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

Friday, July 11, 2008

Holy Shit But Denyse O'Leary is Retarded

Over at one of O'Leary's 46 blogs, she has a post about buffalo. She says that her "creationist biologist" friend, Norbert Smith, wrote a nice little article which you can partake of here, that claims the buffalo was basically made by God to be easy food for the Native Americans. Seriously.

Just a tip: if you're going to call yourself a "creationist biologist", you might want to read an actual biology textbook once in a while. Just a thought. Canadian Cynic has a great retort to the, God was taking care of the poor Indians", line:
...if God had really cared about native Americans, he might have given them immunity to smallpox.
True that.

Denyse also references a "paper" by Jane Harris-Zsovan (which, if you want your brain to go on strike for the weekend, you can read here). This shitty excuse for reporting and thought execution is completely taken to task much better than I could ever hope to do by the great Bay of Fundie blog. If you want the quick summary, it can be found in this quote:
That’s your whole thesis? I read this whole article just to find out you’re retarded?! Just to find out that you have no concept of how evolution works?
There you go. Actually, that viewpoint accurately summarizes the body of work at all of O'Leary's 46 blogs. I'm reasonably certain that a lemur could take a shit that could be taught to understand the Theory of Evolution better than Denyse O'Leary does.

1 Barbaric Yawps:

At 11/7/08 7:30 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yep - she's neither a journalist or a scientist, let alone a science journalist. Her writing is so bad, half the time it's difficult to parse her sentences.

Here's another example of Denyse "Buy-my-books" O'Leary analysis that a 5th-grader can see the holes in:

http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2008/06/birds-what-you-thought-you-knew-about.html#links

Apparently, according to the article, biologists are having to change some of their previous opinions on bird evolution. But nowhere in the article does anybody doubt for one second that evolution has not occurred. All that is happening, and this is what utterly escapes O'Leary, is that science is learning more, and having to revise what it knew. But in this case the basics of evolutionary theory are not challenged one iota. In fact, it's a great example of how (real) science works!!!

Yet, the stupid woman, breathlessly makes this statement at the end:

"And people wonder why there is an intelligent design controversy ..."

How she makes this leap of logic (and she does this all the time) is completely beyond me. Somehow a gap in evolutionary knowledge becomes a way to bolster ID.

No wonder she doesn't allow comments anymore - clearly nobody can have anything nice to say about her gabbled blathering (the reason she says she's suspended comments is because of the Canadian Human RIghts commission, yet I have yet to discover another Canadian blogger who has done the same).

Denyse - if you're reading this, since you like to review books, why don't you review a real science book for a change? How about Neil Shubin's 'The Inner Fish' " or Donald Prothero's "Evolution: What the Fossils say and what it matters". Come on, lady, let's see what you REALLY know about science...since you seem to have all the "evidence" that refutes evolution we'd love to hear how ID explains things better...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home