Morons at the helm: the Firefox-blocking Danny Carlton
Let’s dig into the deep dark Moron Web. Today, we’ll explore the “wonderful” lessons that Danny Carlton, of Firefox blocking infamy, has for us.
Some say you will know them by their actions
. I say you can also know them by their words. On his article When religion poses as science, Danny says:
One of the “foundational” “proofs” for the overall religion of Evolution is the distances of stars. By claiming stars are so far away, adherents to the religion of Evolution use that as evidence for an old universe. However that falls apart if the speed of light is not an absolute (actually it falls apart for several other reasons, but much more apparently without the assumption of Einstein’s claim about the velocity of light). So research that shows any aberration in the dogma of an absolute speed of light is conveniently ignored, suppressed and tossed aside. Thus we have Dr. Nimtz being oblivious to other, recent findings.
It’s pretty plain that Danny Carlton is a religious kook. And, might I add, an easy target. Why?
Because I love arguments that misuse words to make their points “pan out”. They’re like jigsaw puzzles built using scissors to make the pieces fit. It’s so easy to nuke those arguments — just flip a dictionary and they fall like a house of cards.
Here’s what I wanted to respond to today’s moron. His site wouldn’t let the comment go through but, thanks to the magic of the interblags, I can reply (and probably reach a wider audience than him):
My response to Danny
You seem to have a very, uhm, “personal” definition for the word “religion”.
For the record, something that does not revolve around divine entities cannot, by dictionary definition, be a religion. Evolution, as part of biology, which is a scientific discipline obviously revolves around no divinities and no faith. Ergo, evolution is not a religion. This is not up for debate, as it’s a matter of fact. Fact that your article seems to merrily ignore in order to make the stupidest of points.
In fact, nothing that revolves around a divinity can be called science, because divinities are untestable and unfalsifiable — the antithesis of the fundamental principle of scientific theory.
But, of course, I’m not surprised that you hold this nonsensical implication to be true. You also seem to have a weird definition for the words “theft” and “steal”, judging by your actions in days past.
Might I add, you also seem to have a weird definition for what HTML is supposed to be. HTML (and CSS) have always been, from the start, not just about how the author wants things presented, but (most importantly) how the user agents lay things out. You insist on applying a print magazine mindset to a technology that you pretend to understand but really don’t. That’s why you have become the laughingstock and joke butt of Web-savvy users and developers.
Therefore, I humbly submit my opinion that you are a kooky authoritarian incapable of logical reasoning. That’s just my opinion, but it seems to fit the evidence you’ve kindly laid out for the world to see.
By the way, you should also block Konqueror. On my Linux distribution, it shipped with the Ad Block plugin enabled by default.
Keep blocking Firefoxers. You’ll do the world a big favor by preventing innocent people from falling in your unknowledge tar pit.
It may be futile…
…to argue with a moron. But it’s most certainly not futile to state the truth, in the face of blatant lies and ignorant untruths. Otherwise, truths left unsaid will be forgotten.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:42
Actually, I think Danny Carlton campaign that websites should block the use of Firefox is an excellent one.
Why … ?
Well the only websites who object to Firefox are those who want to bombard us with adverts, spam, scripts or virus and worms. So if we browse by using Firefox, and we accidentally come across a website that cannot display properly … then we know it would be wise to run away from that website as fast as we can !!
So, go on, Danny Carlton - help us create a spam-free and virus-free internet by convincing like-minded webmasters (as you) to block Firefox ! We would really appreciate to know upfront which websites harbour criminal intent … :))
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:04
“For the record, something that does not revolve around divine entities cannot, by dictionary definition, be a religion. Evolution, as part of biology, which is a scientific discipline obviously revolves around no divinities and no faith. Ergo, evolution is not a religion.”
I can buy the argument that Evolution is not religion. I myself believe that Evolution exists. But to a point you did not go far enough yourself. For something to be considered a scientific endeavor three conditions must exist:
1) That what is being studied is experimentally reproducible. 2) That the effect can be measured. 3) That the process and the observations can be explained and postulated into a theory.
On the first 2 Evolution holds. One can do experiments on fast reproducing lifeforms and note changes. Ergo, measurements and deductions can be made of those experiments. But (3) is where Evolution fails. They have the theory in place. But can you or anyone else define the process? Aaah and don’t just say mutations. That is an observation. What caused the mutation to occur?
Analogy. If by some pluck, back in the 40’s the US was able to manufacture, assemble and detonate the first atomic bomb without the underlying knowledge of atomic structures and the concepts of critical mass as it applies to fissile materials would you consider that science? Personally I would not. That would be a matter of dumb luck or the world’s biggest Ooops! Till evolution theorists can come up with the process metaphor that backs their proper observations they sit at the cusp of being scientific without being so.
Consider, if the theorists knew the process of Evolution, why would we today do 100’s of thousands of cross breeding experiments in plant biology to get to that one cultivar with the magic component in it? If they did then one could pick the two gamete donors and arrive at your desired result in maybe 10 or 20 tries.
Second topic:
“For the record, something that does not revolve around divine entities cannot, by dictionary definition, be a religion.”
Here is what my abridged dictionary says –
“re·li·gion (r-ljn) n. 1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.”
Notice it does not state a deity. I hold that in some circles Environmentalism has reached a state that borders on religion. There are fanatics that burn down car dealerships in the name of it. Just like the Church burned heretics at the stake. Others than believe fervently in man made green house effects when in fact the models have not been proven (aside: show me a climatologist who has run his model against PAST weather patterns and had it stick. Then I will believe.) Even alms in the form of carbon credits. It even has an evangelical leader in the name of Al Gore.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:53
Those deserving of ridicule are those that treat open open source as their religion. LOL @ YOU!
August 23rd, 2007 at 19:53
John McGinnis:
Regarding the three tenets for a scientific quest to be “scientific” according to you… Certain parts of evolution (such as mutation and speciation) have been experimentally reproduced in small animals and those experiments are fully repeatable. Their effects were measured. And Darwin’s evolution has been postulated as a formal theory and continually refined throughout the ages.
You’re wrong about the process needing explanation on a theory. The theory of gravity in classical physics postulates that objects fall to the ground (ok, get attracted towards larger objects) and we call that force “gravity”. That theory contains no process explaining how or why they fall down. Nonetheless, it’s a theory as solid and uncontestable as they get.
However, modern biologists know all the processes related to the theory of evolution. We may not know what features each code in plant DNA express (yet), but that does not mean evolution is any less valid. Cross-breeding is just applying the principles behind evolution in a controlled, fast-paced experiment.
All that you need from a theory is that its experiments be reproducible, that it be falsifiable, and that it does useful predictions (otherwise, why bother?). On those three, evolution continually bats home runs.
Finally, on the ethos of religion and evolution: I still haven’t heard of any rabid evolution fan who has gone on a killing or burning cars spree. And, according to your abridged dictionary, evolution does not relate to any beliefs in supernatural powers, and the only institutionalized belief underlying evolution is science — which, as you probably already know, does not stand on faith.
August 23rd, 2007 at 20:00
Reality:
How mature of you. Do you pray to the God of proprietary software instead?
Haha.