I don't see any other way to interpret Jerry Coyne's latest rebuttal to Ken Miller than that Miller is either intentionally lying or is too stupid to read the plain meaning of Coyne's remarks.
I don't see how anyone can remain a professional scientist, regardless of his intelligence and skill, without an absolute commitment to the factual truth.
Perhaps Coyne can't say it, but I can: Ken Miller is a liar and unfit to be a member of the scientific community.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
2 comments:
Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.
With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.
No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.
See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.
Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.
I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.
Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.
I've already answered some typical comments.
I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Of course he is lying. Ultimatley, when you are trying to argue on the side of the argument that is against the truth, I don't think you can ultimately avoid lying. At best, you can lie by ommission - ignoring those points you lose on.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is true, beyond any doubt. Given the mountain of evidence, the only way to deny it is to lie your ass off.
It should be noted that Miller, so far as I know, completely supports evolutionary science and his work in biology is well-respected in the scientific community.
ReplyDeleteThe controversy with Coyne hinges on whether science is compatible with religion. Miller, a Catholic, naturally argues on the accommodationist side.
It's possible Miller could be correct, and he has — or at least had — enough credibility and intelligence that we would be well-served to hear him out.
But to descend into the sleazy dishonesty of Republicans and cretinists is evidence only of insincerity: Miller must know at some level that he doesn't have an argumentative leg to stand on.