William F. Maddock #fundie

William F. Maddock #fundie stltoday.com

If evolution is true, why is there so much wailing and gnashing of teeth when it is suggested that public schools stop teaching lies as though they are fact?

41 comments

old comment by Julian

Wow - just wow!
I hadn't realised that was a published letter - I just assumed it was another idiotic teenager. I can't believe the remainder of the letter. <<<<The editorial suggests intelligent design proponents are disingenuous. Darwinists attempt to indoctrinate children, telling them with what to think. Intelligent design proponents prefer that children be taught how to think.>>>> Firstly, words like disingenuous are not bandied around that often, and if they are in ID terms, I'd imagine they'd come from Judge Jones' ruling in the Dover trial where he called ID's tactics "at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard." ID has nothing to do with teaching children how to think. It is baseless lie after baseless lie. It is Creationism at it's tawdriest and has been proven in a court of law to have no scientific basis whatsoever. <<<<It is fascinating that the editorial writer can read the minds of those who oppose evolution. The truth is that those who began the "intelligent design" movement were not even particularly of faith but serious scientists who do know what they're talking about. I could be wrong, but a molecular biologist knows a little more about how living things work than does an editorial writer.>>>> This idiot has obviously never heard of the Discovery Institute, the CRC, the ARN or the roots of the movement he so ardently follows. Here is their wedge document for those that haven't seen it. http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html I'd look at the editorial, but it's been archived. The blatant ad hominem about the editorial writer is fairly sad too. It implies he made the whole thing up, which he or she obviously didn't.

old comment by William F. Maddock

If evolution is true, then the suggestion does not apply to evolution, does it? Why then the defensive attitude, the insults, the attacks, and the absolute terror of SCIENTIFICALLY and LOGICALLY engaging the arguments in favor of ID? Is it perhaps because evolution does not have a scientific or logical leg to stand on, and that the more knowledgeable evolution adherents KNOW THAT and only adhere to it because they prefer its MORAL implications?
Having read what the Post-Dispatch printed in my name I can confidently say that it is NOT what I wrote to the Post-Dispatch. What I wrote to the Post-Dispatch was intended mainly for their editorial staff to read because I did not believe that they would have the courageor honestyto actually print WHAT I WROTE. Of course I was accurate in my belief. I do not know of a daily anywhere in the United States that has the courage to accurately portray a conservative Christian. As an example, I recently ran across one of them quoting a proponent of ID. That proponent has a DOCTORATE in Mathematics, a DOCTORATE in Philosophy, TWO NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Fellowships, has done post-doctoral work at MIT, Princeton, and (I believe) the University of Chicago, but also holds a Masters in Divinity. How did the daily refer to that ID Proponent? A seminary teacher. They didn't want to give that ID proponent any credibility at all. They wanted to perpetuate the MYTH that ID is religiously based, so, they hacked and slashed at that ID proponent's CV and merely called them a seminary teacher. That is the typical treatment that ID gets from the mediaand from the brainless twits that mindlessly follow Darwin. I note that not one of you has even attempted to address on a purely scientific and logical basis the question at the start of what the Post-Dispatch printed in my name, but that the vast majority have only engaged in ad hominem attacks while accusing me of what THEY have actually done: Which came first, the clotting process, or the wound? Evolution does not work. Face it.

old comment by William F. Maddock

It has nothing to do with irreducible complexity. It has to do with Natural Selection, and how it's supposed to only select for things that BENEFIT the creature in question. Without a wound, the clotting process tends to clot the blood anywaywhich is most decidedly NOT benefitial to the creature in question, so natural selection would not have selected for a clotting process at all where there was not already a wound to be healed. On the other hand where there is not a clotting process the creature in question does not survive the wound to pass its DNA along. Either way Natural Selection LOSES. It's a logical nonsequitor. It doesn't even survive a test of simple logic. It does not work. In order to get past this simple little test, you would have to have a random, undirected, unintelligent process that KNEW IN ADVANCE that an apparently damaging process would in fact be beneficial. That takes DESIGN, NOT natural selection.

old comment by Julian

Wow - we need a "William F Maddock" award just for you. Not sure who'll win it next month though.
You want us to provide you with links to the countless scientific websites that refute every point in ID. (ie to refute your claim that science is incapable of countering the wonderful logic in ID) We can do this. First however, please can you provide us with one scientific website that supports it! Just one please! If you dare claim evolution is logically baseless and without scientific merit, I seriously suggest you go back and pray harder to your big sky daddy for a brain with a few miles on the clock. Now, we could laugh at your innuendo, conspiracy theories, paranoia and general 'foamy hyperbole' until the cows evolved a couple of extra stomachs, but lets just stick with the factual atrocities. Why would The SL Post edit what you wrote? I find this claim extraordinary, especially considering your tack seems to change direction with every post. Now then. Why did you claim clotting had nothing to do with irreducible complexity? Is it because I called you on it? Is it because it's been proven not to be irreducibly complex? Have you not read Behe's work? ...To quote a Millerism. "Because, guess what!" [he tends to add that before a killer point]. Behe uses blood clotting as one of his key examples of irreducible complexity. http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm (quoted on that page, the camera eye, the cilia and BLOOD CLOTTING - you can't miss it, it has it's own heading) [said by Behe, written by Behe]. SOOOOO, please inform myself [and Behe] why you suddenly claim blood clotting is NOT an example of irreducible complexity, when ID - which you claim is superior to science - DOES. Furthermore, if you'd bother to read any of it, you'd know that one of the key fallacies Behe uses to 'construct' his IR argument, is that clotting is localised. Are you trying to say that the very occasional pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis, usually the product of an extremely unhealthy and inactive lifestyle, usually a generation after you've passed on your genes, is a bigger negative than the ability not to bleed to death when you clamber out your egg? Seriously who's logic is flawed? You just claimed our blood is clotting anyway and it's naturally impossible for any of us to breed? Please try to flim flam your way out of that hole, we need a good chuckle! Even you have a vague idea how vitally important clotting is, even invertebrates have it. Guess what, if fibrin hadn't developed naturally in blood for other reasons and the clotting mechanism hadn't occurred by accident, not only would life still be on the bottom of the sea, but we wouldn't even have been able to shed (develop softer) exoskeletons and develop internal skeletons for our muscular framework to assist in movement. Clotting was not the solution to a problem, it happened by accident and was so massively useful it was probably what triggered the Cambrian explosion, and was definitely integral to the rise of the fish to be the dominant life from in the Ordovician period. And please read this! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12808152

old comment by JustinGG

<<I do not know of a daily anywhere in the United States that has the courage to accurately portray a conservative Christian. As an example, I recently ran across one of them quoting a proponent of ID. That proponent has a DOCTORATE in Mathematics, a DOCTORATE in Philosophy, TWO NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Fellowships, has done post-doctoral work at MIT, Princeton, and (I believe) the University of Chicago, but also holds a Masters in Divinity. How did the daily refer to that ID Proponent? A seminary teacher. They didn't want to give that ID proponent any credibility at all.>>
And this person would be...? <<They wanted to perpetuate the MYTH that ID is religiously based, so, they hacked and slashed at that ID proponent's CV and merely called them a seminary teacher.>> Why do you suppose that's a problem?

old comment by mad dog

Mr. Maddock, if there is no such thing as evolution, I would like you to explain the following phenomena:
1. Why are there different breeds of dogs? If all dogs have a common ancestor, then why do they look different from each other? Why do some dogs have black fur and others have white fur? Why are some dogs as big as rats, yet others that are larger than humans? If there was no such thing as evolution, then by what other method did different breeds of dogs arise? 2. If all humans have a common pair of ancestors (Adam and Eve), then why does everyone look different from each other? Why are there black people? Why are there white people and Asian people? Did Adam and Eve's descendents all of a sudden look different from each other in an instant?

William F. Maddock #fundie stltoday.com

41 comments

Confused?