And let's not forget how that UberTard, DaveScot, treated PiGuy. (Tard's reply to this physicist is in bold, and we do mean bold.) Forgetfulness is a virtue with UberTard, I guess.
UPDATED: Every once in a while Amused Muse senses that somebody (most likely some chauvinist creationist hack) doesn't think she's very smart, and hurls her finger cymbals into the far corner, shakes her fist, and lets out a string of adjectives that could wilt a cactus. The storm always passes. However, I hate bullshit, and this is bullshit.
In case anyone is interested in resolving this fight, here's the linky to the 1976 Ballard article.
Original sources, UDittoheads! Original sources. And for shit's sake, here's the original quote (pardon my typos):
Thus, the energy of investigators and particularly students is diverted into the essentially fruitless 19th century activity of bending the facts of nature to support second-rate generalities of no predictive value. Though enthusiasm for Haeckel’s (1900) recapitulation “law” died out, unfortunately the popularity of Von Baer’s “laws” of 1828 was renewed. In order to defend thelatter’s descriptive statements that general characters appear before special characters as an egg develops and that the less general and finally the specific characters trail along later, we have to deide intuitively that certain characters are of “morphological significant” and others are not. When referring to vertebrates, we have to use words like blastula and gastrula in such a way as to imply that things that are vastly different from each other are really very much the same.
Von Baer’s generalities only apply to second half of this, and even then there are many exceptions in the literature (De Beer 1958), limited their predictive value. Before the pharyngular stage we can only say that embryos of different species within a single taxonomic class are more alike than their parents. Only by semantic cricks and subjective selection of evidence can we claim that “gastrulas” of shark, salmon, frog, and bird are more alike than their parents.
Meanwhile, of course, more or less steering clear of the Naturphilosophie, real and fruitful investigations are being pursued on the period of morphogenetic movements and in related fields. Works too numerous to cite have been published in the last decade on the behavior of moving cells either as individuals or in sheets and in relation to their substrates…
(Pardon my f-bombs.) I mean, for fuck's sake, Wells. How stupid do you fucking think I am? Just because I didn't get to diddle a Ph.D. like it's a goddamn vibrator!
I'm pissed. I'm fucking pissed off, and this goes out especially to you, William Dembski, Honey.
Do you fucking think I chose to be an atheist? Do you? Do you think it’s easy, walking around being an atheist in America today? Huh? Do you think I woke up one morning and said, “Hey, I think I’ll horrify my family, lose my few (at the time) friends, and send myself straight to hell—what fun!” Do you ever ask yourself (assuming you ever doubt yourself) why anyone becomes an atheist?
It's becasue of people like you. It's because you reflect the emptiness that you say we believe in. You people lie, and lie, and lie, and then you toss around this language thinking that I, a stupid librarian-in-training, can’t find a scholarly article online and read the damn thing? And then you have the gall to point at me and yell, “Unbeliever!” when people like you are primarily responsible for showing me that there’s nothing to all of this crap?
Why should I even be afraid if there was a God? I would just accuse you before him. If you don’t like sharing the world with atheists, well go look in the mirror, Mr. William Dembski and friends. What do you believe in? Lies! How does that make you better than everyone else? How can anyone like Sal Cordova pull a fast one like this without knowing that he’s doing it?