There is little I could add to AZ79's thoughtful,
intelligent, reasoned, incisive, and surgical
review
of Mr. Plaskett's book, "Coincidences". I agree
with AZ79 wholeheartedly on virtually the entirety
of his discussion. I would however, like to
submit the following comments as they relate
to my perception of Mr. James Plaskett's credibility
on the subject of science.
For several years now, it has been my pleasure
to converse with Mr. Plaskett in the Internet
Chess Club's chatrooms, particularly channel
103 - the religion room. I have found him to
be a charming, likeable, funny, and somewhat
quirky interlocutor...perhaps not quite what
one might expect of one of the world's strongest
chessplayers (He is an International Grandmaster).
I would sincerely like to say at the outset
that I consider him my friend.
From our earliest discussions, it was obvious
that Mr. Plaskett had a problem with Neo-Darwinism
in particular, but more basically, a chip on
the shoulder towards the scientific community's
endorsement of evolution in general. He always
spoke of the necessity of some sort of "god"
or "creator" to explain ourselves and our universe,
as well as a penchant for jumping to the aid
of some of the Chess Club's most paranoid and
fundamental christian minds, when atheists and
agnostics were giving them a well-needed dose
of reality. His tack was generally "If you want
to attack what YOU call christian fairy-tales,
why aren't you equally critical of Darwinian
fairy-tales..." which as you might imagine wasn't
very useful to the continuity of the original
discussion. Although I have read Chuck Darwin's
"Origin of Species" cover to cover as well as
healthy doses of Dawkins, Gould and Sagan, I
didn't consider myself conversant enough with
the material Plaskett was continually citing,
via strange terminologies, arcane web-sites,
names I'd never heard of, books I'd never read,
etc., to be able to stand nose-to-nose with
him and refute what sounded to me like a bunch
of hypermodern psuedo-scientific psycho-babble.
So I did what I always do in similar circumstances.
I bought lots and lots of books. I discovered
lots and lots of web-sites and printed out hundreds
of pages of relevant materials. In a subject
which is among the most complex in science,
I am by NO means any sort of expert as of yet.
HOWEVER, I have brought myself to a point now,
where I've encountered a sufficient percentage
of the information, fossil specimens, argumentation,
strategies and common fallacies used in this
arena, where it would now be much, much MUCH
more difficult to BULL S*IT me!
A case in point involving Mr. Plaskett is as
follows: Several weeks ago (before I was muzzled
by the petty tyrants who run Internet Chess
Club) I was conversing with several christians
in the religion channel, on the subject of the
many transitional fossils which have been discovered.
These extreme christians were claiming that
no such fossils exist, and that any that are
in the possession of Universities, Museums and
the like are either fake, or not what they are
purported to be etc...all the usual stuff. This
is the moment when Mr. Plaskett entered the
fray. He immediately asked me for an example
of a transitional fossil. I cited Archaeopteryx
lithographica, which is a beautiful evolutionary
transitional from reptiles to birds, and without
doubt the most famous in the world. Six specimens
have been found, the first just 2 years after
Darwin's "Origin of Species" was published.
Archaeopteryx exhibits an unmistakable mixture
of reptilian and avian characteristics. These
include feathers which are virtually indistinguishable
from modern birds, as well as many skeletal
features of therapod dinosaurs. The skull is
also typically reptilian in structure. Mr. Plaskett,
in the style which has become familiar to many
of his debating opponents, disappeared for a
moment or so, then filled the screen with a
barrage of information containing "scientist's"
names, technical words, theories of "faking"
...all in a rather desperate-looking attempt
to blow any notion of Archaeopteryx's credibility
to smithereens.
Plaskett stated that eminent scientists Sir
Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe had proven
that all of the Archaeopteryx specimens were
outright forgeries. Their argument, (I had it
right in front of me at the time by the way...lol)
was that the fossils had been faked by treating
an ordinary Compsognathus skeleton (a small
therapod dinosaur) with a paste made of limestone
dust, and pressing the imprints of modern feathers
into this mixture before it dried. This theory
was first put forth in 1985. The British Museum
conducted an extensive study on their specimen
of "Archie" and refuted all of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's
claims. The team found that micro-cracks in
the limestone fossil extended into and beyond
the feathered areas in an unbroken line, indicating
that no material had been added later to the
original rock. The team also found feather imprints
underneath the fossil bones, which would have
been impossible for a hoaxer to accomplish.
Ultraviolet photography of the feathered and
non-feathered areas of the fossil showed them
to be identical.
Adding to Mr. Plaskett's woes at citing such
a sorry source for scientific credibility are
the resume's of these two "scientists". Hoyle
and Wickramasinghe are best known for 2 theories.
The first is that insects are more intelligent
than human beings, but engage in a widespread
conspiracy to prevent the humans from finding
this out. The second is that life began on another
planet in outer space and was carried here either
on comets or on extraterrestrial spaceships.
I would like to recommend a SUPERB web-site
to the readers. It is titled
Creation
"Science" Debunked [
opens in new window].
The reason I cite it at this point is rather
humorous. The article on Archaeopteryx goes
on to say, "Despite the fact that no evidence
of a forgery has ever been found, creationists
tend to take a two-pronged approach when discussing
Archaeopteryx during a debate or discussion.
On the one hand, they will argue that the fossil
is '100% bird', and has no reptilian or dinosaurian
characteristics at all. On the other hand, they
will argue that the fossil is a fake anyway,
made by modifying an ordinary dinosaur skeleton.
The inherent contradiction between these positions
- the fossil has no dinosaur characteristics,
but was faked using a dinosaur skeleton - apparently
doesn't concern them." I will give the reader
ONE GUESS to tell me exactly what Mr. Plaskett's
next comment was after showing him that his
two "scientists" were little better than side-show
attractions at the carnival. Yep. He stated
that Archaeopteryx is thought to be nothing
more than a bird(!)
Am I implying that Plaskett is a Fundamentalist
christian? *Gulp* I don't THINK so. Am I implying
that Plaskett will fill the screen with ANYTHING
which suits his purposes?...the destruction
at any cost of the notion that Neo-Darwinism
and evolution and the fossil record are viable
science. YES! WHOLEHEARTEDLY YES! After this
display, it will take Mr. Plaskett a very long
time to convince me of ANYTHING he has to say
in this arena. Credibility is the most difficult
thing to acquire in the first place, in any
human discipline. After losing it, it is among
the most difficult to get back. Mr. Plaskett
had nothing to say in the way of retraction
or apology on the matter related here.
Mr. Plaskett declined to comment on the other
transitional fossils I recommended to him: The
Therapsid-Mammal Transitional Series, Triadobatrachus
as an Evolutionary Transitional, Ambulocetus
as a Fossil Transitional, and Ichtyostega as
a Transitional. When he deals with those, we'll
give him some more, right guys? Mr. Plaskett
is in my opinion a fine gentleman who is grossly
misled factually, and wed passionately to his
bizarre agenda.
Finally I would like to acknowledge the many
other fine people who fight the good fight on
[the Internet Chess Club] channel 103. Many
of them are my friends who continue to do the
hard work over there. Keep up the great work
guys! Feel free to
email
me [GrapeSoda] with any and all comments. Thank
you for your kindness and attention in lending
me an ear today. Peace be with you.
GrapeSoda
30 March 2001
Jim's note: I present the review text in full
here. I can confirm that GrapeSoda's account
of Plaskett's tactics is quite accurate to my
own experiences chatting to Plaskett on the
subject of evolution. (
Note, if you log into
the Internet Chess Club, Plaskett uses the handle
Parsifal, GrapeSoda is GrapeSoda's handle, and
as for me, Jim, my handle is eadon-com.)
Thanks go to GrapeSoda for his review.
Please
send
me (Jim) a your review or a coincidence
that happened to you.
Related Links:
AZ79's
review
Eadon's
review
Darwin Wars
3 - An example of a Plaskett/Parsifal vs
eadon-com et al Darwin battle
Internet
Chess Club [opens in a new window]
Creation
"Science" Debunked [opens in a new window]
What do you think?
Add your comment
 | | | | |
| From: |
JGR | Subject: | 2001-04-25 02:36:43 |
| | | | |
| From: |
MadPole | Subject: | 2001-12-04 15:32:08 |
| | | | |
help: how to add your comment Page hits: 2046
