"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Galvasean · 14-09-2010 2:01pm

Speaking as a guy who has been sued for libel, yes what you say on the internet can be used against you! :eek:

14-09-2010 2:05pm

FionnMatthew wrote: »

I'm receptive to the idea that I'm being naive and wrongheaded, but I really don't see that you gave any reasons for it.

Sorry, you're right I should have given reasons but didn't want to go too off-topic.

You said that getting a minister to resign would be the best way to quash the PR this guy is getting. In fact I'd imagine it would elevate it to an international story and would be spun by creationists as some form of atheist plot to stamp out all criticism of creationism.

Getting Lenihan to resign would be worth 100x as much PR as getting him to launch the book for this guy.

token56 · 14-09-2010 2:17pm

When I first heard about this and listened to some of his videos I did begin to think of J C, but he does lack the same religious beliefs. Listening to him on Ray Darcy this morning I was annoyed that he was given such an easy time of it and was basically let say whatever he wanted without much rebuttal. But to be fair Mr Darcy probably didn't have the right knowledge to be able to argue convincingly and even if he did Mr May does not seem like an individual who would be easy to keep on topic or to get a straight response out of. I would love to see him get torn apart in a proper debate with Dawkins or Hitchens or whoever but I think the opposition would likely go insane trying to deal with him.

mohawk · 14-09-2010 2:42pm

I heard him on Ray Darcy too. I thought Ray gave him an easy time but at the same time what could Ray say. At one stage he was saying he was going to get a retraction for slander from a newspaper who said his book was anti-science. I would say Ray was trying not to agitate him.

oceanclub · 14-09-2010 2:43pm

mohawk wrote: »

At one stage he was saying he was going to get a retraction for slander from a newspaper who said his book was anti-science.

Yup, because famously that how scientists win debates; they sue each other.

P.

ChocolateSauce · 14-09-2010 2:50pm

Galvasean wrote: »

Speaking as a guy who has been sued for libel, yes what you say on the internet can be used against you! :eek:

That sounds like an interesting story! Care to enlighten us? Or will that get you sued more?

Anyway last night I sent a caustic letter to him saying what I'm sure everyone else said and also calling for his resignation. I'm glad to see it made front page news that he pulled out, though obviously that doesn't undo the damage. If his bosses were more competent than him I'd say they should fire him.

GLaDOS · 14-09-2010 2:54pm

Anyone get an actual response to an email yet?

ChocolateSauce · 14-09-2010 2:58pm

No, although I'm kind of expecting one. Of the 4 TD's and Senators I've emailed over the last few years they've all gotten back to me sooner or later.

Dougla2 · 14-09-2010 3:15pm

i got the we will make sure he gets it email

Soul Winner · 14-09-2010 3:17pm

Ah feck it, I'll throw in my two cents

Eh, guys, its a theory that has stood for 150 years, its not like this guy is going to over throw it with his new book. But may I ask, how can an anti theory evolution book be called an anti scientific book? If, by default, it is anti science because it is anti theory of evolution, then his work would never be able to make it to the pearly gates of the peer review process in the first place. Which means that even papers written by college professors with a PhD after their name who set out to refute the theory of evolution will also not be considered for peer review because by default they would be deemed anti scientific by virtue of the fact that they are anti evolutionary theory.

If anything that is anti any scientific theory can be labeled anti scientific by default then the scientific method is dead in the water and the only way that it will be revived is to go outside the peer review process altogether and publish work in the public market just like Darwin did way back when.

Science is all about asking questions and probing whatever answers the scientific method throws up to see if they are really really sound or not, and applying evidence unearthed by new discoveries to current theories which will either shore up a theory even more or refute it, just like the way the steady state model was consigned to the cosmological dust bin due to the death knells that the discoveries which went to shored up the Big Bang theory came to light.

This guy just doesn't buy the theory of evolution and has gone so far as to write and publish a book about it using his own money. Just because it didn't go through a process of peer review (which of course it wouldn't even make it too due to its so called anti scientific agenda) doesn't automatically consign it to the dust bin.

You're supposed to actually read someone's arguments before casting aspersions on them. Pick out a particular point that they make in their work and show it to be incorrect by using one's own research and knowledge. The fact that most of ye have already judged his book before reading it really speaks volumes. And even if you can show where there are holes in his theories that doesn't mean that he should be ridiculed over it. From whence comes this attitude in science? Its dead bloody wrong if you ask me. Look, even if the theory of evolution is as true as all ye believe it to be, it should still be subjected to every possible test that might just go to show that its not. So to ridicule someone who writes a book because it grinds against this theory is closed mindedness of the highest order.

As for the minister turning up to promote the launch of his book, I wonder if the minster would have received as many emails from atheists had it had an anti ID agenda? I think not. :rolleyes:

oceanclub · 14-09-2010 3:22pm

But may I ask, how can an anti theory evolution book be called an anti scientific book?

Is concluding that man does not share a common ancestry with apes by ignoring both the fossil record and genetics and instead pointing out that we don't like sitting in trees, your idea of "science"?

P.

mikhail · 14-09-2010 3:24pm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

No, although I'm kind of expecting one. Of the 4 TD's and Senators I've emailed over the last few years they've all gotten back to me sooner or later.

I'm 2 for 3 myself (Eamonn Ryan is the odd one out). Under normal circumstances, I'd be confident of a reply from Lenihan, but given the volume of email he's received on the subject, I expect there'll be a form letter.

Lemegeton · 14-09-2010 3:26pm

what a laughing stock our politicians are. we have a clueless gombeen for a science minister who does not see the conflict in interest of launching a book that makes a mockery of evolution by using such arguments as "we dont live in trees so we cant have evolved from monkeys"
and we have an overweight hippo running the department for health.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
what a country we live in

MagicMarker · 14-09-2010 3:26pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ah feck it, I'll throw in my two cents

Eh, guys, its a theory that has stood for 150 years, its not like this guy is going to over throw it with his new book. But may I ask, how can an anti theory evolution book be called an anti scientific book? If, by default, it is anti science because it is anti theory of evolution, then his work would never be able to make it to the pearly gates of the peer review process in the first place. Which means that even papers written by college professors with a PhD after their name who set out to refute the theory of evolution will also not be considered for peer review because by default they would be deemed anti scientific by virtue of the fact that they are anti evolutionary theory.

If anything that is anti any scientific theory can be labeled anti scientific by default then the scientific method is dead in the water and the only way that it will be revived is to go outside the peer review process altogether and publish work in the public market just like Darwin did way back when.

Science is all about asking questions and probing whatever answers the scientific method throws up to see if they are really really sound or not, and applying evidence unearthed by new discoveries to current theories which will either shore up a theory even more or refute it, just like the way the steady state model was consigned to the cosmological dust bin due to the death knells that the discoveries which went to shored up the Big Bang theory came to light.

This guy doesn't just doesn't buy the theory of evolution and has gone so far as to write and publish a book about it using his own money. Just because it didn't go through a process of peer review (which of course it wouldn't even make it too due to its so called anti scientific agenda) doesn't automatically consign it to the dust bin.

You're supposed to actually read someone's arguments before casting aspersions on them. Pick out a particular point that they make in their work and show it to be incorrect by using one's own research and knowledge. The fact that most of ye have already judged his book before reading it really speaks volumes. And even if you can show where there are holes in his theories that doesn't mean that he should be ridiculed over it. From whence comes this attitude in science? Its dead bloody wrong if you ask me. Look, even if the theory of evolution is as true as all ye believe it to be, it should still be subjected to every possible test that might just go to show that its not. So to ridicule someone who writes a book because it grinds against this theory is closed mindedness of the highest order.

As for the minister turning up to promote the launch of his book, I wonder if the minster would have received as many emails from atheists had it had an anti ID agenda? I think not. :rolleyes:

lol.

I'm going to write a book and publish it myself stating that we were all made by kermit the frog, thus proving that evolution is a lie.

And you ALL have to read it before you can pass judgment. So there!

Sam Vimes · 14-09-2010 3:28pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

But may I ask, how can an anti theory evolution book be called an anti scientific book? If, by default, it is anti science because it is anti theory of evolution, then his work would never be able to make it to the pearly gates of the peer review process in the first place. Which means that even papers written by college professors with a PhD after their name who set out to refute the theory of evolution will also not be considered for peer review because by default they would be deemed anti scientific by virtue of the fact that they are anti evolutionary theory.

It's not "by default". We haven't read the book but we have seen the synposis on his website and looked at the arguments given in his youtube videos. His argument against common descent is "have you ever tried living in a tree?" and he thinks the fact that babies fingers don't get that wrinkley in the womb disproves evolution. This book is anti-science but that doesn't mean that any book that challenges an established theory is anti-science by default

Soul Winner · 14-09-2010 3:28pm

oceanclub wrote: »

Is concluding that man does not share a common ancestry with apes by ignoring both the fossil record and genetics and instead pointing out that we don't like sitting in trees, your idea of "science"?

P.

Eh, no, but I think you were successful in completely missing the big picture that my post tried to paint. Pitty...

mikhail · 14-09-2010 3:30pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ah feck it, I'll throw in my two cents

Eh, guys, its a theory that has stood for 150 years, its not like this guy is going to over throw it with his new book. But may I ask, how can an anti theory evolution book be called an anti scientific book? If, by default, it is anti science because it is anti theory of evolution, then his work would never be able to make it to the pearly gates of the peer review process in the first place. Which means that even papers written by college professors with a PhD after their name who set out to refute the theory of evolution will also not be considered for peer review because by default they would be deemed anti scientific by virtue of the fact that they are anti evolutionary theory.

Er, people have read extracts of his books, watched videos of his youtube rants on the subject and concluded that he doesn't have a scientific argument. But, y'know, keep on pretending he's a victim of scientific conspiracy if you like.

As for the minister turning up to promote the launch of his book, I wonder if the minster would have received as many emails from atheists had it had an anti ID agenda? I think not. :rolleyes:

If the Minister for Health were to turn up at the launch of a book in which a witch doctor expounded on how the germ theory of disease was rubbish, we'd be equally pissed off.

This is not about agendas, it's about morons promoting idiocy while in a position of public responsibility.

Ush1 · 14-09-2010 3:30pm

Think someones been watching too much Ben Stein.:)

purple_hatstand · 14-09-2010 3:32pm

Next on Newstalk (Moncrieff) - "Is Darwinism A Fraud?"

Don't know who he's talking to or whether there'll be mention of the book launch - could be interesting nontheless.

Waking-Dreams · 14-09-2010 3:33pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

You're supposed to actually read someone's arguments before casting aspersions on them. Pick out a particular point that they make in their work and show it to be incorrect by using one's own research and knowledge. The fact that most of ye have already judged his book before reading it really speaks volumes. And even if you can show where there are holes in his theories that doesn't mean that he should be ridiculed over it. From whence comes this attitude in science? Its dead bloody wrong if you ask me. Look, even if the theory of evolution is as true as all ye believe it to be, it should still be subjected to every possible test that might just go to show that its not. So to ridicule someone who writes a book because it grinds against this theory is closed mindedness of the highest order.

OK then...

I'll be publishing a book soon on how the earth used to be flat but was morphed into its current spherical shape by aliens. Do you still want to read my “arguments” or will you be dismissing the book as nonsense? Thought so.

The other thing is that my book isn't the first of its kind. There have been many others which have all been refuted using the scientific method.

Sometimes you can judge a book by its cover and summary.

purple_hatstand · 14-09-2010 3:35pm

purple_hatstand wrote: »

Next on Newstalk (Moncrieff) - "Is Darwinism A Fraud?"

Don't know who he's talking to or whether there'll be mention of the book launch - could be interesting nontheless.

It's May himself...

c_man · 14-09-2010 3:36pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

As for the minister turning up to promote the launch of his book, I wonder if the minster would have received as many emails from atheists had it had an anti ID agenda? I think not. :rolleyes:

By anti-ID agenda, do you mean a science book?! I'd have no problem with the Minister for State for Science etc., turning up at the launch of such a book surprisingly.

sensibleken · 14-09-2010 3:39pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ah feck it, I'll throw in my two cents

Eh, guys, its a theory that has stood for 150 years, its not like this guy is going to over throw it with his new book. But may I ask, how can an anti theory evolution book be called an anti scientific book? If, by default, it is anti science because it is anti theory of evolution, then his work would never be able to make it to the pearly gates of the peer review process in the first place. Which means that even papers written by college professors with a PhD after their name who set out to refute the theory of evolution will also not be considered for peer review because by default they would be deemed anti scientific by virtue of the fact that they are anti evolutionary theory.

If anything that is anti any scientific theory can be labeled anti scientific by default then the scientific method is dead in the water and the only way that it will be revived is to go outside the peer review process altogether and publish work in the public market just like Darwin did way back when.

Science is all about asking questions and probing whatever answers the scientific method throws up to see if they are really really sound or not, and applying evidence unearthed by new discoveries to current theories which will either shore up a theory even more or refute it, just like the way the steady state model was consigned to the cosmological dust bin due to the death knells that the discoveries which went to shored up the Big Bang theory came to light.

This guy just doesn't buy the theory of evolution and has gone so far as to write and publish a book about it using his own money. Just because it didn't go through a process of peer review (which of course it wouldn't even make it too due to its so called anti scientific agenda) doesn't automatically consign it to the dust bin.

You're supposed to actually read someone's arguments before casting aspersions on them. Pick out a particular point that they make in their work and show it to be incorrect by using one's own research and knowledge. The fact that most of ye have already judged his book before reading it really speaks volumes. And even if you can show where there are holes in his theories that doesn't mean that he should be ridiculed over it. From whence comes this attitude in science? Its dead bloody wrong if you ask me. Look, even if the theory of evolution is as true as all ye believe it to be, it should still be subjected to every possible test that might just go to show that its not. So to ridicule someone who writes a book because it grinds against this theory is closed mindedness of the highest order.

As for the minister turning up to promote the launch of his book, I wonder if the minster would have received as many emails from atheists had it had an anti ID agenda? I think not. :rolleyes:

I think its labelled anti-scientific as it does not use the scientific method as a basis of its claims. And it rubbishes theories based on the scientific method.

It would not be anti-science to attack scientific theories if it is based on demonstratable, repeatable experiments.

This is of course an assumption as i haven't read the book. I also will not read the book as he sounds like a travelling medicine salesman

Sam Vimes · 14-09-2010 3:40pm

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

OK then...

I'll be publishing a book soon on how the earth used to be flat but was morphed into its current spherical shape by aliens. Do you still want to read my “arguments” or will you be dismissing the book as nonsense? Thought so.

The other thing is that my book isn't the first of its kind. There have been many others which have all been refuted using the scientific method.

Sometimes you can judge a book by its cover and summary.

Stress on the "and summary". Soul Winner is trying to make out that any anti-evolution book will automatically be dismissed out of hand but the reality is that this guy has told us all we need to know that he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.

Turtwig · 14-09-2010 3:48pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

And even if you can show where there are holes in his theories that doesn't mean that he should be ridiculed over it. From whence comes this attitude in science? Its dead bloody wrong if you ask me. Look, even if the theory of evolution is as true as all ye believe it to be, it should still be subjected to every possible test that might just go to show that its not. So to ridicule someone who writes a book because it grinds against this theory is closed mindedness of the highest order.

If I explained to somebody that the scientific theory of gravity says that all objects on earth will fall towards a point near the centre of the earth and that person then decided to refute that theory by writing a book using a definition of gravity that says object will float into space as his starting point then I would have no choice but to ridicule him. Building a strawman of science is intellectual dishonesty and doesn't deserve to be treated with respect. If some plonker decides to argue evolution is false on the pretense that we humans can no longer live in water then his ignorance knows no limits and is rightly subject to ridicule. A grown adult not bothered his ass to learn something and instead thinks that making stuff up and then knocking that made up stuff down can be classed as science deserves all the ridicule in the world. If someone is to challenge the theory of evolution then at the very least the expectation is there for them to challenge actual evolution not some ignorant crap that they made up in their head because they couldn't get around to learning the actual theory first.

sponsoredwalk · 14-09-2010 3:49pm

I just heard him on the radio, Newstalk I think. This has to be the most
hilarious attempt yet. It's like they gave a drunk down the pub carte
blanche to express his delusions to an audience. Oh wait, that is what has
just happened...

His argument is that religion is a pox on humanity, and that he distances
himself from the christian view of the world being created 6000 years ago
but then he wages him own reasons why the world was created 6000 years
ago. Want to know why? Because if you look at history there were very few
tribes before the Sumerians and Babylonians so that's justification! :cool:

Malari · 14-09-2010 3:50pm

Actually Moncrieff is giving him a tough interview. He's not able to defend himself, or even make his points very well. He seems to be saying that evolution doesn't prove where the origin of life comes from, therefore it can't be true?! Never mind that's not what the theory says at all. He sounds like that Irish "Derren Brown" fella.

Waking-Dreams · 14-09-2010 3:50pm

Listening to him on Moncrieff; this guy John May has declared his intellectual bankrupcy quite well.

Sean Moncrieff: “... (silence) ... Er, you've lost me completely...

...Here's the thing, you've just said you've read lots of stuff, that it's a kind of 'take my word for it'...

...the alternative is that there's a conspiracy of mind-boggling proportions...”

He's certainly the perfect radio host to interview the guy.

I know people say all publicity is good publicity, but publicity doesn't always translate into sales.

I wonder how many people will actually attend his lecture tomorrow.

sink · 14-09-2010 3:53pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ah feck it, I'll throw in my two cents

Eh, guys, its a theory that has stood for 150 years, its not like this guy is going to over throw it with his new book. But may I ask, how can an anti theory evolution book be called an anti scientific book? If, by default, it is anti science because it is anti theory of evolution, then his work would never be able to make it to the pearly gates of the peer review process in the first place. Which means that even papers written by college professors with a PhD after their name who set out to refute the theory of evolution will also not be considered for peer review because by default they would be deemed anti scientific by virtue of the fact that they are anti evolutionary theory.

If anything that is anti any scientific theory can be labeled anti scientific by default then the scientific method is dead in the water and the only way that it will be revived is to go outside the peer review process altogether and publish work in the public market just like Darwin did way back when.

Science is all about asking questions and probing whatever answers the scientific method throws up to see if they are really really sound or not, and applying evidence unearthed by new discoveries to current theories which will either shore up a theory even more or refute it, just like the way the steady state model was consigned to the cosmological dust bin due to the death knells that the discoveries which went to shored up the Big Bang theory came to light.

This guy just doesn't buy the theory of evolution and has gone so far as to write and publish a book about it using his own money. Just because it didn't go through a process of peer review (which of course it wouldn't even make it too due to its so called anti scientific agenda) doesn't automatically consign it to the dust bin.

You're supposed to actually read someone's arguments before casting aspersions on them. Pick out a particular point that they make in their work and show it to be incorrect by using one's own research and knowledge. The fact that most of ye have already judged his book before reading it really speaks volumes. And even if you can show where there are holes in his theories that doesn't mean that he should be ridiculed over it. From whence comes this attitude in science? Its dead bloody wrong if you ask me. Look, even if the theory of evolution is as true as all ye believe it to be, it should still be subjected to every possible test that might just go to show that its not. So to ridicule someone who writes a book because it grinds against this theory is closed mindedness of the highest order.

As for the minister turning up to promote the launch of his book, I wonder if the minster would have received as many emails from atheists had it had an anti ID agenda? I think not. :rolleyes:

I emailed the Junior Minister not to protest the publishing of a book but to express my disapproval of his endorsement by virtue of attending the launch. He is an elected TD and a representative of this government and I'm entitled to judge him on his actions. He is fully entitled to attend whatever book launch he likes, but by attending this book launch he looses credibility in my eyes. Just as if Mary Harney were to attend the launch of a book on mystic healing she too would loose credibility in my eyes to carry out the her role as Minister for Health.

The book is not anti-science by simple virtue of being anti-evolution, the book is anti-science by virtue of ignoring the empirical evidence and indeed holding up nonsense such as people not living in trees as credible evidence. It doesn't matter what topic is being discussed, if the evidence is not reviewed in a sensible manner then it is not science. I couldn't credibly argue against the earth being flat by pointing out that hot air is lighter than cold air, the argument make no sense and so it is not a scientific argument regardless of whether the conclusions drawn are correct or not.

MagicMarker · 14-09-2010 3:54pm

Someone please tell me this stuff will be online at some stage?

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments