Fuller: Never Say Nevermore

Steve Fuller, persevering exponent of “affirmative action” for “intelligent design” creationism, really let loose in his anti-eulogy for the recently deceased Norman Levitt. You have to read the comments over there, though they tend to be considerably blunter than I would be comfortable making.

I did end up leaving a comment there, though. I got to thinking about other famous examples of anti-eulogy, and the first association I had was Rufus Griswold, whose published notice of Edgar Allan Poe’s death started with, “Edgar Allan Poe is dead. He died in Baltimore the day before yesterday. This announcement will startle many, but few will be grieved by it.” The analogy seemed quite apropos.

Here’s my comment from over at Fuller’s weblog:

Prof. Fuller appears to have selected for himself a role of Rufus Griswold, as Fuller has himself labored to achieve a legacy of “voluminous worthlessness” while railing at the dead.

Most of humanity labors to attain simple competence, and few can hope that they will be long remembered for their intellectual contributions. For Griswold, the reviewer appears to have had the word with staying power:

“What will be his fate? Forgotten, save only by those whom he has injured and insulted, he will sink into oblivion, without leaving a landmark to tell that he once existed; or if he is spoken of hereafter, he will be quoted as the unfaithful servant who abused his trust.”

Wesley R. Elsberry

Falconer. Interdisciplinary researcher: biology and computer science. Data scientist in real estate and econometrics. Blogger. Speaker. Photographer. Husband. Christian. Activist.

3 thoughts on “Fuller: Never Say Nevermore

  • 2009/10/31 at 9:16 pm

    I happen to be wearing my Edgar Allan Poe tee-shirt.

    Fuller is an ass. I am so glad that the Dover team chose to encourage him to talk (and talk and talk), rather than challenging him on Sokal or Post Modernism. He and Behe contributed some of the testimony seen as most damning to ID in the whole trial.

  • 2009/11/04 at 12:52 pm

    I see Fuller has restricted commenting on that entry in his blog. I suspect he was disappointed he didn’t get a chorus of assent. He’s clueless enough and so supremely confident of his own patent goodness and good sense that I’m sure that’s what he’d expected.

  • 2009/11/05 at 3:12 am

    I’m not so sure. Fuller seemed in his responses to revel in the acrimony, asserting that any criticism of his actions confirmed his stated views. Was Fuller surprised, or was he intentionally baiting those responses, as he claimed at various points? It’s likely not going to be resolved as to which applies. Closing the thread does add a point to the surprise explanation, though.

Comments are closed.