Friday, April 15, 2011

191: Charles Jackson

Charles Jackson is another one. A summary of Jackson goes as follows: Charles Jackson knew nothing, then he heard a presentation on a scientific topic that he didn’t understand. Currently he knows nothing, but fancies himself an expert. See him take on ERV here. In retrospect, one can virtually hear the levers and pulleys of confirmation bias take in the information, sieve it through to whatever favorite filter of evidence he is operating with, and churn out some garbage at the other end.

Charles Jackson is a young earth creationist who is barely able to pass the Turing test, and has been known to fail such tests in actual debates (see Jackson portray a Chinese Room here). In fact, Dr. Jackson is the “scientist” for the Creation Truth Foundation, and he has a strong reputation with respect to debate skills (mostly because he masters the Gish gallop and the Ham hightail – he isn’t fully able to see that science is determined by evidence rather than rhetoric).

Diagnosis: Professional zombie; crackpot and godbotter who has honed his rhetorical techniques to cover up his complete ignorance of the subject matters he likes to debate. Impact uncertain, but he’s pretty zealous.

7 comments:

  1. An impressive list of ad hominems. No substance, but who's surprised, that's only typical of your type.

    ReplyDelete
  2. PS,

    The fact you brought up ERVs shows everyone how far out of touch you are. Really quite hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh, and just one more thing. I'll bet Abbie Smith feels like a real fool these days.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have looked at the site of Jackson. Clearly he is nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree this entry is wanting and has too many ad hominems. He's called "Dr." but we're not even told what his doctorate is in, or where it's from, or if it's real.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I sort of agree myself. Many of these early entries are rather lacking in necessary detail. We'll see whether we can get around to updating them some day.

      Delete
  6. And Nic, please, the ERV argument for common descent has never been successfully attacked by any creationist. No aspect or side of that many-sided argument has ever been refuted.

    ReplyDelete