Comments on: Andrew Marr is an idiot

By: Robert de Fleury

Robert de Fleury — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:06:07 +0000

Andrew Marr hasn’t done his homework. Darwin’s theory has been superceded by over one hundred years of scientific research and nowadays only creationist cretins call evolution Darwinism. No scientists are stridently trying to argue that gemmules are part of biology, so Marr’s stupid comment shows his ignorance.
All the dogma and creed is coming from the religious cretins that want to teach religious fairytales as science .

By: David

David — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:33:52 +0000

Mark. For humour.

The anthropologists among the criminologists tell us that the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo. But the criminal is a decadent. Was Socrates a typical criminal? At least that would not be contradicted by the famous judgment of the physiognomist which sounded so offensive to the friends of Socrates. A foreigner who knew about faces once passed through Athens and told Socrates to his face that he was a monstrum — that he harbored in himself all the bad vices and appetites. And Socrates merely answered: “You know me, sir!”

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:17:58 +0000

I totally agree with your post about Andrew Marr’s use of language. However, I’m not sure why you made the comment about his appearance as “Gollum lookalike”. Marr is responsible for his comments (leaving aside the question of free will!), but not for his looks, and making this kind of comment seems unnecessary.

By: Tony Byrne

Tony Byrne — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 09:44:55 +0000

Marr says (Prog 2)…’This data…was…’. Surely it should be ‘These data…are…’

By: David

David — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:10:18 +0000

Paul, I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

Science doesn’t cling to ‘Darwinism’; scientists accept that a major cause of evolution is through mutation and natural selection because the argument is very convincing and the evidence strongly supports such a view. That’s not dogma, it’s more to do with well-attested fact.

If you think you can propose a more plausible hypothesis and find evidence to support you, go ahead and good luck.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:54:55 +0000

I admire your idealism but your assertion doesn’t reflect reality accurately.

…. “The only people clinging to dogma and creeds are religious people ”

If science is to provide us with the best possible material explanation of the world, then Darwin became a dogma a long time ago.

But as a True Believer, I’m sure you will disagree.