Recently something I posted on Uncommon Descent has come under scrutiny. I do not mind that however at least a few people have chosen to misinterpret what I said and then scrutinize that misinterpretation.
David Kellogg, an English professor at Northeastern U., has taken his misinterpretation to a new low.
The following is the context and the wording used.
Stuart Harris said:
For example, one can come up with many plausible Darwinian explanations for the evolution of the vertebrate eye given the starting point of a light sensitive cell.
To which I responded:Can that same person verify that explanation with actual scientific data? No.
Does anyone even know what gene or genes is responsible for the vision system? No.
Totally ignoring the first part these anti-IDists, especially David Kellogg, instead focused solely on the second.
These people think I am saying that we don’t know anything about the vision system! How they can infer that from what was posted is beyond me. All I can attribute that to is a lack of understanding of the English language. That is surprising because at least one of them, hermagoras (David Kellogg), claims to be an English professor!!!
The key words in that second part is “responsible for”. My usage is equivalent to “causation”.
So, taken in context, one should have been able to discern that I was talking about what caused, ie what gene or genes as well as the assembly instructions, the vision system of vertebrates to come into existence.
I said that because if we do not know then one cannot come up with a plausible Dawrian explanation.
The sad part is that David, nor any of these other imbeciles, were not part of the discussion. IOW it appears that these anti-IDists are infatuated with me!
I am flattered but in reality all they have to do is to scientifically demonstrate a plausible Darwinain explanation for the evolution of the vertebrate vison system.
Ya see David, not only do you need to know the genes required, but there are also assembly instructions tucked away somewhere.
And in the end if someone requires clarification all one has to do is ask.
But to take your own (mis)interpretation of what I said and run with it is just plain stupid.
Perhaps my wording wasn't the best. That still isn't any reason for anyone to start telling me what I meant.
On another note:
David Kellogg is currently working on a book -"The Rhetoric of anti-Science". The book should be interesting as it appears that David doesn't even know what science is.