[RJT]

PM,

I obviously do not know Bluff’s actual intent of the post (how could I?) I’ll let Bluff speak for himself. I was merely expressing what seemed obvious to me.

What I am saying and did in fact say is that Coyne is no dummy. If you read my post you will see that I told you that one cannot tell from this short article that he has smarts. I assumed from your other posts (you being no dummy) that you would realize that since we know that Coyne is the director of the Vatican Observatory, one should be about to deduce that he has something going for himself. Perhaps I should have told you what else I assumed was evident, that is the Vatican Observatory isn’t some villa in the hills outside of Rome with a guy in a black robe and a Tasco telescope.

You are correct that it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that ID isn’t Science. I did not say that because Coyne say so, therefore he is a genius. Indeed I have not the wherewithal to label him such even if I knew him personally. That distinction is not something I am smart enough to determine.

You also missed my point in Bluff’s vocabulary. Too reiterate, he is using the vernacular of David. Bluff’s words are not his own original choice of words. He could very well have simply posted the link to the article. He chose to segue from David’s earlier post is all.

You might be right in one thing though - posts and discussion like these are perhaps a waste of time. I may have misunderstood you (from your earlier posts) regarding your interest in rational discourse. It is ironic that really you appear (now at least) to be only interested in “pontification”.

RJT