@Ken: “…Christopher Hitchens pulls me one way and Sean the …

Comment on “Autonomy and Academic Freedom”: WASC’s 2010 Review of LSU by wesley kime.

@Ken:
“…Christopher Hitchens pulls me one way and Sean the other. I’d better be careful before I fall off on the side of….” Isn’t the net weight of evidence, not just the erosion rate of the Himalayan slopes, clearly, not just allegorically, vectoring in favor of Dr. Pitman? Happy landing!

Meanwhile, as to Christopher Hitchens, as Dr. pitman (and I, both pathologists) would affirm, esophageal Ca is an especially bad thing to have, arguably, but maybe not right here, almost as bad as his stance in the cosmos. So back to your ellipsis …, Cheers! W

wesley kime Also Commented

“Autonomy and Academic Freedom”: WASC’s 2010 Review of LSU
@ken: Leap from your fence? Oh no, no! Please no! NO! Don’t ever leap off your fence “in fear or despondency,” worse than leaping off the Burj Khalifa in Dubai (the Empire State Building is so outdated). Leap only into joy (Have you ever read C.S. Lewis’s “Surprised by Joy”? That’s the book I’d recommend, along with Sean’s Turtles, for you maybe over it.)

And, moving right along in my “Free Association” mode, the only thing I’ll personally be dangling in front of you is a preposition.

Speaking of dangling, I note that as we speak you are interacting with at least six others of my fellow posters, simultaneously playing us all, and so congenially. At least for this site that’s maybe a record. Congratulations and welcome again. And, thanks, somehow my Sabbath was especially good. They get better and better.

Cheers and dangles, Wes


“Autonomy and Academic Freedom”: WASC’s 2010 Review of LSU
@ken: And while prayers are being offered for you, mine is that your Tibetan Plateau not become your Plateau Of Despond (you remember your Psych 101). And something like that for the viability of GRI’s Young Earth Model. May the GRI find its GPS.

Now that you mention them, shall we turn our meditation to models, research and other kinds? If at church it’s “holier than thou,” in the lab it’s “my model is more viable than thine.” I learned that along with footnotes as a research fellow at Washington U. And inscribed in the plaque over the Morris agency’s door is “My model is more vibrant than yours.” (If not why not?) But the viability of the Morris Model might be as much in question as that of the GRI’s model, considering the Morris girls’ gauntness. “Vibrant” or “viable,” depends on which door the plaque is over.

The Evo Model seems Rubinesque enough, but by whole body scanning is mostly silicone implants and falsies (in the lab we’d call them extrapolations), as you may be, could be, to your surprise, suspecting, thanks to our Dr. Pitman, the model (only a little tarnished) of forbearance and cosmically rational tenacity, I’d say, since his persona has been offered up for public comment. This time a straw man has not been raised, praise be.

Meanwhile, for the model of generic and tenacious but all the more irrational indomitability, to the very end and beyond endurance, we have our Christopher Hitchens, cancer victim, soon, alas, to be tenaciously nonviable, and then what? And so what? For that, especially that, you sure have a choice of models.

Cheers! Wes


“Autonomy and Academic Freedom”: WASC’s 2010 Review of LSU
@Ken: I second that. You are needed, appreciated, respected — may I say, even more respected, and prayed for, than Christopher Hitchens?


Recent Comments by wesley kime

Brilliant and Beautiful, but Wrong
Brilliant, beautiful, and so right! Speaking of your presentation at LLU recently. Great to see you and your family (especially my namesake, Wes. God bless! WK


Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Bob Helm: Dr. Sanford is very familiar to most of us. He was invited to speak at LLU several years ago and I and a great many were privileged to hear him.


Evolution from Space?
Hats off yet again to Sean for pursuing this topic as a scientist should, no nonsense, and in it’s proper setting — as a revival of one of the ancient ideas recently upgraded as a desperate alternative to the increasingly compelling intelligent design data. I had occasion to review panspermia a few years ago and as is my wont I found it more amusing than scientific. If you would like what was intended to be a satirical response to panspermia and other related curiosities you could check out: http://www.iessaythere.com/black-hole-humor.html
Meantime, Sean’s article is of far more cogent worth.


The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
As he has done on this site many times, Sean in his line-by-line-item response to C. White (not EG or EB) has, to my mind, clearly enunciated the issue and resolution.

When all the hermeneutics, quoting, and arguing and inordinately judgmental riposte are over, it comes down, as I understand it, to two things: 1) Whether the 7th day Sabbath (whether enunciated in the famous 10 commandments or otherwise) is still valid, and 2) Does the grace obtained by the vicarious sacrifice by the shedding of Christ’s blood or other divine process too deep for us to understand in this life, cover every sin automatically and without ado, altogether passively on our part, or is it only on condition that we first totally and deeply accept it? Other details always hassled forever are distractions.

I accept that I must accept it, wholly, actively, even with agony, with my whole being.


Nobel Prize Winner “Blinded by Belief”: Retracts 2016 Paper on RNA Self-Replication
The confession that Szostak made is boggling! If anybody has been on a “journey”, Szostak has! And this analysis by Sean of that journey and its implications is truly awesome. It should be published widely… I’m surprised nobody has commented on it yet. No comment could do it justice.

I’m reduced to being simply curious. Was there talk of rescinding Szostak’s Nobel? I propose another Nobel category: a prize for most honest scientist, and Szostak would be the first winner. Few other scientists would be eligible, particularly among evolutionary scientists, who collectively seem to have suffered a blindness mutation. He should be TIME’s Man of the Year.