User talk:Etruscan

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Etruscan!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

I hear Tuscany is nice this time of year. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 00:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

RationalWiki has published false and defamatory information about Eugene G. Windchy.

Windchy is a former U.S. Information Agency Assistant Science Adviser who investigated the Tonkin Gulf naval incidents that enabled United States participation in the Vietnam War. His book “Tonkin Gulf” was reviewed in the New York Times as “superb investigative reporting” (9-26-71). He also has written “The End of Darwinism: And How a Flawed and Disastrous Theory Was Stolen and Sold” (Xlibris, 2009). The prominent geologist Kenneth Hsu complimented the book as better than he could have done. Windchy accepts evolution and defines it as biological change over time. He reports that many biologists and other scientists have disagreed with evolutionary theory as presented in textbooks.

For example, Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen J. Gould in the journal Paleobiology (Winter, 1980) declared textbook Darwinism “dead.” Prominent mathematicians have registered their objections in the book “Mathematical Challenges to the neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution” (Alan R. Liss, 1986). Both of those publications and others are discussed in “The End of Darwinism.”

It is not true as has been alleged on this website that Windchy has “no science education.” In college he studied chemistry, physics, zoology, and botany. He does not reject evolution (defined as biological change over time). Neither has P. Z. Myers described him as a “creationist crackpot” (not in the material referenced by the website's footnote, anyway). His book does not express any religious views. Nor was Windchy “sent” to investigate the Tonkin Gulf naval incidents. All of those statements were fabrications. Windchy ought to have been notified of such outrageous material appearing online. Why did not somebody check that misinformation?— Unsigned, by: Etruscan / talk / contribs

Feel free to start a discussion on the relevant article talk page. Leaving a rant on your user talk page probably won't get much attention. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes. Thanks. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 18:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The relevant article talk page is Talk:Eugene G. Windchy. You are right - Myers didn't call him a "creationist crackpot", he called him a "creationist crank".--ZooGuard (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I've improved the article a bit, see if you like it. Something tells me you won't...— Unsigned, by: ZooGuard / talk / contribs

How did Windchy get to be anti-evolution, a creationist, and a devout Christian? Is there any evidence for any of that? If Windchy is a creationist, so is Stephen Hawking, who also considers the possibility of creation (for reasons given in The End of Darwinism). As for common descent, Windchy does NOT reject it. However, if you believe in abiogenesis, why could there not have been than one line of descent? One more thing: Windchy does not claim to be non-religious. Why do you have to pigeonhole everybody? Your attitude is Procrustean. ----Etruscan

Who are you talking to? User:Ecologist below is not me. (And he's the same person who redirected Windchy's article to The End of Darwinism.) And also: Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the article title - sorry.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The user Etruscan is Windchy himself. I have read the comments of Windchy on amazon, he rejects common descent. He is a devout Christian, but plays a "stealth creationist" by claiming to be non-religious in his book. If you search for his book on amazon, his comments can be read.

He has been exposed here:

"The book also gives a one-sided history of the Piltdown hoax and misrepresents other events in the history of evolutionary science – such as Nebraska Man and the Haeckel drawings of embryos. These to put the message across that evil scientist distort evidence in their efforts to “sell” evolutionary theory and proclaim the atheist message. Ed Brayton (see Buchanan Blathers About Evolution and Fisking Eugene Windchy), PZ Myers (see Old fossil “disproves” Darwin!) and Gary S. Hurd (see “The End of Darwinism”) have posted detailed rebuttals of these and other claims in Mindchy’s book. Brayton points out that rather than being examples of scientific deception the history of these events show how science works to correct false claims and mistaken ideas.

And finally, the last three chapters try to push the story that evolutionary science is founded on claims which are easily refuted and that most mathematicians and many, if not most, biologists disagree with that science. All done with the tired old creationist tactic of quote mining. (Why, oh why, do they think that quoting a palaeontologist like Gould out of context can be used to disprove palaeontological evidence?) Then there is the other trick of interpreting any new discovery, any development of theory, any finding contradicting previous interpretations, as evidence that evolutionary science is deeply flawed. And there is a conspiracy within science to keep this information from the public."

Utter bolsheet that Windchy claims to accept evolution, he peddles all the same creationist nonsense, confusing Darwinism with evolution, linking evolution to nazism, and citing piltdown man and Haeckels embro drawings.

"This book is all-in and makes no compromises for timid apologists or die-hard advocates. The End of Darwinism may not be a game changer in the anti-evolution debate, but it does deliver rib-sticking food for thought. Unrepentant, accessible prose mixed with some cranky arguments, but intellectually engaging and provocative."

Ecologist (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It starts to smell really badly of socks here.
Who are you and how did you find this discussion?--ZooGuard (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Your last edit..[edit]

Hiya. Leaving a passive aggressive note in the middle of the article as opposed to actually editing what you see as problematic text is kind of unproductive. Feel free to edit, but the commentary should go on the relevant talk page. Please don't sign your contributions to articles -- they're not paintings. Please DO sign your talk page postings with 4 tildes. Also, you asked "Now how does one edit the previous material?." Seeing as you editied the page, I find the question a little odd, but just hit the "EDIT" tab on the top of the page. Thanks. Just like New York City; Just like Jericho. 18:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
If you are unsure about how wikis work - and how this one in particular works - then the links in the welcome banner at the top of this page should help you.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your book[edit]

Eugene (Etruscan) your book is filled with dishonest quote mining. Thomas Huxley, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, David Raup, and Steven M. Stanley did not reject Darwinism. Your quote mining is worse than Duane Gish. Ecologist (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)