Comments on: Misunderstood Barash http://telicthoughts.com/misunderstood-barash/ An independent blog about intelligent design Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:42:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Krauze http://telicthoughts.com/misunderstood-barash/#comment-1383 Krauze Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:48:44 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=174#comment-1383 Hi Jean, We shouldn't blame Myers for his behavior. His memes made him do it. ;-) Hi Jean,

We shouldn't blame Myers for his behavior. His memes made him do it. ;-)

]]> By: Jean http://telicthoughts.com/misunderstood-barash/#comment-1382 Jean Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:03:10 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=174#comment-1382 "Myers has a tendency not to listen too closely to the words coming out of other people's mouths." That, and plenty of verbal abuse directed at you personally. I just read that thread, and what surprises me is that none of the participants called him on it. Sorry for the somewat OT remark, but I was shocked to see him stoop to such a low level. You did not deserve that. "Myers has a tendency not to listen too closely to the words coming out of other people's mouths."

That, and plenty of verbal abuse directed at you personally. I just read that thread, and what surprises me is that none of the participants called him on it. Sorry for the somewat OT remark, but I was shocked to see him stoop to such a low level. You did not deserve that.

]]> By: Krauze http://telicthoughts.com/misunderstood-barash/#comment-1381 Krauze Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:26:35 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=174#comment-1381 Hi Mike, Myers has a tendency not to listen too closely to the words coming out of other people's mouths. For another example of this, read <a href="http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/urmetazoa_rising/#comments" rel="nofollow">this discussion</a> I had with him about front-loading. He kept assuring me that he'd read what had been written about the subject, but as his comments reveal, he had no idea what he was talking about. Regarding Barash's claims about back problems, I suggest he visits a part of the world where the population doesn't work and relax hunched over tables and flung in recliners, and where he'll find back problems to be virtually non-existent. What's the deal? Do those people have different spines? And if so, can I get one? Hi Mike,

Myers has a tendency not to listen too closely to the words coming out of other people's mouths. For another example of this, read this discussion I had with him about front-loading. He kept assuring me that he'd read what had been written about the subject, but as his comments reveal, he had no idea what he was talking about.

Regarding Barash's claims about back problems, I suggest he visits a part of the world where the population doesn't work and relax hunched over tables and flung in recliners, and where he'll find back problems to be virtually non-existent. What's the deal? Do those people have different spines? And if so, can I get one?

]]> By: Jean http://telicthoughts.com/misunderstood-barash/#comment-1347 Jean Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:18:08 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/?p=174#comment-1347 Looks like some of the atheistic ID 'critics' are in damage control mode, merely to prevent their atheistic beliefs being associated with their criticisms of ID as indicative of their real motivation. (their atheistic presumptions, of course, seems to be the real reason 'ID' or theism is disliked by default; acceptance of a design hypothesis of any kind within the sciences would mean evidence exists which would suggest that their atheistic beliefs are false, and we can't have that now can we?). Anyhow, PZ Meyers' point of view seems quite credulous, assuming he believes it himself which I doubt. It should be obvious to anyone that Barash' article is aimed to demolish a theistic interpretation in favor of atheism. One would have to be a very selective quoter to come to any different conclusion. Looks like some of the atheistic ID 'critics' are in damage control mode, merely to prevent their atheistic beliefs being associated with their criticisms of ID as indicative of their real motivation. (their atheistic presumptions, of course, seems to be the real reason 'ID' or theism is disliked by default; acceptance of a design hypothesis of any kind within the sciences would mean evidence exists which would suggest that their atheistic beliefs are false, and we can't have that now can we?).

Anyhow, PZ Meyers' point of view seems quite credulous, assuming he believes it himself which I doubt. It should be obvious to anyone that Barash' article is aimed to demolish a theistic interpretation in favor of atheism. One would have to be a very selective quoter to come to any different conclusion.

]]>