James Randi briefly replies to my Letter to the Editor re: Intelligent Design

Great Debates
1

My original thread has been locked, so I needed to start a new thread.

Since I failed to explain the purpose of my previous thread, kindly allow me to rectify my mistake: I am not looking for any feedback whatsoever regarding the style, tone, satirical elements, or phrasing of this letter. It has already been submitted to the editorial page as is, and that editor has informed me that it will be published exactly as written below.

The only reason I am posting this here in GD is that there is a chance that some might wish to debate – not the style, tone, satirical elements, or phrasing – but the facts at issue.

The large font and text color are exactly as they arrived in Randi’s email.

Thank you.

From: James Randi
Date: Jan-11-2008 10:10 AM

Right on, Martin!

James Randi.

I am writing to vent my intelligently designed spleen over the recent news that the Godless heathens who call themselves the National Academy of Sciences have published a booklet, “Science, Evolution and Creationism”, which calls into question God’s final, unchanging truth of Intelligent Design Creationism.

We must end the monopoly that truth and facts hold in our public schools. Deception and falsehood have their place, too, surely. How else are children going to learn the value of Holy Lies if we do not force them down their innocent young throats? It is part of God’s great Plan for His children.

All right-thinking people share my strong doubts about the very idea of teaching the sinful notions of reason, logic, and empirical evidence in our public schools. Beyond Genesis (and who needs more?), the facts that our great State keeps losing manufacturing jobs, does not have fine, upstanding, Christian Republicans like Dick DeVos to govern us, and even allows men to kiss each other, are more than ample proof that evolution is false.

As Edward Tillich of the famed Onion News-Paper writes: “Should we allow our citizens to become aware of facts which go against their chosen beliefs, it would cause untold turmoil and strife among our people!” We must avoid that fate at all costs, and if that includes surrendering truth, facts, and intellectual honesty, it is a small price to pay for staying Right with God.

I have also received universally positive, highly complimentary replies from many others (though – quite tellingly – the Dopers who read my letter were nearly universally insultingly negative). Here are two I listed in my earlier, now locked, thread:

This one from a Stanford microbiolgy professor, Craig Criddle:

This is from another respected, if less well-known biological scientist:

2

I see that you’ve quoted those who praise you, but those who critiqued your missive are merely dismissed as “insultingly negative.”
Interesting.

3

“[Q]uite tellingly” of what, exactly?

4

And wouldn’t “universally positive” responses come from all others, not just many?

5

Unless I misunderstand, the facts at issue are that you wrote a satirical letter and certain folks praised you for it. And apparently, you did. Where’s the debate?

6

Well, “many” replies, considered as a set, have been “universally positive”, if you eliminate from the set all those replies that are not positive. On the other hand, “many other” people other than those cited might have replied, all of them positively, and no others. And of course, countless people might have read the letter, said “What a fool! :rolleyes:” and not bothered to write, which would skew the results a little. There’d be some self-selection going on.

But since ambushed wants to create a strawman fundamentalist and then see if anyone here wants to step into that strawman’s shoes, I have to say I’m not sanguine about his chances.

7

If it’s only been submitted for the editorial page, how is it Randi and others have read it already?

8

I suspect that this letter has been cast (via email and other message boards) as broadly as Wilt Chamberlain’s seed…

9

Here is a hypothetical question for ambushed to consider: suppose your eloquent prose was in fact garbage but with the same message. How do you believe that Mr. Randi’s response would have differed to the one he gave?

10

So, what does James Randi have to say about your article on circumcision?

11

Dude, how many message boards are you bombing with your silly diatribes?

12

Randi isn’t any relation to the grapist, is he?

13

No you didn’t.

Can you remind us what facts are at issue here?

Leaving aside the quality of the sarcasm in your letter, it’s still a strawman argument.

14

Congrats on the feedback, the letter is pretty good. [I don’t mean to be a jerk or rain on your parade, but starting a thread doesn’t mean you have the right to tell everybody what to say in it.]

Yeah, there’s lots of intelligent design advocates on the SDMB. It’s about time we started a debate with them.

This seems like a ham-handed attempt to “discredit” the people who’ve criticized your tone in other threads. But even if you did write this letter - and by the way, what publication is it appearing in and when will it run? - this is a pretty weak appeal to authority.

15

I should note that if you’re going to appeal to authority about the quality of your satire, a biologist isn’t a good authority. Maybe someone in the literature department would be a better place to start. Also, do you honestly think you’re going to get away with boasting about how great your satire is in the OP (eg, by posting the feedback you allegedly got from some biologists) and then expecting no one else to comment? You’re join date says 1999, not 2008.

16

No facts were presented.
An attempt at parody that does not even use any actual statements from the targets of its scorn is not a basis of factual inquiry.

There is nothing to debate.

Since you did not post this in Cafe Society and are admant that the only topic that invites debate–the quality of your literary form–is off limits to debate, this thread has no purpose.

It is closed.

[ /Moderating ]