tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post8048634115887382473..comments2023-03-25T04:24:10.585-07:00Comments on Richard Kirk on Ethics: Musing With A Hammer: DAVID BERLINSKI: A RESPONSE TO AN ANONYMOUS CRITICRKirkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15893241965610205006noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-14223493449300072832011-07-20T22:59:08.370-07:002011-07-20T22:59:08.370-07:00James Kimberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09731964990488401712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-70158313313503386902011-05-07T00:26:08.213-07:002011-05-07T00:26:08.213-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.mkelleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16143067845403350914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-3081043746827958652009-12-31T03:21:03.217-08:002009-12-31T03:21:03.217-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Term Paper Samplehttp://www.usatermpapers.com/Term_Paper_Sample.htmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-92072026391029585742009-11-13T10:11:11.064-08:002009-11-13T10:11:11.064-08:00As for my presumed "religious" bias (Ano...As for my presumed "religious" bias (Anonymous excels in ad hominem argument--in this case genetic ad hominem), anyone who actually READ my posts and columns over the last 15 years would know that I have never appealed to religious authority in ANY article. On the contrary, my perspective on things scientific and "divine" are primarily informed by and largely congruent with RKirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15893241965610205006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-14923835617182558622009-11-13T10:10:51.810-08:002009-11-13T10:10:51.810-08:00At least the "prominent" biologist Richa...At least the "prominent" biologist Richard Lewontin was willing to engage in public intellectual discourse with a non-scientist with significant intellectual and scholarly credentials (Philip Johnson, author of DARWIN ON TRIAL). The debate at SMU some years ago even got Lewontin to admit or to recognize the degree to which his philosophical presuppositions (naturalism and materialism) RKirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15893241965610205006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-56542460060334621152009-11-13T10:05:29.049-08:002009-11-13T10:05:29.049-08:00It is becoming increasingly clear that Anonymous h...It is becoming increasingly clear that Anonymous has not read (and apparently does not intend to read) anything that David Berlinski has written. The book by Berlinski that prompted my original post focused on the "Scientific Pretentions" of "Atheism" as promulgated by individuals like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. The book is overwhelmingly one of RKirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15893241965610205006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-32193971390553164992009-11-10T19:30:50.218-08:002009-11-10T19:30:50.218-08:00“These arguments also concern the statistical impr...“These arguments also concern the statistical improbability of emergent life and macro-evolutionary changes, given the fundamental Darwinian belief in the random alignment of protein-chains within DNA. Berlinski adds that computer programs based on algorithms honestly consistent with evolutionary presuppositions produce nothing but gibberish.”<br /><br />Why should the reading public think they Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10910749.post-6493608326129164042009-11-10T19:08:19.928-08:002009-11-10T19:08:19.928-08:00First, as my comments clearly show, I actually was...First, as my comments clearly show, I actually was criticizing your use of the phrase “prominent scholar,” not of the adjective “prominent” alone. My suggestion, as you can you in my previous comment, was to call him a prominent activist. <br /><br />I object to your descriptor of him as “prominent scholar” because such a phrase clearly functions to bolster the legitimacy of Berlinski’s writing Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com