Jesse

This is probably the most detailed critique on the web so far:

<a href="http://www.antievolution.org/people/wells_j/tdo_wells.htm" target="_blank">http://www.antievolution.org/people/wells_j/tdo_wells.htm</a>

This is still a rough draft, so if anyone has any comments or suggested additions I can pass them along to the author.

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Jesse ]</p>

Nic Tamzek

Hey folks...

I've enjoyed lurking here, many good threads...

Just a brief note on the above. The 'good' URL is actually:

<a href="http://www.antievolution.org/people/wells_j/tdo_wells.htm" target="_blank">http://www.antievolution.org/people/wells_j/tdo_wells.htm</a>

...which has (most of) the typos fixed and the debatable/unclear points removed. Watch the URL and the 'above' page:

<a href="http://www.antievolution.org/people/wells_j/" target="_blank">http://www.antievolution.org/people/wells_j/</a>

For updates with the revised longer version, coming soon to Elsberry's website (depending on when I get to it, I spent rather too much time getting this together lately.

Just so the right URL gets passed around rather than having people critique the rough draft.

Thanks to Jesse for posting the link, I sent him an email so he will probably edit his posted URL too...

Nick

RufusAtticus

Hi Nic.

I used you in a post yesterday on BB. (Honest, its not as bad as it sounds. )

-RvFvS

Dr.GH

We passed out around 200 copies of the Nick's piece on Wells tonight (1-29) at a public presentation by Wells at UC San Diego. I think it was well recived, i.e. there weren't any copies left on chairs, or in the trash. A good time was had by all.

theyeti

Hey Nic! Dr. GH, if you don't mind, could you share some details of the presentation or give us a link to where one's posted? In particular, I'd love to hear what new and outlandish thing Wells has had to say. I read in the last NCSE Reports that he claimed that Darwin was influenced by Haekel's (sp?) embryos, despite the fact that Darwin wrote Origin a few decades earlier. Even in front of an ID friendly crowd, he had to retract that one.

theyeti

Dr.GH

There was an official vidio tape being made, and at least two unofficial audio tapes. I was not making them and I don't know yet what if any plans are made for them.

Wells did talk about Haekel's support for Darwin's theory motivating what Wells calls fraud (sort of like religious motivation for ID?) but without a transcript I can't be specific.

After the ID folks read Nick's flier, they rushed out and made copies of Wells' response to the NCSE critique, which they passed out after the talk.

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]</p>

Bill Snedden

Hey, Nic, if you're still reading, check your draft to see if this is a typo that needs correction:

In your final paragraph (before the two Dobzhansky quotes), you have the following:

Shouldn't that Dobzhansky quote read, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"? In fact, that very phrase is the title of the article from which you have taken the quote that closes the paper.

Besides which, given that Dobzhansky was an evolution supporter the first wording just doesn't make sense!

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

BLoggins02

Bill:
yep, sent him an email about it earlier today. He hasn't responded, but I'm sure it's just because he's really busy.

So at least he knows about it. That one tripped me up for a while. I was just staring at the screen with that "dumb cow stare" on my face for a few seconds until I figured out what happened

Nic Tamzek

Thanks, I got the email & fixed it, the fixed version is 'in the pipeline' to the website URL. That was a rather bad one, wasn't it?

Good thing I'm not a Freudian, eh?

By way of explanation, the document was originally about twice as long (written frantically over the weekend in a fit of annoyance with Wells' "response" to NCSE's brief points about Icons), then was cut way down to remove the more long-winded and complex/confusing points in a vain attempt to make it a reasonable-sized flier that the public might get something out of (it was still 8 pages, or 4 front-and-back, I think). After the editing, I had chopped most of the conclusion, but I had to say something about the last chapter. This would be at about 2pm yesterday I was doing this...anyhow, I have the specific memory of realizing that I'd left the words "in biology" out of the quote (leaving "nothing makes sense except in light of evolution" -- boy, that would have ticked Wells off, eh?), and probably when fixing that I deleted the crucial "except". It was added right at the end, so the various random people who edited the doc aren't responsible for that one, it was all me.


Your email was the first I heard of it so people either (a) didn't read that far through the flier or (b) did what I did and assumed they knew what the quote said (it *was* correct in the cited title of Dob's essay) or (c) just didn't bother emailing me.

Thanks for the catch,

I've heard various reports of the talk, I'm sure someone will post more details sooner or later.

Nick

<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Automaton

Wow, that is one of the best discussions of Wells' book I have seen. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> In any case, has anyone emailed the link to ARN? It would be interesting to see how he responds.