Monday, September 06, 2004

Cordova's Comment

I mentioned Salvador Cordova in this post, in which I replied to some comments he made concerning my dispute with Cornelius Hunter.

In the comments section to this post(comment 7220, to be exact) from the Panda's Thumb about Stephen Meyer's recent pro-ID article in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Cordova has offered up this bit of juvenile bravado:

On a side note, Dr. Rosenhouse wrote a rebuttal to one of the student’s “letters to the editor” in the JMU campus newspaper. You see, 3 letters to the editor in 2003-2004 by students were published in the campus newspaper attacking Darwinism. I had nothing to do with that (unfortunately, otherwise they’d have been better written letters). Nonetheless it shows the increasing sympathies towards ID in Dr. R’s own secular college campus. Ain’t it heart warming.

In Dr. R’s own school, more and more students refuse to bow the knee to Darwin. Dang, in his own back yard!!! Oh, I suspect there are some ID sympathizers in the faculty too. YIKES!

I should say, I’m pleased to have helped his JMU kids see the light of ID. Some of the best science students at JMU are (gasp) up-and-coming IDists. Wooohooo!

I would have advised the student in question not to have written the article which Dr. R rebutted. Andrew is young and learning, thus I will teach him better arguments. I’m pleased to say I helped a few JMU students become creationists and intend to help a few more see the light.

Ahem. Cordova means three op-ed pieces, not three letters-to-the-editor. And we should point out that while there were three articles, there were only two authors. Two of them were written by the same person.

The article by “Andrew” is available online here. His main argument, inspired by the Disney animated movie Finding Nemo, was that evolution can not possibly explain the symbiotic relationship between the clown fish and the sea anemone.

My reply is available here (scroll down to the third letter). A professor in the philosophy department here also offered a negative appraisal of the original article, and you can read his thoughts here.

And I appreciate Cordova's implication that my refutation of the arguments from the original article was correct.


Post a Comment

<< Home