Review of "The Origin of Species."

Share/Save/Bookmark

Review of "The Origin of Species."
by Ari Siletz
28-Jan-2012
 

Just less than 4 billion years have passed since life began on Earth in the hope that it would quickly invent religion and say God did it. Today this is judged by many to be a disaster.  It turned out that creatures decided to start small, single celled and pretty much with no sense of Jesus. So it took almost 4 billion years for some creatures to invent religion. But in a blink of the geologic eye religion was discredited by Reason and the Scientific method.

In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin tries to account for this failure. Why did a collection of aimless molecules fail to come together in a body with arms and legs in just six days, equipped with brains enough to invent fiction?  Darwin had advocated against such miracles and now he is determined to explain why they are wrong.

Although Mr. Darwin is far from disinterested in the science of biology, The Origin of the Species is written with an ersatz air of objective analysis, employing coolly neutral tone and a prose straight out of the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. It is a shame that he didn’t write in the style of Emily Bronte because I really like Italian literature.

Beneath the book’s slick presentation, anti-religion animus simmers.  Mr. Darwin never gives the Bible a chance and writes as though the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn’t know what he is talking about. Not only that, he married his own cousin. That is just gross, don’t you think? Besides he was seriously sick when he wrote his book, and we can’t believe the words of someone who gets nauseous a lot because that is an illness and so is having a brain disorder.

Now that I have thoroughly refuted Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, I will send this review to Fall Street Journal and have the Archbishop of Canterbury put in a good word for me. The editor told me that he would jump out the building if his arm were twisted to publish this insightful review, but I don’t think he has the guts.

First published in the Fall Street Journal. But don’t bother clicking on the link; they’ve all jumped out the window.

Author
Mr. Ari Siletz is an Iranian-American writer who contributes to Iranian.com and sees potential in what NIAC is doing for the evolution of U.S. Iran relations.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Ari SiletzCommentsDate
چرا مصدق آسوده نمی خوابد.
8
Aug 17, 2012
This blog makes me a plagarist
2
Aug 16, 2012
Double standards outside the boxing ring
6
Aug 12, 2012
more from Ari Siletz
 
Disenchanted

Fantasmic! :-)

by Disenchanted on

 

  "Just less than 4 billion years have passed since life began on Earth in the hope that it would quickly invent religion and say God did it."

      Enjoyed it. Brilliant!


Faramarz

A Rebuttal to the Evolutionary Theory!

by Faramarz on


Doost daaram pas hastam

Ari Jan I think you still don't fully grasp it.

by Doost daaram pas hastam on

 

If
you read Mr. Ahmari's writings that would leave no doubt that he
is anti-MKO. It is not “debatable”.
//www.rferl.org/content/moral_convolution_grips_the_organized_iranian_american_community/24298534.html
He wrote:  “Left-leaning members of the organized
Iranian-American community were right, then, to cry foul in response
to renewed congressional efforts to remove the Mujahedin-e Khalq
(MKO, or MEK), the Iranian opposition sect based in northern Iraq,
from the U.S. State Department's list of designated foreign terrorist
organizations (FTOs)." and ."
The
MKO is indeed a bizarre, Islamo-Marxist cult with a long record of
gruesome terrorist attacks against civilian targets and little
support among Iran's young democrats.”

If
that is not evidence that someone is anti-MKO then please let me know
what is. 

I
also find it strange that if a neoconservative website publishes your
article that automatically makes you a neoconservative. Does that
logic apply to proIRI websites too? In other words if they publish an
article by an NIAC member then that is proof enough that person is
pro IRI?

So
don't you think Mr. Marashi owes Mr Ahmari an apology for calling him
a supporter of MKO terrorists?  Frankly I think Mr. Ahmari could
have a libel case against Mr. Marashi if he wanted too.

 


Ari Siletz

Thank you Ddph

by Ari Siletz on

To Mr. Reza Marashi: you seem to be half right and a debatable half wrong in your "Neocon MEK terror group supporter" description of Mr Ahmari. He does contribute to the neonconservative opinion magazine The Weekly Standard edited by William Kristol , a frequent guest on FOX. However according to one of Mr. Ahmari's past writings he recognizes that the MEK is a terrorist group. It is unclear whether he actually supports the MEK despite recognizing that it is a terrorist group because he may view the MEK as a counter to IRGC--which he considers to be another terrorist group.


Doost daaram pas hastam

Is this specific enough?

by Doost daaram pas hastam on

Again Reza Marashi is NIAC's Director of Research. If this is not specific enough please list the criteria you use to define "specific". 

//twitter.com/#!/rezamarashi

 Reza Marashi Neocon  terror cult supporter reviews 's new  book for . Surprisingly, he didn't like it: 23 Jan via web

 



Ari Siletz

Thanks MM

by Ari Siletz on

I'm not sure I understand my own review. What did I say?

Ddph: An undocumented quote fragment doesn't qualify as a source. Full quote, and link please. I'm not saying I don't believe you, just that your standard of proof may be lower than what a journalist would demand  (FOX News, Kayhan, Press TV, etc. don't count as journalism).


Doost daaram pas hastam

The most recent case

by Doost daaram pas hastam on

The most recent case of NIAC official labeling a critic an MKO supporter is the attack by Mr. Parsi’s NIAC colleague and research director Reza Marashi who used Twitter to denounce Ahmari as an “MEK terror cult supporter.” The details are here: //iranian.com/main/blog/peter-kohanloo/attack-all-iranian-americans

This is very specific. And there is ample evidence that Mr Ahmari is deeply critical of MKO so the charge is entirely bogus. I am surprised you did not see this.   


MM

Ari

by MM on

Ari,

Welcome to the critics corner of the ICanDoNoWrong IC reviewers.  I have no idea what "the origin of species" is or what this Darwin guy tried to say, but your review is real damning of this whole area of science and I congratulate you wholeheartedly on your unbiased final word on the subject of whatchamacallit.

PS, how is your twin reviewer buddy; Sorkhaab Ahmaghi? BTW, I am watching your Twicker account very closely, so you better not say anything bad about me or I will register in numerous Iranian sites and cry.


Ari Siletz

Ddph

by Ari Siletz on

My silence on the recent MKO label claim comes from not knowing anything about it beyond the claims of NIAC opponents, and they aren't helpful with independent source citations. So from a journalistic point of view it's one of those neither-here-nor-there items that doesn't make the grade for publication.

In priciple though, unsubstantiated labeling is harmful to the problem solving process, and we shouldn't do it. The other side of this principle coin is that folks who publish in support of organizations they are affiliated with should identify their affiliation to the reader explicitly and therefore self-label. 


Doost daaram pas hastam

Sure

by Doost daaram pas hastam on

Ari Jan you can certainly write your own review of the book and I will certainly read it. But since you are an NIAC supporter I still am still deeply puzzled by your utter silence when it comes to their labeling their opponents MKO supporters. That is not just their supporters here on the web but actual NIAC officials who do that. Even when there is ample evidence to the contrary. And this has been a pattern. Not a one time thing. Isn't that Kayhanequ to you? Doesn't it make you leery?  


Ari Siletz

Ddph

by Ari Siletz on

 

Interestingly the Amazon reader reviews either give 5 stars to the book or 1 star, no in betweens so far! This stat is an indiactor that the book is a politcal football. I plan my own article on the book in the next few weeks and hopefully can stay more respectful of readers who just want to know what the book has to offer, where it scores and where it has shortcomings.

 


Doost daaram pas hastam

I am truly surprised

by Doost daaram pas hastam on

Very cute. And if my grandmother had wheels she would be a bicycle. All kidding aside, I am really surprised by your reaction here. We have a cogent review of a book. Unlike me you do not like it and find it too critical. But the tone of the review is not rude or Kayhanesque. I am surprised that you even mention Kayhan. As a matter of fact it is NIAC that repeatedly uses IRI methods and logic in branding their opponents MKO supporters when there is ample evidence to the contrary. They just did to the reviewer by calling him an MKO supporter. Now in all honesty which one is closer to IRI logic and methods? 


Ari Siletz

Thanks for the great quote, incognito

by Ari Siletz on

I too have learned not to argue directly with creationists. It is pointless! 


incognito

Straight from the horse's mouth

by incognito on

"I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion." Charles Robert Darwin (1809 – 1882)


Ari Siletz

reader1

by Ari Siletz on


Yes, it's a few loose-pen paragraphs for fun, written after I read this review of Trita Parsi's "A Single Roll of the Dice."

The writer, Sohrab Ahmari, indulges in Kayhan style narrative where he feels no obligation to the reader to at least split the difference between pushing his agenda and giving the reader some takeaway with substance. Please note that in my silly review above, I have included two items of real information from Darwin's biography. This is in fulfillment of a writer's ethical obligation never to take the reader's time to push his personal point without giving him/her something of certain value in return. Breach of this obligation is the equivalent of a verbal mugging. Daily, this is what Kayhan Newspaper does to its readers.

What intrigued me is that Wall Street Journal editors agreed to publish a review in this overtly Kayhanesque mugging style. The WSJ has its biases but I have rarely seen it put its reputation on the line to this extent except in  major league power play commentaries by writers with large followings whose political affiliations are nationally known (in which case the writer has put his/her reputation on the line, not WSJ). Feels like someone(s) in the big league have pulled strings or called in favors to get this review published in WSJ. I sense a worry that Parsi's viewpoint has become influential in U.S. policy and poses a serious threat to its opponents.


reader1

Good read, no sure what point you’re trying to make

by reader1 on

Are you just letting your pen loose  for a trance dravishy dance  for fun? Or perhaps you are just teasing this simple soul of a reader?