Philo Sofee wrote:Maksutov wrote:Looks like Dan's "manuscript" is a bundle of potshots at the New Atheists.
I'm sure that will get him some attaboys from the Corporation, at least.
It's his bread and butter. To the normal Mormon it looks like he is a hero takin the big bad guys down, to the leaders, a solid member whose valiant in his testimony. To his wife, a man honoring his priesthood. To us, a biased one sided reader who refuses to actually engage in actual discussion of what atheists are truly saying, hence lacking any kind of scholarly credibility in these kinds of things. A true man of all seasons this!
And a plagiarist, once again. I reviewed Pearcey's chapter, Darwin meets the Berenstain Bears, and once again, virtually every single sentence DCP posts is straight out of Pearcey's work. This time, Peterson can't hide behind forgetfulness, or accidental error, because he said this in the comments:
Curious, too, that they both read as if I had quoted nobody OTHER than Pearcey in support of my doubts -- whereas I actually cited the distinguished philosophers Alvin Plantinga and Mary Midgley . . . as well as Mr. Charles Darwin himself....
Finally, IS Nancy Pearcey a young-Earth creationist who believes that humans and dinosaurs co-existed? It's certainly possible; I know little about her
DCP quotes all of those people because he plagiarizes Pearcey as she quotes all of those people as well. For example:
DCP wrote:Daniel Dennett’s trademark slogan is that Darwinism is a “universal acid” that “eats through just about every traditional concept” in religion and morality, and puts our views of the social order in an entirely different light
which he took straight from Pearcey:
Dennett's trademark metaphor is that Darwinism is "universal acid, ' that "eats through just about every traditional concept" of religion or morality or social order.
Changing "metaphor" to "slogan" doesn't hide the plagiarism, Dan.
Another example:
DCP wrote:As Mary Midgley points out, if we accept the concept of memes as Dawkins and his co-believers seek to propagate it, we must conclude that the only reason they “campaign so ardently for neo-Darwinism must be that a neo-Darwinist meme . . . has infested their brains, forcing them to act in this way.” After all, she says, “if you propose the method seriously you must apply it consistently.”
Which is virtually identical to Pearcey:
As Midgely argues, accept the idea of memes, and you must conclude that the only reason Dawkins and others “campaign so ardently for neo-Darwinism must be that a neo-Darwinist meme … has infested their brains, forcing them to act in this way.” After all, “if you propose the method seriously you must apply it consistently”
Again, DCP does things like trade "concept" for "idea," and "we must" for "you must," etc. Does he really think that hides the plagiarism?
DCP's title theme isn't even original:
DCP wrote: He was right to be concerned. Consistent materialism seems to saw off the branch upon which the materialist sits while thinking.
and now Pearson:
But of course, Darwin’s own theory was itself a “conviction of man’s mind,” so he was cutting off the branch he himself was sitting on. In short, Darwinian naturalism is self-refuting.
This is getting disgusting. I can't even imagine the editorial nightmare DCP's book will be, once the editors start to realize just how much of his manuscript is unoriginal.
