Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvenoy · 07-04-2002, 02:23 PM

The thing about it is that the cretin who wrote(?)the original letter is not the one Darwin's Finch wants to reach. That turkey wouldn't accept the facts short of driving them into his head with a hammer.

Darwin's Finch wants to reach the cretin's audience and others who read the editoral page. Who, believe it or not, are mostly sensible people (although sometimes it doesn't look that way).

Go for it, DW! Wishing good luck and good writing.

doov

Ateisto · 07-04-2002, 04:42 PM

My sympathies to Mr. Finch for the frustrated and righteous anger he feels. I live in a benighted town in the South ("Darwin's waiting room") where I hear anti-evolution claptrap and religious drivel daily at work. Overhear, I should say, because my outspoken atheism has resulted not in substantive debates but in clique-ish exclusion. I will now shy away from a lengthy diatribe about the various intellectual deficiencies of my Southern surroundings and get to the point...

About a year ago I was able to attend a lecture by the late Stephen J. Gould. It was in Seattle and the house was packed, maybe 1000 people. He spoke primarily of evolution, and near the beginning of his fascinating lecture, mentioned that there were anti-evolution forces in this country. But, he said, and I paraphrase here, of course evolution is an accepted fact by all thinking people. The offhand way in which he used the term "all thinking people" and the friendly titter from the crowd at the words did my heart a world of good. I know flat assertions without backup evidence are not good arguments. But there was just something so refreshing about him not even bothering to waste his time proving the already well-proved. And the crowd's agreement made me realize that there ARE a lot of us out there, despite what occasional whack-jobs may happen to write to a newspaper editor.

So take heart, try to get a rebuttal of some sort into that newspaper. I assure you there are a ton of readers out there who want to see it.

Clutch · 07-04-2002, 04:53 PM

DF, if you decide to stick with the letter format, you might try taking one or two points as stand-ins for all of them.

Eg, say, "Mr A's woeful understanding of elementary science cannot be discussed in its entirety, but it is worth focussing on one or two points as representative of his general knowledge." Then briefly but accurately tear him a new one on LT2 and on Newton's four laws.

Arrowman · 07-04-2002, 07:56 PM

The "guest article" is a good idea but if I were you I'd be checking on its chance of publication before expending too much effort.

Oh, BTW: According to MS-Word, the letter you quote runs to 700 words

Of course, word counting methods for publication vary and sometimes short words such as "and" are excluded from the count. Still, it's something to keep in mind....

I think a letter is feasible; as others have suggested, just make a * polite * and general comment about the large number of factual errors and then pick on one to illustrate the point.

Probably a large part of the readers, including the Christians, and including some creationists, is chuckling at this guy's rant also, but that doesn't mean he's not dangerous - there's also probably a bit of chin-rubbing and thinking "well, this guy is a lunatic, but there is something to what he says, you know..." So he deserves rebuttal.

Some advice:

- 2LoT is probably the best one to pick up on, because it easily demonstrates a woeful ignorance of basic science. It's a really hard thing to explain to a lay audience, though - "everything tends to chaos" is just so deeply ingrained in the lay mind. Perhaps you can find a Sagan-like figure who is able to provide a 100-word explanation in lay terms. I think there may be a few lurking here (gallo, are you there?)

- Stay away from things like "the four laws of physics" - that's just using precious space to make a relatively minor point (and will make you look like a nit-picker).

- Focus on making the point that this is about science, and the quality of education - not religion. It's not about "proving God doesn't exist". Point out that the majority Christian view is in support of evolution - we've moved on from the Dark Ages.

- If you want to be snide (but you probably shouldn't), ask the author why, if he has "disproved" evolution, he hasn't yet stepped up to claim his Nobel Prize?

Also, you might consider pointing out that the "Darwin recanted" story is disowned by leading creationist sources such as Answers in Genesis
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp</a>
That is a minor point, but it does illustrate the uncritical thinking of the creationist mind.

By the way - "not enough helium in a neutrino for the age of the sun"??? Forgive me, but how does one get helium into a neutrino in the first place?

Dr.GH · 07-04-2002, 10:40 PM

This is just a "top of my head" idea, but: could we chop up the letter in to bite sized responses and each take a bite?

We could maybe place 2 or 3 letters. The "guest" editorial idea might appear even more reasonable then, even if the newspaper won't publish all our letters.

Hey, we could have a raft of responces on hand for submition when ever a jerk is published in a newspaper. I thought that that was the whole idea about the FAQs.

Jo Que,
<a href="http://www.recordcourier.com/letter/index.shtml" target="_blank">submissions</a>

There are the rules. What do you think?

BTW the particular jerk in this case has his name and address, and phone # in the paper's original. I see no reason to respond to him directly.

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]</p>

Stephen T-B · 07-05-2002, 08:14 AM

I'm just a poor ignorant journalist, but willing to learn.
Would someone very kindly, and patiently, point me in the direction of a web site which in layman's language refutes the points made by the author of that letter about the salty sea etc.
I've heard these Creationist statements elsewhere but don't know enough science to rubbish them.
Thank you

07-05-2002, 08:57 AM

Steve,

The best web resource is Talkorigins.org. If there is ANYTHING they do not completely refute, they link to a site that does.

David M. Payne · 07-05-2002, 09:51 AM

Hey DF, it's fun living in Nevada, isn't it? I deal with these kinds of people all day long at work, as well as having to read them in the paper. I have tried to call you today, but your line is busy. Drop me an E-Mail if you can get out for lunch today, I'm off too.

tgamble · 07-05-2002, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen T-B:
<strong>I'm just a poor ignorant journalist, but willing to learn.
Would someone very kindly, and patiently, point me in the direction of a web site which in layman's language refutes the points made by the author of that letter about the salty sea etc.
I've heard these Creationist statements elsewhere but don't know enough science to rubbish them.
Thank you</strong>

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/1proofs2.html#24" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/1proofs2.html#24</a>

Darwin's Finch · 07-05-2002, 10:08 AM

I'm about to write my piece for the paper and have spent the past couple of hours doing some basic research at Talkorigins. However, I am entirely at a loss to understand what "Not enough helium in a neutrino for the age of the sun" is supposed to be about. Presumably, this refers to a popular YEC argument, but I can't seem to find a source for it. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Helium in a neutrino? WTF?!?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-04-2002, 02:23 PM	#21
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	The thing about it is that the cretin who wrote(?)the original letter is not the one Darwin's Finch wants to reach. That turkey wouldn't accept the facts short of driving them into his head with a hammer. Darwin's Finch wants to reach the cretin's audience and others who read the editoral page. Who, believe it or not, are mostly sensible people (although sometimes it doesn't look that way). Go for it, DW! Wishing good luck and good writing. doov

07-04-2002, 04:42 PM	#22
Ateisto Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: a benighted Southern town Posts: 7	My sympathies to Mr. Finch for the frustrated and righteous anger he feels. I live in a benighted town in the South ("Darwin's waiting room") where I hear anti-evolution claptrap and religious drivel daily at work. Overhear, I should say, because my outspoken atheism has resulted not in substantive debates but in clique-ish exclusion. I will now shy away from a lengthy diatribe about the various intellectual deficiencies of my Southern surroundings and get to the point... About a year ago I was able to attend a lecture by the late Stephen J. Gould. It was in Seattle and the house was packed, maybe 1000 people. He spoke primarily of evolution, and near the beginning of his fascinating lecture, mentioned that there were anti-evolution forces in this country. But, he said, and I paraphrase here, of course evolution is an accepted fact by all thinking people. The offhand way in which he used the term "all thinking people" and the friendly titter from the crowd at the words did my heart a world of good. I know flat assertions without backup evidence are not good arguments. But there was just something so refreshing about him not even bothering to waste his time proving the already well-proved. And the crowd's agreement made me realize that there ARE a lot of us out there, despite what occasional whack-jobs may happen to write to a newspaper editor. So take heart, try to get a rebuttal of some sort into that newspaper. I assure you there are a ton of readers out there who want to see it.

07-04-2002, 04:53 PM	#23
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	DF, if you decide to stick with the letter format, you might try taking one or two points as stand-ins for all of them. Eg, say, "Mr A's woeful understanding of elementary science cannot be discussed in its entirety, but it is worth focussing on one or two points as representative of his general knowledge." Then briefly but accurately tear him a new one on LT2 and on Newton's four laws.

07-04-2002, 07:56 PM	#24
Arrowman Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 1,358	The "guest article" is a good idea but if I were you I'd be checking on its chance of publication before expending too much effort. Oh, BTW: According to MS-Word, the letter you quote runs to 700 words Of course, word counting methods for publication vary and sometimes short words such as "and" are excluded from the count. Still, it's something to keep in mind.... I think a letter is feasible; as others have suggested, just make a * polite * and general comment about the large number of factual errors and then pick on one to illustrate the point. Probably a large part of the readers, including the Christians, and including some creationists, is chuckling at this guy's rant also, but that doesn't mean he's not dangerous - there's also probably a bit of chin-rubbing and thinking "well, this guy is a lunatic, but there is something to what he says, you know..." So he deserves rebuttal. Some advice: - 2LoT is probably the best one to pick up on, because it easily demonstrates a woeful ignorance of basic science. It's a really hard thing to explain to a lay audience, though - "everything tends to chaos" is just so deeply ingrained in the lay mind. Perhaps you can find a Sagan-like figure who is able to provide a 100-word explanation in lay terms. I think there may be a few lurking here (gallo, are you there?) - Stay away from things like "the four laws of physics" - that's just using precious space to make a relatively minor point (and will make you look like a nit-picker). - Focus on making the point that this is about science, and the quality of education - not religion. It's not about "proving God doesn't exist". Point out that the majority Christian view is in support of evolution - we've moved on from the Dark Ages. - If you want to be snide (but you probably shouldn't), ask the author why, if he has "disproved" evolution, he hasn't yet stepped up to claim his Nobel Prize? Also, you might consider pointing out that the "Darwin recanted" story is disowned by leading creationist sources such as Answers in Genesis <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp</a> That is a minor point, but it does illustrate the uncritical thinking of the creationist mind. By the way - "not enough helium in a neutrino for the age of the sun"??? Forgive me, but how does one get helium into a neutrino in the first place?

07-04-2002, 10:40 PM	#25
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	This is just a "top of my head" idea, but: could we chop up the letter in to bite sized responses and each take a bite? We could maybe place 2 or 3 letters. The "guest" editorial idea might appear even more reasonable then, even if the newspaper won't publish all our letters. Hey, we could have a raft of responces on hand for submition when ever a jerk is published in a newspaper. I thought that that was the whole idea about the FAQs. Jo Que, <a href="http://www.recordcourier.com/letter/index.shtml" target="_blank">submissions</a> There are the rules. What do you think? BTW the particular jerk in this case has his name and address, and phone # in the paper's original. I see no reason to respond to him directly. [ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ] [ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]</p>

07-05-2002, 08:14 AM	#26
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	I'm just a poor ignorant journalist, but willing to learn. Would someone very kindly, and patiently, point me in the direction of a web site which in layman's language refutes the points made by the author of that letter about the salty sea etc. I've heard these Creationist statements elsewhere but don't know enough science to rubbish them. Thank you

07-05-2002, 08:57 AM	#27
Synaesthesia Guest Posts: n/a	Steve, The best web resource is Talkorigins.org. If there is ANYTHING they do not completely refute, they link to a site that does.

07-05-2002, 09:51 AM	#28
David M. Payne Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The land of chain smoking, bible thumping, holy ro Posts: 1,248	Hey DF, it's fun living in Nevada, isn't it? I deal with these kinds of people all day long at work, as well as having to read them in the paper. I have tried to call you today, but your line is busy. Drop me an E-Mail if you can get out for lunch today, I'm off too.

07-05-2002, 10:08 AM	#30
Darwin's Finch Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Gardnerville, NV Posts: 666	I'm about to write my piece for the paper and have spent the past couple of hours doing some basic research at Talkorigins. However, I am entirely at a loss to understand what "Not enough helium in a neutrino for the age of the sun" is supposed to be about. Presumably, this refers to a popular YEC argument, but I can't seem to find a source for it. Can anyone shed some light on this? Helium in a neutrino? WTF?!?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.