Unless these are the first words I’ve written that you’ve ever read, you’re probably aware of the fact I’ve been a rather unabashed critic of Darwinian theory as extrapolated to explain the origin of new species. The results of Gregor Mendel’s genetic experiments, muddled together with atheist philosophy, offers a superficial and completely inadequate alternative to a supernatural Creator, yet the high priests of Darwin eagerly wait for the first opportunity to make a blood sacrifice of those deemed heretics.
Writing a book and getting it published is actually rather easy in the modern world of ebooks and self-publishing. However, writing a book worth reading is another matter entirely.
I know this, because after letting them go “cold” in my memory I re-read my first two Mercer novels and promptly pulled them off the market in order to improve them. I’m a tough, but fair critic. The plots won’t be changed significantly, but I know I can do a better job of telling the story than I did when I first started writing eight years ago. My wife and I have become much better editors over time.
Recently I stumbled across this internet post by Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, who made a worrisome claim about a fellow academic named Herman Mays. Dr. Jeanson recently wrote a book called Replacing Darwin, which I have not had the opportunity to read.
In this article where Dr. Mays was mentioned, Dr. Jeanson wrote,
Dr. Mays asserted that I’m scientifically incompetent to make the claims that I do in Replacing Darwin. He also claimed that my book is full of errors and omissions. Conversely, during the debate, I contended that Dr. Mays was criticizing a book that he has not read. With stakes this high, as well as emotions that typically accompany them, it’s no surprise that confusion persists.
That certainly sounds like something Herman would say.
The reader might wonder, Herman? Why this deliberate show of disrespect for Dr. Mays? Ask an easy question, I’ll give you the easy answer– http://mccallsnurseries.com/seller.php I have zero respect for Herman Mays.
Zip. Nada. None. Let me explain…
No, let me sum up for you.
Herman and I have a bit of a history.
During our brief online acquaintance, I made the mistake of offering Herman a free copy of my book Counterargument for God. Herman wrote and published this scathing review, which at the time I believed was his honest opinion of my book. Honest perhaps, but unnecessarily harsh.
After all, he didn’t even describe my book as extremely well-written garbage; it was the worst thing you could find on Amazon for less than $3. Yet it won an award, and the other reviews had been positive. With my pride a bit wounded but no real malice intended, I “retaliated” by writing this blog post that suggested Herman is a bit of a know-it-all.
Things got even more heated from there. I’m afraid Dr. Jeanson made a terrible mistake by trusting Herman Mays to give his book an honest review. For one thing, Herman has an inferiority complex, in my opinion.
Dr. Jeanson received his PhD in cell and developmental Biology from Harvard University. Dr. Mays got his PhD in Biology from the University of Kentucky. Having competed for jobs with graduates from Duke and other schools with an “Ivy League” reputation, it can be intimidating to run up against your intellectual equal, but with a better pedigree.
However, only one of the two could be considered dishonest and untrustworthy. Dr. Herman Mays has been known to criticize arguments he doesn’t understand and review books he hasn’t read. Apparently he also likes to create a straw man to defeat when he engages in public debate.
Dr. Jeanson elaborated,
Three hours before the debate, the hosts sent me the slides for Dr. Mays’ opening presentation. By 7pm, I was able to review Dr. Mays’ content. Having watched two of Dr. Mays’ previous debates with creationists, I immediately recognized many of the slides. In fact, the presentation drew heavily on material that Dr. Mays had presented in January4 of this year—two months before the online evolutionary forum would contact Dr. Mays and invite him to review Replacing Darwin. I also recognized that his arguments ascribed positions to my book that were in direct conflict with what Replacing Darwin actually said. In other words, in his slides Dr. Mays attributed to Replacing Darwin things that the book explicitly rejects. I was stunned. In 60 minutes, I was about to take the stage opposite someone who appeared to be unfamiliar with the very content he and I were supposed to debate.
Atheists on the internet really liked Herman’s review of my book because they hate my book, they hate my arguments, and they hate me. I wasn’t as big a fan. It occurred to me that Herman seemed to be going out of his way to cause as much harm to my ability to earn income as possible, and I since have become certain that he never actually read it.
Sure, he might have skimmed through and cherrypicked passages from his specific area of expertise that he could eviscerate with technical criticisms, but Herman Mays never read my book. He never even bothered to look at the first page. If he had, he would not have asked me what I meant by the term theist-agnostic.
These are literally the very first two paragraphs in my book that immediately follow the title page:
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” –Gautama Siddhartha, founder of Buddhism
The target audience for this book is either buy Pregabalin usa theist-agnostic or atheist-agnostic, with “agnostic”being the key word. The atheist claims God does not exist, while a theist asserts the opposite. The agnostic simply says, “I don’t know.” Therefore, a theist-agnostic is someone who believes in a God but admits to some personal doubts, acknowledging that irrefutable proof does not exist. Conversely, the atheist-agnostic does not believe in any form of supernatural intelligence, but concedes that incontrovertible proof to support that belief is unobtainable. [emphasis added]
Question: how does an academic, a teaching professor with a PhD, forget a new term that he’d just learned by reading the first sentence of my book, only a couple of days earlier? It would be one thing if it simply slipped his mind and reading it for a second time jarred his memory, but obviously reading the term in our exchange was when he first learned the concept.
The only reasonable conclusion to draw was that Dr. Mays never read the first page of my book, unless he’s suffering from early stage Alzheimer’s disease. How can someone write an honest review of the book when he didn’t even read the first page?
From reading Herman’s critique of my book, it appears that he skipped just about everything except pages 53-154, specifically limiting his criticisms to section 2 of my book, the section titled “The Darwin Argument.” When challenged with the accusation he’d published a review of a book he hadn’t read, naturally Herman denied my allegation and claimed he simply forgot what “theist-agnostic” meant. I suppose it is theoretically possible that someone could read the first sentence of a book and not remember it. Not every book begins with a classic line like this one:
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities
But how can an alleged academic, a college professor with a theoretically good memory, learn a new term that was clearly defined in the first sentence and forget that he ever saw it? Seeing it “a second time” didn’t jar Herman’s memory. It created a new memory.
Needless to say, I was not pleased and this blatantly dishonest and disrespectful treatment by a man who ought to be serious and act like an adult. At some point, I lost my temper and suggested that Herman attempt something that I now must admit would be anatomically impossible, in terms “no good Christian” would ever use. Not my best moment. In retrospect, I’m really glad that Herman wasn’t within arm’s reach at that moment, because I’m pretty sure I would have punched the prevaricating wanker in the face. Dr. Jeanson also wrote,
The goal of this report is to help clarify some of the lingering questions. My goal is not to attack Dr. Mays personally, criticize his competence, or hamper his career. I have much respect for him as a scientist and for the research he does. In fact, one of his papers for which I’m particularly grateful is his recent publication of the DNA sequence (the genome) of the Sumatran rhinoceros. Furthermore, his expertise and competence is one of the reasons I specifically asked him to publicly review my book. Instead of condemning him, my goal is to further our discussion.
I commend Dr. Jeanson for taking the high road, and I will try to follow his example by not attacking Dr. Mays personally (anymore than I have.) I wish I could say he can count on Dr. Mays putting aside his personal bias and childish nature to write a fair and honest review, but I’m afraid that is asking too much of someone with a childish nature and a serious inferiority complex.
Until watching the debate, I had no idea what Herman Mays even looked like, but now I do. He’s a cartoon character. That’s not a personal attack. It’s simply an observation, a statement of obvious fact.
Which technically makes it empirical evidence collected via the scientific method.
Speak Your Mind