Gary Ablett Snr is a raving loony, and a plagiarist. Take a look at this bizarre rant about evolution, intelligent design, humanism, and why life doesn’t spontaneously arise in a jar of peanut butter.
First let’s deal with the plagiarism. The tenth par of the article is lifted, pretty much verbatim, from the website of Grace Haven Ministries, a US evangelical organisation.
Compare:
| Ablett: FOR example, humanism, the central philosophy of our schools and society, teaches that man is above all else, that he alone is the centre of meaning. Teaching that man has meaning totally apart from God, (humanism) leave morality, justice and behaviour to the discretion of “enlightened” man and encourages people to worship man and nature rather than God. Living without God’s divine truth causes humanity to sink lower and lower into spiritual darkness and depravity, blindly following a philosophy that intends to heighten the dignity of man, but which instead lowers him to the level of animals rather than a spiritual, emotional and moral being. Man has been classified as merely natural phenomena of time plus chances, no greater than rocks, animals or clouds. |
Grace Haven Ministries: Humanism, the central philosophy of our schools and society, teaches that man is above all else, that he alone is the center of meaning. Teaching that man has meaning totally apart from God, humanism leaves morality, justice and behavior to the discretion of “enlightened” man and encourages people to worship man and nature rather than God. Living without God’s divine truth, humanity sinks lower and lower in depravity, blindly following a philosophy that intends to heighten the dignity of man, but which instead lowers him to the level of animals. Rather than a spiritual and emotional being, man has been classified as merely a natural phenomenon of time plus chance, no greater than rocks, animals or clouds. The Apostle Paul described this foolish and demeaning perspective of man in Romans 1:20-25. |
Oh dear. Naughty Gary’s been cribbing his homework, and he’s even managed to insert a couple of typos that were not in the original text. Worse yet, the passage above is probably the most comprehensible in the whole article (that’s what twigged me to the plagiarism in the first place).
OK, so he lifted a paragraph without attribution – it’s hardly a hanging offence. Let’s take a look at the rest of the article.
Ablett doesn’t accept evolution as fact – in fact he doesn’t seem to accept that Australia was once a penal colony:
Now it is bad enough misleading us by telling us we descended from convicts but to tell us we descended from “apes” – come on!
Man might look like an ape, act like a goat, eat like a pig, think like a jackass, be as stubborn as a mule and as cunning as a fox, but a man is still a man and has been that way right down through recorded history. I openly confess to being no scientist, nor will I try to pretend to be one. However, it is not hard for the average person to understand some of the basic laws and principles within the scientific world. There is so much misinformation out there called “science”, masquerading as “truth”, and because we’ve been taught to believe these falsehoods it takes an abundance of information to get these misconceptions unseated. So please bear with me as I may need to get quite technical to get my message across.
Oh dear, Gary’s getting “technical”.
First he argues that Darwin had no “hardcore empirical date”, by which I assume he means “hard empirical data”, to support his theory. Hogwash. Gary, go read The Origin of Species, and The Voyage of the Beagle. Marvel at the data, the fanatical collection and collation of data that inspired Darwin to make the greatest scientific discovery of all time. These arguments are unfortunately stock-standard among evolution deniers, as is the “evolution is only a theory” line that Ablett parrots in the next par.
But then things get interesting. Ablett’s rebuttal of evolution via a jar of peanut butter is a classic of the genre:
Yet our entire food industry relies on the fact that the evolutionary formula doesn’t work. For example, if you take a jar of peanut butter (matter), expose it to light and heat (energy) and add time you will never get new life (biogenesis) in that jar. And are we grateful about that! Why is new life impossible in a sealed jar? Because we are missing the most important aspect: information.
The very reason food is sealed is to keep information out, it’s only if and when the seal is broken that a contamination can occur because information has got inside the jar! We need to take this fact very seriously because in the food industry this experiment is conducted over a billion times a year collectively, and has been doing so for more than a hundred years, which proves that the absence of information renders life impossible.
This begs the question that since information is not inherent within matter itself, nor can it be derived from natural law, “where did it come from?”
So, let me get this straight: the fact that new single-celled organisms don’t spontaneously arise in a warm jar of peanut butter proves … what, the existence of a supreme being? And jars are sealed to “keep information out”?
I won’t go on. The rest of the article is similarly bizarre and I recommend it.
What I don’t understand is why the God-botherers are so threatened by evolution, why they can’t revise their theology to accept it (admittedly, many have). I don’t understand why the tendency towards belief in a creator-God correlates so strongly with an inability to understand simple scientific concepts like what a theory is, and what empiricism means. Maybe it’s a genetic thing.
Gary Ablett was a great footballer, and probably has some very intelligent and valuable things to say about the sport. But he should be embarrassed by the publication of this late-night rant, which just makes him look like a moron.
I attended the Atheism Congress that Ablett refers to in his article and I have a draft blog entry about it which I’ll get up soon.
I agree with everything you said except your assertion that plagiarism is not a hanging offence.
I’ve had a couple of magazine articles I’d written show up in other places with shiny, new authors who subsequently made more money off the piece than I did. Flattering? Yes. Forgivable? Probably should be. Forgettable? No.
Hang ‘im.
Gary Ablett himself should be proof enough that ” the absence of information renders life impossible.” is complete nonsense. Bless his soul, he seems to be getting along just fine without any.
Even the peanut butter bit is unoriginal: Peanut Butter: The Atheists’ Nightmare
I’m with Jack – hang ‘im. I’ve also had my work stolen.
Great write up, and nice spotting of the plagiarism.
I don’t know why they have listed this as ‘news’ (see the url format) but placed it in the opinion section. The only reasoning I can see for this, is that news articles you cannot comment on, but if it was created as an opinion article, it would be.
Interesting no?
You can add “liar” to the list of crimes. Dawkins absolutely never has, and never will deliver a lecture titled “From goo to you through the zoo”.
I thought lies made the baby Jesus cry?
Good find on the plagiarism!
I posted a comment on the herald sun article notifying them of the plagiarism. I wonder how many others have done likewise?
I too published a comment about the plagarism, and the incorrect title of Dawkins’ talk. They seem to only be letting the more approving comments through this afternoon.
And the website plagiarised from The Search for Significance
Text seems to evolved a little though :p
http://www.archive.org/…/searchforsignifi00mcge_djvu.txt
humanism, the central phi-
losophy of our schools and society, teaches that
man is above all else, that he alone is the center
of meaning. Teaching that man has meaning to-
tally apart from God, humanism leaves morality,
justice, and behavior to the discretion of
“enlightened” man and encourages people to wor-
ship man and nature rather than God. Living
without God’s divine truth, humanity sinks lower
and lower in depravity, blindly following a phi-
losophy that intends to heighten the dignity of
man, but instead lowers us to the level of animals.
Rather than spiritual and emotional people, we
have been classified as merely natural phenomena
of time plus chance, no different than rocks, ani-
mals, or clouds. The apostle Paul described this
foolish and demeaning perspective of man in
Romans 1:20-25:
I read this article while having a latte, could not agree with Gary more.
Gary has experienced many highs and lows and I believe this is the getting of wisdom.
Gary may not have all the answers, but at least he is prepared to put his reputation on the the to open up the discussion.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see how our society is spiraling downward.
I note in the herald Sun an article about a new extremely violent video game that has come on the market and the justification is that it allows people to vent in a virtual way. I say that is the biggest load of B.S.
The young adults of today seem to be displaying violence like we haven’t seen in our streets before. These are the kids who I believe have been desensitized to violence with all the violence in film and video games they have been exposed to.
If that’s what you are feeding in, that’s whats going to come out.
There are so many other factors in the mix though. This is probably the first young adult group who have been put in creches from an early age. This is not a criticism of the mums and dads. I think we have all bought the lie that materialism is best.
I Certainly don’t have the answers to what is happening in our wonderful Town and Country, but thank you Gary for starting the conversation.
He also opens with a quote from social evolutionist Herbert Spencer, which is odd to say the least. And it is a quote about epistemology and methodology, arguing against biases arising from traditional authority (religious thought) and for scientific inquiry. I’m not sure why he would use it, but he clearly doesn’t understand it.
But in any case, there is no way on earth that he is familiar with Spencer’s work. If he were, he surely would not be using it to bolster his case. It would be interesting to know where he plagiarized that bit from.
Hopefully someone will submit this to MediaWatch who at least should make some comment on the plagiarism, if not the general inanity of the piece.
Mate, it’s classic creationism – in a two page spread in a major daily in Melbourne! Shicked I tells ya! Shocked! And great work on determining Ablett copied most of his stuff. Now, what does the bible say about bearing false witness?
Along side Andrew Bolt, the HUN is waging a full on war on science.
Re: media watch – I’ve just sent them the following email: (hyperlinks not inc)
Hi guys,
I’m hoping you’ve already been tipped off but if not…
In the wake of the Global Atheist Convention, we’ve seen quite a few articles published by the reactionary right. The Herald Sun, of course, has not failed to deliver – they have published an article authored by Gary Ablett Sr., entitled ‘What kind of world do we live in?’ The “comments” (it’s not listed under the OP section of the website) centre around his (lack of) expertise in the area of evolutionary biology.
That these “comments” contradict known facts is hardly news. Neither is a sportsman pontificating on a subject he knows nothing about. Rather, the interesting thing is that buggery.org is suggesting that a good proportion of the article has been plagiarised from another site.
The author of the post at buggery.org thought that the lifted section was phrased differently to the remainder of the article and plugged some words into google. Did the newspaper editor neglect to do the same? Or has the editor excused Ablett from conforming to the journalist standards that (we hope) other writers are required to adhere to?
Amusingly, wikipedia’s entry on Ablett already has been updated to include the allegations of plagiarism.
In the comments from buggery.org, some posters are concerned that the Herald Sun is disproportionately posting comments that agree with Ablett, ignoring references to plagiarism. The Herald Sun asks “What do you think of Gary Ablett Sr’s comments” – it appears “they are plagiarised” is not a valid response!
Does he have any idea what a boneheaded statement that is? Evolution never happened because humans have been human at least since the invention of writing?
I thought Gary’s piece was nothing short of brilliant! The Monty Python boys would be proud.
I have already framed the spread and will be looking to have it signed by the monkey-man himself.
Wait… you’re saying it wasn’t a joke? Oh dear.
Peta Cage, your assertion that “….young adults of today seem to be displaying violence like we haven’t seen in our streets before…” is unsupported by the data, or at least as far as I know. If you have any that supports your assertion, please let us know.
Also, you didn’t attend to anything that Paul said about Gary Ablett’s article. Are you in the habit of ignoring things that disconfirm your world view?
Peta Cage @15:52
Society spiralling downward? I would have thought that 2000-odd years of Christianity would have worked by now. Obviously it is an erroneous way of life, and should be abandoned.
I admit to being slightly out of touch with Australian politics and culture – but is this Gary Ablett the footballer? Seriously? Is this some kind of joke?
What scares me more is that he is actually being taken seriously – it’s always a mistake when sportspeople (former or current) start pontificating about things they have no idea about. Usually politics, economics or science. You know, the things that require slightly more than the ability to grunt, run and carry or kick a ball. It’s usually painful to read or watch but the “general public” still have so much affection for them it gives them credibility they simply don’t deserve.
Frightening.
@MJ and others who asked about Media Watch: I sent this info to MW yesterday when the plagiarism became obvious, so hopefully they’ll cover it.
@ Brent. Yes, Gary Ablett the footballer.
I think the editors of the HUN are quite possibly reconsidering the wisdom of running with the article…
Peta,
Why>? Even if you agree with his intent, why would that make it OK to tell lies? It’s not many steps from it being OK to tell deliberate lies for your religion to tying bombs to yourself, or flying planes into buildings.
Is it OK because the bible doesn’t tell you not to tell lies?
<comment edited>
Even though the HUN is a tasteless trash newspaper, I still find it extremely bizarre that they would publish that gibberish. This is all pure speculation, but perhaps the scenario is like this; Ablett Jnr is using the leverage provided by the potential Gold Coast contract to force Geelong into back room deals to help Ablett Snr propagandize his insanity? Watch for special Geelong/HUN arrangements in the future in Ablett Jnr sticks around.
Although Ablett isn’t by any means a scholar of philosophy, science, and theology, I think he’s closer to the truth than most people in this forum.
In classical logic ad hominems and strawman arguments disqualify one from the debate, in which case most people in this forum have been disqualified. Rather than focusing on the ‘points’ Ablett raised, you’re much more concerned with his ‘method’, and by discrediting his method you assure yourself you can write off his points, but are only deceiving yourself into a false sense of comfort.
I wonder how Alicia Horan’s family fell about this “article”
I must say I do find it touching to be reading a lecture on moral turpitude from a man whose “faults” have included feeding a teenaged girl heroin in a hotel room and lying about it afterwards.
But perhaps a quote from Herbert Spencer is apposite after all: “The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools”.
‘truth’ … what a load of poppycock.
The ‘points’ Ablett raises are standard canards that have a billion zillion articles and scientific responses any simple search on the net will find, or check out a grade school text-book on biology. Thousands upon thousands of reasoned, logical and evidential responses to the point that the repetitive diatribes of ill educated zealots like Ablett are very much laughable, hence the response.
If you don’t want people to laugh at your beliefs, don’t have such stupid beliefs.
Yet again people have to respond in depth to ignorance from those that just want to repeat their ignorance over and over in the hope that ‘mud will stick’.
Well, most of us are sick to death of repeating basic information to those that do not care about reality as they have ‘faith’, he can’t even approach grade school stuff and it is a travesty. He then turns around using his faith as a basis to dictate to others his righteousness. Well sorry, I laugh at him
How embarrassing really, then along come people such as yourself that try and cover up the stupidity, they don’t call them apologetics for nothing.
OK ‘truth’ you want a point?
Let’s start with a quote from Ablett:
“Now it is bad enough misleading us by telling us we descended from convicts but to tell us we descended from “apes” – come on!”
Ablett suggests that being descended from apes is somehow worse than being descended from convicts? He provides no logical position for this assertation.
I for one would much rather be associated with my cousins and ancestors that are apes than my cousins and ancestors that are (?) convicts. I have a greater affinity for the former group.
It does not surprise me to hear that other peoples’ comments disputing the article were not published. I posted quite a detailed reply to the original article and the Herald Sun conveniently (for them) did not post it. Why would they, when the comments are such that their credibility is lowered? It is a pity that the media are able to grossly manipulate stories so that only the feedback supporting them is published.
Reminds me of a certain German political party in Europe in the 30s and 40s which caused a bit of a stir…
I resent Gary “I’m implicated in the death of a 19 year old woman” Ablett telling me that I’ve lost my moral compass.
The humanist in me is going to throw scalding hot coffee into the face of the next person from Geelong I meet.