1. brightmoon says

    Thank you I can’t bear to watch Hovind with without wanting to slap some sense in that smug ignoramus. I like my phone and want to slap him not it

  2. ionprof says

    Hi Prof. M:
    Paul Davies is one of my colleagues at ASU and I was fascinated to read your blog: “Arrgh Physicists” (that may be misspelled a bit but the sentiment’s correct). So he was giving a seminar a few years back and I went along. First,, he seemed to be spouting the same rubbish you’d trashed years earlier. Progress is slow in physics! Anyway, I was primed from reading you and so I asked him a question at the end. One of my research things is to look for protein biomarkers of cancer, and there’s always the “needle in a haystack” problem — you’re looking for a few copies of a mutant protein in a huge background of other proteins (fairly easy) and then a pretty massive background of almost identical premutant proteins (VERY hard). So if his protein is a reincarnation of an ancient protein then there’s hope, because there are NO (almost) identical premutant proteins. I spelled this out for him and gave him my contact information to follow up. Crickets! (As I’d expected from your blog.)

    You’re my second call of the day (after Eschaton). Keep it up! Thanks!!


  3. davidw says

    Late to the party, as usual, but I have a chemistry analogy to your “gill slits” example. The name “oxygen” means “acid producer” because Lavoisier thought it was an essential component of all classic acids. (And by “classic” acids, I don’t mean the Lewis acids or superacids or xenomorph acids or the like.) Well, Lavoisier was wrong – hydrogen is the essential component of all classic acids. A Hovindian argument would be, then, “Well, oxygen has the wrong name, therefore all of atomic theory (it’s only a theory, after all) is wrong, therefore Gawd. Checkmate, atheists!”

    And I swear the Elmo doll was moving towards you during the video. Watch your back, sir!

  4. mnb0 says

    Well done. Next time Hovind asks you for a debate simply refer him to this video.
    And that’s the only (minor) criticism I have; you could have finished in a more positive way by pointing out that your video makes any suggestion of a debate totally superfluous.
    Hovind should thank you for saving him money