The Lower Quote, As If You Didn't Know, Is By Richard Dawkins, Son.

Monday, January 28, 2008

Denyse O'Leary is Insane and/or Retarded

I thought I'd pop over to Dembski's Uncommon Descent blog (no, I won't link) just to see what stupidity they're slinging these days and I was unfortunate enough to get O'Leary's post about predictions. At least I think that's what it was about. Her "writing" leaves a lot to be desired, as does her logic.

And by "logic", I mean "insanity". She was moaning about how the bad, mean "Darwinists" (who the fuck uses that word, anyway?) were ranting about one of her previous posts on predictions and she goes all weirdy with this little gem:
Anyway, predictions, predictions. What does Darwinian evolution predict?

Strictly speaking, nothing. By definition, it is the one form of evolution that banished purpose (teleology) from nature. That was supposed to be its big advantage, right? So by definition, it makes no predictions. Not that you’d know, from Darwinist huffing.
I'm curious if she's heard of the fossil called Tiktaalik, found on Ellesmere Island by researchers who were...wait for it...looking for a fossil just like it!

Yeah, see, understanding evolution through natural selection allows scientists (real scientists) to make predictions about what they will find by way of transitional fossils, then go and look where they should be, and WOW! There they are!

I guess O'Leary is too busy being vague and yelling nonsensical things about "Darwinists" and linking to her other 439 blogs to get to reading a science text.

3 Barbaric Yawps:

At 29/1/08 1:07 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I vote for both a little insane and a little retarded.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs in the ID world when they can't actually get a real scientist as their spokesperson but have to use some D-List "journalist" whose writing skills are better suited for the parish newsletter.

I read her blog fairly often, and much of the time I can't even understand what she's going on about. At times she's barely coherent (for a journalist she's a goddamn horrible writer!). Of course, if you point this out in a comment, she will ignore it. She doesn't actually want to engage anybody in debate and does not feel obliged to defend her arguments.

But on the other hand, if ID wants to persist as a pseudo-science with a reputation for stupidity and inaneness, she is the perfect spokesperson!

 
At 29/1/08 5:58 pm, Blogger BigHeathenMike said...

Totally agreed.

 
At 30/1/08 12:42 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think I want to change my vote to 'insane'. Here's an up-to-date gem from O'Leary in response to somebody who asked her if Darwinism has contributed to science:

"Okay, first, I'm not sure Darwinism HAS affected science as such more than other theories. Compared, say, to relativity and quantum mechanics, it has had mainly sociological effects.

See, Darwinism is the creation story of atheism. It explains - well, it TRIES to explain - how life and mind come from matter with no intelligent input at all."


And remember, her "qualifications" to answer this comes from a degree in English Lit.

It's not even worth refuting is it? Again, with spokespersons like this we probably don't really have to worry too much about ID.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home