Coragyps

Gould wrote an essay on nipples in male humans and clitorises/clitori/(I've forgotton my Latin and am no longer sure of the plural) in women - the latter arise from the same embryonic tissue as the penis. He said, in the book edition of the piece, that the editors of Natural History wouldn't let him title it "Tits and Clits."
Of course, that's the only title I can remember.....

theyeti

In all fairness to ARN, some of their moderators are anti-IDists. Though of course it's likely that one of the IDist ones locked the "Dembski's silly plocal" thread. Still, there's no reason to think that the moderation is non-objective in general.

theyeti

theyeti

Yeah, just what is up with that guy? It's bad enough to have good credentials and go along with the ID crap, but RFH is totally dishonest with his arguments. He equivocates, quotes out of context, introduces irrelevancies, misrepresents the scientific consensus, states things as fact that he knows to be false, and mindlessly recycles even the stupidest DI-style arguments -- the kind that other IDists won't touch. Given that we can't chalk this up to mere ignorance, the guy is either deluded or cynically deceptive. The sad thing is, comparing him to a Gish or a Hovind is only a slight exaggeration.

Seriously, is this guy known to have flipped his lid sometime in the not-too-distant past? It would make more sense to me to discover that he's part of some sort of weird cult (like Wells ).

theyeti

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: theyeti ]</p>