John Gee's book review and thoughts:

[_karl61]

lets go full circle and back to Mr. Gee's book review and thoughts or has that been addressed? I've actually been waiting for CK to do a paragraph by paragraph analysis.

[_karl61]

You really do think everyone else except you is stupid, don't you?

No, but . . . ["Dan, if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." "Yes, mother."]

Yeah, like you ever listened to her advice on this before.

Please say you think I'm stupid Danny! Please? Nothing would validate my genius more.

you sound like you're his brother.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Please say you think I'm stupid Danny! Please? Nothing would validate my genius more.

You're probably right in this regard: Nothing (in this universe, at any rate) is any more likely to validate your "genius" than my calling you stupid would.

[_asbestosman]

I grant that ID is has a large tradition in common with other relitious arguments in God's favor including Paley's watch argument. It also comes from Aristotle's tradition of teleology. That said, I think ID is significant in trying to formulate the arguments using statistics. I reject ID, but I think it would be nice to instruct students as to why it is I reject it. That said, I'm not sure high school would be the appropriate level for this. While the first statistics class I had was in high school, it was a college level class. Furthermore, some of the rejections deal more with philosophy than statistics proper and I grant that I'm not as confident in philosophy.

[_Trevor]

lets go full circle and back to Mr. Gee's book review and thoughts or has that been addressed? I've actually been waiting for CK to do a paragraph by paragraph analysis.

I did comment on what I thought was the problem with his use of the Punt example. No one bothered to agree or to disagree. I am still open to thoughts on it.

[_Some Schmo]

You're probably right in this regard: Nothing (in this universe, at any rate) is any more likely to validate your "genius" than my calling you stupid would.

That's right. I'm glad you understand. I was totally expecting you wouldn't.

So are you gonna? Huh? Huh?

[_Mister Scratch]

lets go full circle and back to Mr. Gee's book review and thoughts or has that been addressed? I've actually been waiting for CK to do a paragraph by paragraph analysis.

I have said that I felt that it was little more than a smear piece, aimed at tarnishing the reputations of both men.

[_Daniel Peterson]

it was little more than a smear

Here's a bit of friendly advice:

Why don't you just program your computer to send out precisely that line every time my name appears on the web? There must be some Google-type function that would enable such a procedure.

It would save you oodles of effort in the long run, and would guarantee that your fundamental message reaches the masses who yearn to hear it.

Having done so, in the autumn of your life, rich in achievement and full of years, you'll be able to contemplate the great work that you've accomplished with contentment and satisfaction.

[Guest]

Mister scratch and trevor did express their thoughts. Good ones too.

I also see I got promoted to a sun-BEAM!

[_Runtu]

Who is David Wright?

You can read Dr. Wright's own story of his excommunication here:

http://www.mormonalliance.org/caserepor ... p5ch23.htm

Thanks for the reference, Rollo. I had reached the same conclusion about the Book of Mormon's textual dependence on the KJV, particularly the New Testament, and it was interesting to read Wright's piece in the Metcalfe book a couple of years later.

It's really kind of astounding that they went after Wright. That time period still strikes me as an anomaly, in terms of people being excommunicated for simply adopting an unorthodox view of the church and its history. Things have changed when Grant Palmer is not excommunicated, but Wright was. I wasn't aware of Wright's history, other than David Bokovoy's mention of him a while back.