Joined: April 2005
Take a look at the opening sentence; it makes no sense:
|I don't know why you think he's so bad. His job is to use science-sounding jargon, write in a complicated fashion, and try to emulate a scholarly person. The BS might be apparent to you, but most people would sort of gloss over it and then think, "He uses big words, so he must be smart, and he must be right; plus he's talkin' 'bout god, so I'm all fer it."|
Why should what follows make him glad, sad or indifferent? And, more to the point, why would anyone care? And what fraction of Adkins's letter had consisted of quoting Luskin? Does anyone care about that?? In fact, it sounds like grade-school playground rhetoric where the whole beside-the-point point is to inject some abrasiveness into the exchange and accuse this Adkins fellow of "attacking" him and the Disco Inst. Wasting space in a letter to an editor, where concise and to the point is the whole idea, is bad enough. But wasting space to reveal the mind of a petulant 10 year old - especially in your opening sentence - that takes a really bad writer.
Oh dear. That wasn't so good, was it?
|Moreover, the machines in our cell are often said to resemble human design machines—such as the rotary engine found in the bacterial flagellum. This is powerful evidence that an intelligence was at work.|
How much thus could a thuschuck chuck if a thuschuck could chuck thus?
|Thus Adkins assertions that I am “disingenuous” about my beliefs about the identity of the designer are thus baseless.|
Unlike most holders of self-contradictory positions, who do realize it? Again, it's not just uneconomical; it sounds like playground rhetoric. If you think the position is self-contradictory, just say so; don't embarrass yourself with clumsy swipes at your opponent's mental status.
|What Adkins doesn’t realize is that his position is self-contradictory...|
I contend it takes a really bad writer not to notice how pompous and ridiculous this comes off.
|Many design theorists, including myself...|
When begging the question is, intentionally or otherwise, obscured by the complexity of the argument, it's a logical fallacy. But to display it this baldly, this clumsily... that takes a really bad writer.
|The observed products of intelligent agents are precisely what we observe in the cell. |
Leaving aside the lack of a verb, isn't that rather inartfully redundant?
|The designer very well may God, or a supernatural divine being.|
Maybe this isn't Luskin's fault. It may be that the Disco Inst contractually requires all of its lackeys to include those buzzwords in every communication. But, aside from being just plain false, to end the letter with such a glaring non sequitur, that takes a really bad writer.
|Intelligent design thus takes a bona fide scientific approach which is endorsed by a growing number of scientists and peer reviewed scientific publications. |
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.