Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List

subscribe to our mailing list:


Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes


Serious Notions with a Smile


Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site


[Write a Reply] [Letters Index]

Title Author Date
No reply from Schroeder? TalkReason , Dec 24, 2005
We have posted the letter from Paula Carnes as another example of the malicious nonsense we sometimes receive from adversaries of good science. Schroeder has never responded to critique, but Paula Carnes somehow knows that we'd anyway not post his response. Rather than rely on her abilities as a psychic, Paula Carnes should rather take care of her myopia. In fact, the sole reply Schroder ever deigned to provide to Perakh's critique of his
errors was posted right here on Talk Reason, and was posted twice - once in
a letter from Daniel and again in the esssay Confronted with
critique, Schroeder lost voice

Regarding the supposed lack of freedom of speech, which somehow, as Ms. Catrnes alleges, has been infringed upon by Talk Reason, why did Schoeder never replied to critique on any of sites sympathetic to his views, including his own? His reply certainly would be welcome there. Schroeder has not answered the ctitique in question because he has nothing to say in

Perhaps Ms Carnes needs spectacles to look over the Letters section on this site, where she'd find plenty of letters arguing against our position. And if she is so much concerned about freedom of speech, why won't she turn her inquisitive eyes toward, say, Dembski's site,
where he promptly deletes every comment which is short of admiring the Great Bill Dembski? With defenders of free speech like Paula Carnes, free speech needs no enemies.

We'l keep her amusing letter posted as a reminder of what kinds of adveraries we sometimes encounter.
Related Articles: Confronted with critique, Schroeder lost voice

Title Author Date
No reply from Schroeder? Carnes, Paula Jan 01, 2006
I wear glasses, but I took your comment that Schroeder had not replied here as accurate. I did not do a search here for Schroeder. Just now when I did do a search I did not find a reply from him, so thank you for giving me the two links were you took the liberty to post his reply. Apparently he did not post here but wrote one of you or an acquaintance of one of you. Is this correct?

At the risk of being ridiculed again let me just say that I am not in favor of teaching creationism in public schools or public universitities. I am in favor of teaching the questions remaining about evolution. I realize that Schroeder is defending a Judeo-Christian religious perspective, possibly even a Muslim one. I did not mean to suggest that his religion should be taught in public science classes. I do think he raises valid questions, as do certain atheists, about the basic current concepts of how life occured.

I would love to see an honest respectful discussion between two scientists at the level of Schroeder's intelligence - not about religion, but science. I am sure you will point me to just such a discussion.

I do think philosophically that science will never prove atheism or deism. That is always going to be a choice of faith. We either have faith that the universe itself is eternal, or there is a Creator or force that was the first cause and eternal. No science class will ever resolve this.

Paula Carnes
Related Articles: Confronted with critique, Schroeder lost voice

Title Author Date
No reply from Schroeder? TalkReason , Jan 02, 2006
Dear Paula Carnes:

Your letter asks more than one question.

First, about Schroeder. We "ridiculed" you, as you put it, because you accused us of somehow curtailing freedom of speech and your
accusation sounded sarcastic. Since such an accusation was blatantly wrong, we decided to reply in kind. As to Schroeder's behavior, the detailed critique of his literary output was posted and published in print years ago,
but he never bothered to even acknlowledge the existence of the critique in question until recently when our reader Daniel, who belongs to the same religious oranization as Schroeder, asked him to respond to Perakh's critique. This
time, apparently, Schroeder could not refuse to reply, so he finally gave birth to a "reply" consisting of just a few lines (which we posted twice on our site). Perakh posted a detailed response to Schroeder's "reply" wherein he
suggested that Schroeder answer 10 questions regarding errors in Schroeder's books. True to form, Schroeder remains silent. There is no doubt whatsoever that he cannot come up with an intelligent answer to Perakh's questions. If
he can, all he has to do is to submit his reply and we'll post it immediately. We won't hold our breath, though, because Schoeder's egregious errors both in reading the Torah and in physics simply cannot be justified.

Your second thesis is of a general character. Please note that among our contributors are many religious people who, however, recognize the power of scientific arguments, in particular regarding evolution theory and, being honest scientists, defend evolution without abandoning their faith. Others of our contributors are agnostic or atheists, and we post their essays as well. Science has no tools to "prove" or to "disprove" the existence of God or gods. This problem is beyound science but properly belongs in theology and/or philosophy, so we post essays discussing such
problems in sections separate from ID or evolution.

Talk Reason
Related Articles: Confronted with critique, Schroeder lost voice