darwin's great scientific work, On The Origin Of Species, presented his thesis that the (then current) belief that species were unchanging parts of a designed hierarchy was discredited." Well...um...no, it's not a lie. The key wording is "Meyer argues that he did not." How is this a lie? Meyer clearly argues in his book that Darwin did not refute the design argument. Whether one agrees with Meyer is another issue, but there is no lie in the statement. I think the Zon will be reasonable in recognizing this.CannuckianYankee
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
Cabal: I bet you laugh at your own jokes, but I will admit - you are funny.alan
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
Thanks, Borne, at 15. I am not saying what I did to trash anyone just for fun. I really did have a good relationship with the 'Zon for years, when I could honestly link to books, pro or con various issues, or just for info - confident that normal commercial standards were observed. This Wheeler business - if it really happens - changes everything. Now I don't know whether people are just reading propaganda dictated by ... well, who knows? I just happened to catch sight of this "Wheeler," due to a brown bag. So how would I know how many others are out there? My mail from the 'Zon bot was hardly reassuring.O'Leary
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Great post Denyse, and I for one totally approve of your language. They deserve what they get. The Amazonians have been crippling themselves with such biases and blatant stupidity for a while. Sooner or later it will show up in customer response as the smart ones notice the sham. They're following the same path as Enron, the NY Times and the 100s of other cies that have gone south for good or are on their merry way down the tubes. SEE HEREBorne
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply