I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Is Darwinism science -- or philosophy?

It has amazed me that though the debate over evolution is supposed to be a scientific one, people on both sides of the debate have been presenting arguments in philosophical terms as opposed to scientific terms. For example, Darwinists will often argue that "intelligent" design and irreducible complexity must be wrong because no supernatural designer would ever make "unintelligent" designs, of which there are many. Here are philosophical arguments presented at a public forum at Texas Tech by Darwinist Kenneth Miller, who should need no introduction to those who are familiar with the evolution controversy:

Question: On the idea of the origin of life from the very beginning… That’s one of the problems ..[unintelligible].. It’s difficult to understand at this point how life got established. But my question would be is that if it was organized , you know, self-organized by proteins or whatever, then the idea that it’s even self-organizing and that life from them on seemed to be self-organizing, you know, through random mutation, however you want to look at it, does not that sound very similar to design, or some form of hand involved in the original that allowed it to unfold?

Answer: Now, since he spoke from the back, I think everyone heard him, so I won’t repeat that.

The answer is Yes, it does. And in a way, the very use of the word “design” to label the current anti-evolution movement is a brilliant piece of public relations. And the reason for that is that any person who sees meaning and purpose and order to the universe — and I certainly do — in a sense believes in a kind of “design,” that things sort of make sense. Einstein told us that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it seems to be comprehensible, and that’s an extraordinary statement to make. So that’s a kind of “design.”

But the interesting thing is that in the context of the public debate in the United States today, what you described is actually not what is called “intelligent design,” and here’s the way in which I would put it. I, and I think all other evolutionists, would point to the fact that the capacity for life is inherent in matter. Matter is…. Life is a chemical and physical phenomenon. I think that the universe does have a “design,” and that the design is so grand that it makes the evolution of life not only possible but almost inevitable.

The ironic thing is that the proponents of intelligent design actually don’t think that. Because they don’t think that the universe is well enough designed to make the evolution of life inevitable. They think constant intervention on the part of the creator is required to bring about the first life, the first living cell, the first chordate, the first insect, the first bird. In other words, the designer or the creator had to keep tinkering with it. So, in away, In think most biologists look at the universe and have a grander appreciation for the orderliness of the universe based on what many of us regard as the almost inevitability of the evolution of living things.

Miller's above remarks are philosophical and not scientific. So one question is the following: If Darwinism is based on philosophy, then why should Miller's Darwinist philosophy be taught as scientific fact in the public schools while Michael Behe's philosophy of irreducible complexity is banned from mere mention in public schools on the grounds that it is just a fable inspired by religion?

While I am here, I would like to make a few responses to Ken Miller's above statements:

First, while it is true that the anti-Darwinism movement in often labeled "design," one of the reasons why I think that this label is unfortunate is that there are many criticisms of Darwinism that have little or nothing to do with "design." Such criticisms that I have presented in this blog concern co-evolution, the propagability of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction, and chromosome counts. Also, the very term "design" has created problems because it implies the existence of a supernatural designer.

Miller said, "I, and I think all other evolutionists, would point to the fact that the capacity for life is inherent in matter." Well, duh. There are many elements and compounds that have properties that are virtually essential for the existence of life as we know it. For example, Wikipedia says the following about water's value to living things:

“From a biological standpoint, water has many distinct properties that are critical for the proliferation of life that set it apart from other substances. It carries out this role by allowing organic compounds to react in ways that ultimately allows replication. All known forms of life depend on water. Water is both vital as a solvent in which many of the bodies solutes dissolve, and an essential part of many metabolic processes within the body (e.g. significant quantities of water are used during the digestion of food).”

Water’s abilities as a solvent are so good that it has been called “the universal solvent.” Its good abilities as a solvent are related to the high polarity of the water molecule -- Wikipedia says, “Strongly polar compounds like inorganic salts (e.g. table salt) or sugars (e.g. sucrose) dissolve only in very polar solvents like water……” It was the belief that water exists on Mars (the “canals”) that led to speculation that life existed on Mars. Carbon and its compounds also have special properties that are virtually essential for life as we know it. There has been speculation about the possibility of living things that are not based on carbon compounds and water — see “Alternative Biochemistry” in Wikipedia – but there appear to be no really good substitutes for carbon compounds and water.

Miller's above statements are also discussed on Uncommon Descent and Panda's Thumb.

(I have introduced post "folding" on this blog -- called "expandable post summaries" by this blog service -- where only an introduction is shown on the main page. It was necessary to add software to my template. To add this feature to your Blogger.com blog, go to Blogger Help for instructions. Now if someone would just show me how to list the most recent comments posted anywhere on the blog. I have created a new blog just to experiment with new features so that I don't risk messing up this blog.)

Labels:

27 Comments:

Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> If Darwinism is based on philosophy <

Because one person has a philosophical reason for believing in Darwinism, that doesn't mean that Darwinism is based on philosophy.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 6:43:00 PM  
Blogger jujuquisp said...

It is science. End of discussion

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 7:29:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 6:12:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Incidentally, someone is impersonating me and posting material making me look like a complete idiot.

I demand that it cease immediately!

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 6:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Shemp Fafarman said...

Will the real Larry Fafarman please stand up?

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 7:49:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

I am announcing a break from my no-censorship policy -- henceforward I reserve the right to delete any comment falsely posted under my name by an impersonator.

The reason for this new policy is that some of these comments have been misrepresenting my views. Here is a bad example:

>>>>>Larry Fafarman said (July 12, 2006 6:12:49 AM) --
But if even one person finds a philosophical basis for Darwinism, that proves that it is based on philosophy.

Does anyone have a philosophical basis for chemistry or physics? <<<<<<<

My no-censorship policy does not give anyone the right to misrepresent my views. If you trolls don't like my new policy, too bad -- you will just have to post your breathtakingly inane wisecracks under a different name.

If you want, go ahead and call me a hypocrite for breaking my no-censorship policy.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 4:49:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Wilderness said ( July 11, 2006 6:43:00 PM ) --

>>>>> If Darwinism is based on philosophy <

Because one person has a philosophical reason for believing in Darwinism, that doesn't mean that Darwinism is based on philosophy. <<<<<<<

Kenneth Miller is more than just another "one person" -- he is one of the foremost Darwinists in America. He was the lead expert witness for the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover and he was also an expert witness in the Selman v. Cobb County textbook sticker case. According to his Kitzmiller testimony, his biology textbooks are used by about 35 percent of the high-school students in the USA. So when he treats Darwinism like it is based on philosophy, well, that means that Darwinism must be based on philosophy. In the same way, ID is like astrology because Michael Behe, one of the foremost proponents of ID, says it is.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 5:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Evolution IS religion. It requires more blind faith in unprovable nonsense than even the most whacky religions.
There is only one reason that it is still defended and not tossed in the gutter as it should be. No one in the pseudo-scientific, anti-theist community will ever just say "I Don't know" about anything. They'd rather promote this crap than say, Hey, we have no clue and we'll have to start again from scratch. The other result of this admission is that it would only leave the creationist explaination and that is entirely unacceptable to the anti-theist crowd.

"I've never met a real athiest, just people who don't want to be accountable for their actions" - Tachyon
http://tachspot.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, July 12, 2006 8:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> I am announcing a break from my no-censorship policy <

As I predicted would happen two months ago. Soon you will just delete anything that disagrees with your ridiculous positions. Ed Brayton has been accepting quite a few posts disagreeing with his positions.

Incidentally, do you plan to stop impersonating Ed too? You have even admitted doing so.

If you dislike impersonations, how about a pledge to stop making them yourself? That would be a good start.

> The reason for this new policy is that some of these comments have been misrepresenting my views. Here is a bad example:

>>>>>Larry Fafarman said (July 12, 2006 6:12:49 AM) --
But if even one person finds a philosophical basis for Darwinism, that proves that it is based on philosophy.

Does anyone have a philosophical basis for chemistry or physics? <<<<<<<

After denouncing this as an impersonation misrepresenting your views, you defend it in your post of Wednesday, July 12, 2006 5:25:42 PM. What a clown!

> If you want, go ahead and call me a hypocrite for breaking my no-censorship policy. <

You are a hypocrite for many reasons, this is one of the least of them.

Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:14:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Wilderness said --

>>>>> The reason for this new policy is that some of these comments have been misrepresenting my views. Here is a bad example:

>>>>>Larry Fafarman said (July 12, 2006 6:12:49 AM) --
But if even one person finds a philosophical basis for Darwinism, that proves that it is based on philosophy.

Does anyone have a philosophical basis for chemistry or physics?
<<

After denouncing this as an impersonation misrepresenting your views, you defend it in your post of Wednesday, July 12, 2006 5:25:42 PM. What a clown! <<<<<<<

No, you stupid fathead, my comment of July 12, 2006 5:25:42 PM spoke of "one person" as being a person who is very prominent in a particular field whereas the impersonating comment of July 12, 2006 6:12:49 AM spoke of "one person" as being anyone. So you think that an impersonating comment is OK so long as it supposedly represents the opinion of the person being impersonated, just like the March Hare in Alice In Wonderland thought that it is OK to put butter in a watch so long as it is the "best" butter -- even if some crumbs are mixed in:

The Hatter was the first to break the silence. 'What day of the month is it?' he said, turning to Alice: he had taken his watch out of his pocket, and was looking at it uneasily, shaking it every now and then, and holding it to his ear.

Alice considered a little, and then said `The fourth.'

`Two days wrong!' sighed the Hatter. `I told you butter wouldn't suit the works!' he added looking angrily at the March Hare.

`It was the best butter,' the March Hare meekly replied.

Yes, but some crumbs must have got in as well,' the Hatter grumbled: `you shouldn't have put it in with the bread-knife.'

The March Hare took the watch and looked at it gloomily: then he dipped it into his cup of tea, and looked at it again: but he could think of nothing better to say than his first remark, `It was the best butter, you know.'


So what are you going to do now, VIW? Just tease me by saying, "Naa-naa-naa-naa-naa, Larry is a hypocrite -- he pledged that he would not delete any comments and now he is deleting comments that impersonate him and misrepresent his views"? You are a stupid, vile, despicable moron.

Thursday, July 13, 2006 1:53:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said ( July 12, 2006 8:38:18 PM ) --

>>>>>>>Evolution IS religion. It requires more blind faith in unprovable nonsense than even the most whacky religions.<<<<<<

Thanks for your support, Anonymous. Such condemnation of evolution won't be found over at Panda's Thumb and Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars because it is not allowed on those blogs. I said a long time ago that Panda's Thumb is just a place where Darwinists go to scratch each other's backs. The Darwinists have been reduced to practicing censorship on their own blogs and making nothing but insults, ad hominems, and breathtakingly inane wisecracks on anti-Darwinist blogs.

Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:27:00 AM  
Blogger Chris Hyland said...

Ken Miller isn't an evolutionary biologist, and in any case I don't think his philosophical arguments are pesented in his textbook. Biologists reject the technical arguments of ID (eg IC and CSI)becuase they are bad science.

Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> No, you stupid fathead, my comment of July 12, 2006 5:25:42 PM spoke of "one person" as being a person who is very prominent in a particular field whereas the impersonating comment of July 12, 2006 6:12:49 AM spoke of "one person" as being anyone. <

You pathetic asshole. You believe that "one person" excludes anyone? This is very much like Kevin's story about the key but you will fail to see the analogy.

You say that he is "more than one person". How many people is he? You can try to count on your fingers. There is no use trying to count on your toes. You have already shot off most of them.

> So you think that an impersonating comment is OK <

You are the one who brought impersonations to this blog after attempting them on other blogs.

> just like the March Hare in Alice In Wonderland <

You should give up using the stories. All they show is that the part of your brain that processes analogies is long gone.

> So what are you going to do now, VIW? Just tease me by saying, "Naa-naa-naa-naa-naa <

You seem to have me confused with dumbscot.

> Larry is a hypocrite <

You have been a hypocrite before this. I am not in favor of impersonations and I don't know why you found it necessary to begin them.

> You are a stupid, vile, despicable moron. <

I don't think you are vile. I think you are demented. You can't help being a moron. I don't blame you for it. I just help to point your problem out although you probably don't need any help to do this.

Kevin might be right. It might be Alzheimer's despite your age.

Thursday, July 13, 2006 6:46:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Chris Hyland said ( 7/13/2006 05:47:41 AM ) --

>>>>>>Ken Miller isn't an evolutionary biologist, and in any case I don't think his philosophical arguments are pesented in his textbook.<<<<<<

He knows enough about evolutionary biology that the Dover plaintiffs chose him as their lead expert witness, out of six expert witnesses.

Previous editions of his textbooks, which had a co-author, made statements of a religious nature -- see "Hypocritical Kenneth Miller's evolution disclaimer"

Also, he is the author of a book titled, "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution" -- see "Kenneth Miller the hypocrite".

For purposes of my arguments in my above article (opening post), it does not matter whether or not his textbooks used philosophical arguments; what matters is that he has made philosophical -- and often theological -- arguments elsewhere in defense of Darwinism. So I am saying that if it is necessary to use philosophical and often theological arguments to defend Darwinism, then maybe Darwinism is really not so scientific after all. What other scientific theories are defended by philosophical/theological arguments?

>>>>>Biologists reject the technical arguments of ID (eg IC and CSI)becuase they are bad science.<<<<<<

Physicians are well-trained in biological science, and a recent poll shows that a large percentage of US physicians doubt Darwinism.

Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> what matters is that he has made philosophical -- and often theological -- arguments elsewhere in defense of Darwinism. <

So if someone uses a philosophical argument as to why an apple falls from a tree, the law of gravitation becomes unscientific?

> So I am saying that if it is necessary to use philosophical and often theological arguments to defend Darwinism <

Because someone uses any sort of argument that does not mean that they are necessary. This is a non sequitur argument. You still have not understood other logical flaws so I hate to bring up something new.

> What other scientific theories are defended by philosophical/theological arguments? <

Nearly any scientific theory could be defended by philosophical/theological arguments and it would not affect their validity in the least.

Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:27:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Wilderness said --

>>>>>>You pathetic asshole. You believe that "one person" excludes anyone?<<<<<<

Which is why I would not have used the term in the first place, you stupid, fatheaded, birdbrained cretin.

>>>>>>So if someone uses a philosophical argument as to why an apple falls from a tree, the law of gravitation becomes unscientific?<<<<<<<

The problem is that Darwinists feel obliged to use these philosophical arguments with great regularity. As I said, Ken Miller wrote a book titled, "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution." I don't think anyone would write a book with a title like "Finding Newton's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Gravitation" or "Finding Copernicus's (or Galileo's) God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Heliocentrism."

Sometimes the theological arguments in the debate become ludicrous, like accusing opponents of insulting or rejecting god by failing to use their god-given intelligence:

We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth ........ To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. -- from "The Clergy Letter Project"


In his essay, [Cardinal] Schonborn wrote that Catholic teachings on evolution have been misinterpreted. He deemed ''vague and unimportant" John Paul's letter calling evolution ''more than a hypothesis" and instead referred to an earlier address in which John Paul said, ''To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. . . . It would be to abdicate human intelligence." -- from "Is the Catholic Church rethinking its view of evolution?" (this is a two-page article -- excerpt is from page 2)

Thursday, July 13, 2006 1:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

>>>>>>You pathetic asshole. You believe that "one person" excludes anyone?<<<<<<

> Which is why I would not have used the term in the first place, you stupid, fatheaded, birdbrained cretin. <

The point is, you demented halfwit, that you referred to only one person and only one of the types of arguments that he has given. It is very much like Kevin's story of you trying to open the front door with a locker key.

> Sometimes the theological arguments in the debate become ludicrous, like accusing opponents of insulting or rejecting god by failing to use their god-given intelligence: <

Yes, you have characterized the arguments of the anti-Darwinists quite accurately.

Again, I don't hold you responsible for not using your god-given intelligence. You are not responsible for your mental deterioration.

Your brother asked a good question on another thread. I assume that you will duck it?

Thursday, July 13, 2006 2:05:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

Pope John Paul said:
< such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life >

Sorry to say, neither of these formulations is adequate.

For the first (assuming that the chemical elements are referred to), they are moderately complex, but they are the fulfillment of the action of some extremely simple principles. They're similar in that way to patterns described in Stephen Wolfram's book, A New Kind of Science -- some of which are quite astounding.

As for the second, I'll grant the "marvelous" part, but "finality" is incredibly presumptuous and ahistorical. It's kind of like saying that there was history before us, but it has now ended.

Thursday, July 13, 2006 2:56:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Wilderness said --

>>>>>>>The point is, you demented halfwit, that you referred to only one person and only one of the types of arguments that he has given<<<<<<<

Scheisskopf, when Darwinists stop saying that ID is like astrology just because Michael Behe says it is, I will stop saying that Darwinism is based on philosophy just because Kenneth Miller uses philosophical arguments to defend it. Which means never.

Furthermore, none of your arguments can excuse impersonation.

Anyway, there is no point in arguing against the idea that Darwinism is incompatible with religion, because that idea is fundamental to the religious beliefs of the fundies.

>>>>>>Your brother asked a good question on another thread. I assume that you will duck it? <<<<<<

You mean fake Dave, who is an impostor.

I said many times that I am under no obligation to answer any comment on this blog. Go to Panda's Thumb and see how much the bloggers there typically participate in the discussions.

Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> Scheisskopf, when Darwinists stop saying that ID is like astrology just because Michael Behe says it is <

Bonehead, no Darwinists that I am aware of say that ID is like astrology "just because" anything. They are far more logical than the IDiots and have sound reasons for saying that ID is like astrology.

> I will stop saying that Darwinism is based on philosophy just because Kenneth Miller uses philosophical arguments to defend it. <

So taking the hypothetical case that you were right on the first premise (which, of course, runs contrary to fact), are you saying that one bit of illogic justifies another?

>>>>>>Your brother asked a good question on another thread. I assume that you will duck it? <<<<<<

> You mean fake Dave, who is an impostor. <

No. I haven't seen any of your fake Dave posts for some time. I am talking about the Dave Fafarman who you have been calling to scream at because you want him to stop exposing your misinformation on this blog. I am meaning the one you emailed telling him to stop posting. I am meaning the one you got your mother to call to get him to stop posting. That Dave, not the one you invented.

Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:58:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In the Wilderness --

>>>>>>Bonehead, no Darwinists that I am aware of say that ID is like astrology "just because" anything.<<<<<<

You obviously haven't been around evolution forums for very long -- ID'ers are always getting their noses rubbed in Behe's statement that ID is like astrology.

>>>> They are far more logical than the IDiots and have sound reasons for saying that ID is like astrology.<<<<<<

If Darwinists have supposedly "sound reasons" for saying something that they want to say, then why won't they say it?

>>>>>>I haven't seen any of your fake Dave posts for some time.<<<<<<

All of the recent Dave Fafarman posts on this blog have been by fake Dave.

Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:48:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>All of the recent Dave Fafarman posts on this blog have been by fake Dave.<<<

The cock's already crowed three times, Larry. Stop lying.

Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> ID'ers are always getting their noses rubbed in Behe's statement that ID is like astrology. <

The IDiot's should realize that ID is like astrology. What is your point.

> If Darwinists have supposedly "sound reasons" for saying something that they want to say, then why won't they say it? <

Larry(?),Larry(?),Larry(?), where did you ever get the idea that if you don't agree with, or understand something, that it hasn't been said.

> All of the recent Dave Fafarman posts on this blog have been by fake Dave. <

Don't you realize what this lie does to your already abysmal credibility?

Friday, July 14, 2006 1:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

Eureka!

While watching the History Channel late at night, I was suddenly struck with the source of Larry(?)'s obsession with anti-Darwinism. It has all fallen into place.

Several years ago, about the same time that Larry(?) was discovering that meteors came from inside the atmosphere, that the Moon landings were faked, and that the Los Angeles Times and the World Almanac were being produced with supernatural aid, he came up with the idea that technological advancement also required the intervention of little green men. He held that discoveries from bronze to the photograph were beyond human intellect and supernatural aid was required to make these steps. Some of his bleatings on this subject may still be on the web.

Clearly if the discovery of bronze was not beyond accident, or a series of logical steps, the gradual emergence of life from the sea was equally impossible.

In an evolutionary process, perhaps even without the intervention of little green men, we will eventually learn how what little is left of Larry(?)'s brain ticks.

Saturday, July 15, 2006 12:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> was not beyond accident <

Delete "not". It is quite late.

Saturday, July 15, 2006 12:31:00 AM  
Anonymous neil armstrong said...

Larry, do you now believe that men visited the Moon?

If so, what caused you to change your mind?

Saturday, July 15, 2006 8:55:00 AM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

Yesterday I received a fundraising smail letter that strikes a much better balance between science and religion, and in the process illuminates some of the issues here.

This was from a Red-State (South Carolina), ECFA charity, the American Leprosy Missions, celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. Some might think that, because I give creationism a hard time here, that I cannot recognize when religious zeal inspires people to do good. That is not so.

I'd like to quote some from this letter:

Dear Friend,

Just imagine: You take your young daughter up into the mountains and put her in a pig pen. She trusts you at first, but when she realizes you intend to go home without her, she sobs and begs you not to leave. You cover your ears to block out her crying, and rush away.

What parent could do something so horrible?

Imelda's father did exactly that because he had no other choice. When she was just 9 years old, soldiers came to Imelda's village and wanted to burn her alive.

Why? Because she had leprosy.

Leprosy is an ancient disease. You may be familiar with it through stories from the Bible. ...

[Imelda] spent years living in the pig pen.

"I would spend all day and all night crying and praying to God. I could not walk around. My feet and arms were covered with sores. They were very painful," she remembers.


To note here: "Praying to God" was not effective (which isn't to say it is never effective, but that is a different story). What was effective, although too late to prevent irreversible damage, was medical treatment.

Larry(?) and Dave Springer are rich in resources. In Larry's case, he has time and certain skills. Dave presumably has money. Yet they devote these resources to efforts to disrupt young people's acquiring the skills to develop better treatments for diseases like leprosy. They pretend that the postulated "Intelligent Designer" would have created Mycobacterium Leprae. Why don't they instead use their resources to support ALM?

Sunday, July 16, 2006 2:15:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home