How not to blog anonymously: Robert Marks

There was some talk on anonymous blogging on SciBlogs a while back. I wasnt here at the time, so Im going to pipe up now.

I dont blog anon or with a pseudonym. Im Abbie Smith. I chose not to blog anon because if someone REALLY wanted to out me, it wouldnt be that hard, and 'Abbie Smith' is common enough it provides a slight buffer against stalkers. Some people have expressed concerns-- "Arent I worried someone will read my blog, not like me, and not hire me??" "What does your school think?" "What does your boss think??"

If you are saying controversial things under a pseudonym, those are really scary questions-- What are the answers going to be if youre outed? But me? Meh. Bossman doesnt particularly give a crap (rule is basically "Dont go psycho and embarrass yourself."). Big Bossman and other higher-ups at my uni think its pretty cool (but have also given me the 'no psycho' rule, plus a 'dont make the school look psycho' rule).

And quite the opposite of future employers being put off by ERV, Ive actually been contacted by HUGE names in the viral evolution world, who have all been extraordinarily encouraging. At least in the field of science, people you want to hire you arent going to be put off if Im 'too mean' to Creationists and Deniers.

But I completely understand that there are good reasons to be anon. If Bossman was a sexist pig and I was writing about how to live through grad school under those circumstances. If I was a doctor and didnt want to isolate my Christian patients with my usual Pro-Atheism posts. If I had young ones and didnt want them to be harassed by my internet stalkers at school.

There are also very, very bad reasons for going anon-- You want to act despicably, but you dont want people to know its *you* being an asshole. Such is the case with a poster on Uncommon Descent, pseudonymed 'Galapagos Finch'. If youve clicked on UD now and then, you are familiar with the character sheet: WAD is the whiny baby. SAL just sits around, eating cottage cheese and saying OINK. Denyse is the little writer that couldnt. Dave is the captain of dah ship.

But Galapagos is the only UD contributor I found truly disturbing. Like, 'dont want to meet in a dark alley' disturbing. Like, 'Im gonna be nice to this kid, so when he goes over the edge, he might not kill me', disturbing. To be perfectly honest, I thought the only one of the UD crew that was psychologically deformed enough to make Galapagoss posts (and think they were funny and/or appropriate), was Dembski.

I was wrong.

Galapagos Finch is Robert Marks.
Go read the details there and at AtBC, then come back :)

Robert Marks, the one IDer I still had a touch of sympathy for.

Robert Marks, professor, professional, father, spends his spare time making grotesque photoshops of science advocates and, evidently, composing gigantic fake 'letters' which slander everyone from Wiki to the National Academy to Average Joe and Jane teachers and students. This is a huge letter, and must have taken forever to write, so please, READ EVERY WORD OF THIS. This is from the most respectable advocate ID Creationism has, but it was taken down (and the entire 'THE BRITES' website) after Marks was outed. READ THIS.

Iowa State University
Department of Pugilistic Ideology

From: Dr. Ivan A. Conway Moore,
Thomas Huxley Professor of Pugilistic Ideology
Head, Department of Pugilistic Ideology

To: Faculty & Staff
Subject: Dealing with "intelligent design"
The troublesome issue of intelligent design (known simply as ID) is one that every science educator needs to be prepared to deal with. The issue threatens our society on several levels. For example, how can our nation hope to compete in an increasingly technological world unless our budding new scientists believe life is a purposeless cosmic accident? The very integrity of science is in danger. In fact, the continued existence of civilization might be at stake. True science must always provide purely naturalistic answers, not simply follow the evidence where it leads. Unless we restrain the range of acceptable answers to scientific problems, we cannot guarantee appropriate, scientific conclusions. Such is our duty as educators. The following suggestions should make your job of shaping young minds somewhat easier.

1. Be vague about what exactly is meant by the word "evolution". Use the term in the most expansive way when referring to support for or the importance of the theory ("evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence" or "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"). You can imply that any kind of evolution (cosmological, chemical, biological) is strongly supported by the evidence, but when pressed to defend this, drop back to the less significant but well-proven examples like antibiotic resistance. Under no circumstances should you allow any distinction between what your opponents will call microevolution (small, observable changes like antibiotic resistance) and macroevolution (major changes whose causes and even existence can only be inferred); that way you can imply that the strong support for the former is really support for the latter as well. You should implicitly assume (as you were taught) that many small changes can (and did) lead to new highly complex systems, and allow no questioning of this assertion.

2. Be prepared to reframe the argument. If you should encounter any doubt or criticism of "evolution", immediately reframe the criticism as being a promotion of intelligent design. Then stress that "intelligent design is not science", which was, of course, scientifically proven by Judge Jones in the Dover case. This has the convenient rhetorical effect of rendering as non-science all possible criticism of our side! Logically, it works like this:
Any criticism of "evolution" = promotion of ID
But ID = religion
Therefore any criticism = religion!
Try to find occasions to repeat "ID is not science" in class as often as possible; if necessary, practice this several times each day in front of a mirror until you can say it convincingly. Because science has come to mean absolute truth, everything else is at best mere opinion, so it is critical that you keep ID out of the science category. But when establishing that ID is not science, try not to use actual science to make your point. The more that facts are discussed, the more obvious it will become that both sides use the same facts, and that the different viewpoints result from philosophical biases rather than good or bad science. If your students at any point realize that ID is based on science as much as "evolution" is, you may have made converts of the most dedicated kind for the other side. The best approach is to immediately relegate ID to the category of religion or philosophy, and never let the issues be discussed.

3. Avoid the tough issues. If despite your best efforts the issues begin to be discussed, do your best to keep the conversation away from dangerous topics like "how did life get started?" and "how did complex features like cellular machinery come about?". Again, it helps to be rather vague about what you mean by "evolution"; when you point out that evolution is well-supported by the evidence, use examples of minor observable changes (bird beaks, etc.) while implying that the major, unobserved changes are also well-supported. In general, try to subtly downplay the complexity of living things. For example, you can imply that the abundance of life on Earth means that the complexity must not be such a big deal. The popular notion that there has to be life on other planets will work in your favor, as will the abundant science fiction your students are no doubt familiar with. For example, the recent discussions of the possibility of life on Mars can easily be presented as the likelihood of life there, especially if you stick to the headlines rather than the articles themselves. Your student's inexperience with the facts will help. If by chance there should be a more knowledgeable student in your class with the nerve to speak up, imply somehow that the student is either ignorant or superstitious. For example, you might say something like "religious fundamentalism has a place, but not in science class."

4. Be prepared to misdirect the conversation. If things get bad and your class begins to question how random events could ever result in really complicated living things, there are at least a couple of effective strategies. One is to mention how all scientists accept evolution. If one of your students should happen to know that 700+ PhD scientists have signed a "dissent from Darwinism" statement, respond that these are only a tiny minority and imply that they are probably religiously motivated. (As an aside, our universities simply must begin doing a better job of screening these people out, and look into revoking the degrees of trouble-makers.) Another effective ploy if ID begins to be discussed is to divert the conversation with the trustworthy "Who designed the designer?". You can easily use up half a class period that way, and be prepared next class to direct the conversation more appropriately.

5. Do not hesitate to mischaracterize ID's motives. Although ID proponents, unlike creationists, are really quite good about sticking to scientific arguments, it is to your advantage to not distinguish between the two. In fact, we recommend that you always append the term "creationism" to ID so that it reads intelligent design creationism. Since we have succeeded in getting the courts to discredit creationism (thank you, ACLU!), this has the effect of (a) immediately attributing religious motives to ID, (b) implying that that ID has no more scientific basis than creationism, and (c) immediately diverting the discussion away from scientific evidence to fears of Taliban-like imposition of religious dogma. Because scientists are objective and open-minded, dogma should be ours to impose and hopefully that will increasingly be
the case.

6. Remember who is on your side; rely on your allies. You have many resources at your disposal - use them! The National Center for Science Education has the primary goal of making your students believe properly, and they have much that will help you accomplish this. Your state education agency is most likely an ally, unless you are unlucky enough to be in the Bible belt, but we are working hard to bring those agencies into line too. Be aware that Wikipedia has been very friendly to our cause, so encourage your students to go there for perspective. You should also tell them to watch public television: PBS has been extremely effective in broadcasting various anti-ID documentaries. You can also turn to the NationalAcademy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Association of Biology Teachers, all leading authorities that have officially spoken on behalf of all scientists and educators by declaring intelligent design to be wrong. Finally, if necessary, you can contact the ACLU; they have been very helpful on a wide range of issues. But always remember - your students don't know the science as well as you do, so despite right-wing interpretations of the U.S. constitution, parental objections, etc., to the contrary, your students ultimately have no right to believe differently than we scientists do. You didn't become an educator so your students could have their own opinions, so don't let them!

The best Creationists have to offer.

Categories

More like this

I just looked at Robert Marks' information at Baylor and I noticed that he offers research opportunities in Evolutionary Computing. This is rather funny because Evolutionary Computing is a method of writing software that uses evolution in order to determine perfectly adapted algorithms for solving a problem. This is done by teaching the computer mutation, sexual reproduction, etc etc.

So on the one had the dude is a creationist, yet on the other he's doing research in applying evolution towards developing advanced, complex, and really cool software algorithms. *boggles*

The irony is killing. Does he even realize that he just spilled open the whole playbook for everyone to see? Of course you'd have to replace "PBS" with "CNN and Fox and... oh wait, all the rest of the channels too"...

By ssjessiechan (not verified) on 11 May 2008 #permalink

Okay, so how did they get the PT-mafia talking points on how to deal with Intelligent Design?

I cannot believe that you published this, won't you get into trouble for spilling the beans?

WW you never fail to bring the dumb.

And all this time we thought GF was Dembski. While that would have been good enough on it's own, this revelation is 1000 times better.

Abbie, are you saying this clown wrote a forged document claiming it to be from an ISU professor, trying to give marching orders on how to discredit ID and implying that the scientists didn't have any really good evidence to go on?

I live in Ames, IA. ISU got rid of Guillermo Gonzalez for his incompetence, contrary to what Expelled would have you believe.

I'm speechless. This is just beyond chutzpa. What a pile of vermin.

Paul (#5,) I don't think that anybody would think that this was "Forged" but a poor attempt at satire. He is playing on the "Evil Atheist Conspiracy" joke that hit the internets several years ago.

It isn't funny, but it is indicative of the type of thinking that the cdesign proponentsists rely on to make their case of being persecuted. Especially ironic is this passage:

Do not hesitate to mischaracterize ID's motives. Although ID proponents, unlike creationists, are really quite good about sticking to scientific arguments, it is to your advantage to not distinguish between the two.

Emphasis mine.

Do I even need to comment? The parody writes itself at times.

Paul-- UD has a history of posting fake letters, so I dont think anyone thinks its real, but still...

Blake--
**looks left**

**looks right**

WIKIWIKIWIKIWIKIWIKI! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

:P Sorry, youve corrected me on that before, and I had been remembering to do it right!

ERV, thanks for the link! And for posting the fake memo; I didn't see it before the purge. But I must take issue with this:

Robert Marks . . . spends his spare time making grotesque photoshops of science advocates and, evidently, composing gigantic fake 'letters' . . .

That should really be "spent," not "spends."

He's spent the last couple of days trying to erase all evidence that Galapagos Finch existed.

Thanks for the clarifications, gang. I'll steal a bottle of booze from Gonzalez's going away party and pass it around at the ERV convention whenever Abbie gets around to organizing it.

It really does seem that the primary ohline writing skill of most IDers is redaction of their own web sites.

Hmmmmm....

1. Be vague about theory...
2. Constantly re-frame argument...
3. Avoid difficult issues...
4. Misdirect dialog...
5. Mischaracterize your opponents' motives...
6. Put political pressure on opponents...

Uh, yeah. That's the creationist game plan from start to finish. Much of this can be seen in the Wedge Document (in which science-y things like data-gathering and experiment are only an afterthought). I guess projecting one's own faults onto others is a key ingredient of hypocrisy.

Abbie, is this fair? Galapagos Finch was painfully unfunny but I don't recall anything that GF ever said that seemed to merit the description of "truly disturbing." Do you have specific examples of posts which lead to this impression?

On a related notes, GF/Robert Marks website has not only been taken down but the replacement note is strange:

"Subject to Order D08-3423 from The Honorable Utphray Opsla, from the the 9th Federal Court, San Fransisco, in the matter of Ono Inc. vs The BRITES LTD, this web site is disabled until further notice through decision of summary judgement"

I assume that this is another attempt by Marks to be you know, funny. Hence referencing the Yoko Ono suit. I assume that by "9th Federal Court" he means the Ninth Circuit since there is no such thing as the "9th Federal Court" and the Ninth Circuit is a favorite bogeyman of certain aspects of the right-wing (I'd be inclined to argue with that they have some good reason in that the 9th Circuit does have some genuinely off-the-wall decisions and others that reflect judicial activism (assuming some reasonable definition of judicial activism it in play here and not just the standard meaning of "decisions I don't like")). He seems to also be confusing "summary judgement" with a preliminary injunction or something like that. Someone should save the page and save all the old The Brites pages that are still in the google cache. I suspect that even this unfunny notice will soon be down.

For me, the funnies part of that letter is how it is so like the way creationists actually try and debate.

"Be vague about what exactly is meant"
-Getting a creationist to define what a "kind" is or what this barrier that prevents "macro--"evolution is is like pulling teeth
"Be prepared to reframe the argument."
-Goal-post shifting.
"Avoid the tough issues."
-Never actually give an alternative for why the fossils from Hyracotherium through Equus are in such an order as to imply evoluton and transition even after claiming thee series doesn't show evolution.
"Be prepared to misdirect the conversation."
-Ever notice how often when you ask a creationist a questio, their answer goes off on a tangent that never answers your question?
"Do not hesitate to mischaracterize"
-Throw in a few ad hominems for good measure to try and distract from no factual support for their claims
" Remember who is on your side; rely on your allies."
-How freaking many times do they have to repost that same link from AiG that has already been debunked a zillion times?

I also found the BRITES site quite disturbing. Not so much funny as vicious and revengeful. I only went there twice (and never inhaled) and I also skipped GF's postings on UD for the same reason.

It's a sad state of affairs, very, very sad, that this childish nonsense was produced by a professor of engineering, if that is the case. It doesn't say much for his judgement.

It seems the creotards are making like Richard Nixon and disposing of the evidence - nothing but 404s.
Thanks for posting this letter though, this guy seriously seems unhinged.

I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that Baylor University is NOT the same as Baylor College of Medicine (BCM). I really hate it when the wackos from Waco give us a bad name.

Can you tell me which parts of the memo evolanders do not do?

Thanks.

Quote wikipedia? Check.
Classify dissent as creationism? Check.
Muddy the waters on macro v. micro? Check.

Anything at all that evoladners don't do?

Thanks in advance.

Lledowyn @ 1 -
So on the one had the dude is a creationist, yet on the other he's doing research in applying evolution towards developing advanced, complex, and really cool software algorithms.

It does makes sense. Their claim is that evolution by natural selection won't work in the real world because information needs to come from somewhere, to make a search more efficient than blind chance. We can do that in the computer, because we're intelligent, but the natural world would need an intelligence to do the same thing?

Makes sense? No? Good.

Paul @ 10 -

I'll steal a bottle of booze from Gonzalez's going away party and pass it around at the ERV convention whenever Abbie gets around to organizing it.

If you can make that a bottle of scotch, you'll make some Church Burnin' Ebola Boys very happy. If' it's 10 year old, we'll be ecstatic.

Josh Zelinsky:

Abbie, is this fair? Galapagos Finch was painfully unfunny but I don't recall anything that GF ever said that seemed to merit the description of "truly disturbing." Do you have specific examples of posts which lead to this impression?

Well, apart from the total subjectivity of 'disturbing', yes, the fucker was disturbing. Nazis all over the place, especially the 'Darwin Youth' crap, bizarre "self"-portraits of "Finch", and just plain painfully unfunny screeds that were supposed to be hilarious. The fact that a bunch of people on UD absolutely loved this shit is disturbing in and of itself, especially how juvenile (like 12-year old boy juvenile) a lot of it was.

IOW, give it a rest. If Abbie felt it was truly disturbing, well, she oughta know: it was her reaction. Plus, it's true.

By Thomas S. Howard (not verified) on 11 May 2008 #permalink

Galapagos Finch is Robert Marks.

ROFLMAO. I would honestly never have guessed.

Still, I'm having another one of my schadenfreude orgasms.

Bob @20
Man, I think my brain hurts from that kind of mental gymnastics that Marks must go through. Especially given how one of the aspects of evolutionary computing is the mimicking of natural selection in order to find that optimal software algorithm. Given that we're applying those principles, I still don't see how he can reconcile himself being a creationist, and also studying evolutionary computing. If anything, I guess he's good at compartmentalizing because if anything, evolutionary computing shows how natural selection works rather well in finding an adaptable solution based upon the conditions that are given to it.

"The post about the closure of THE BRITES has been removed from UD.
The only missing links are apparently the ones on Uncommonly Dense. Go figure."

Don't say "missing links". Say "transitional fossils".

By Christophe Thill (not verified) on 11 May 2008 #permalink

If you can make that a bottle of scotch, you'll make some Church Burnin' Ebola Boys very happy. If' it's 10 year old, we'll be ecstatic.

When ERV throws a convention (Abbie, note that there is no "if" in that statement), I'm sure we can bring some proper whisky. Alternatively, people could just drop by my place (Copenhagen, Denmark) - I got a nice selection of Scotch Single Malts (12-14 bottles I think).

"I guess he's good at compartmentalizing because if anything, evolutionary computing shows how natural selection works rather well in finding an adaptable solution based upon the conditions that are given to it."

Or he's stupid enough to think, "I've never seen a computer program turn into a cat before, Macro Evolution must be wrong."

By BlackBart (not verified) on 11 May 2008 #permalink

Does every single cdesign proponentsist receive a complementary +10 wand of failing from disco 'tute? Sure seems like that from where I'm looking.

I was doing a bit of searching and found this: http://science-live.blogspot.com/ .

I tried to report it, but it turns out I need a blogger account + blog to do so :/. Isn't it violating the TOS/somewhat illegal to be be doing what they're doing, besides being a pretty asshole thing to begin with?

Back on topic, though, this is interesting... and pitiful. I hadn't been around for one of the IDers cowardly attempts to hide their statements/affiliations before. It's not quite as funny as I thought it'd be... just sad.

By Shirakawasuna (not verified) on 11 May 2008 #permalink

Before this Galapagos asshat showed up, I used to post as 'darwinfinch' so I have a particular grudge in this case, having occasionally caught flak aimed at this disgusting human specimen. Typical creationist, in other words.

By tiredofthesos (not verified) on 11 May 2008 #permalink

But ... but ... I don't understand.

Apart from the unfunny attempt at humour, and the play-by-play projection, he keeps going on about belief.

This ... this ... is supposed to be about science, isn't it?!?!?!

"5. Do not hesitate to mischaracterize ID's motives."

...says the engineering professor posting poorly written mischarecterisations. He lies about reality and projects his motives onto others. There are just so many layers of deep, rich, delicious contradiction. Thanks ERV, you've served up a black forest gateau of irony.

Speculation on motives for covering his tracks? I'm voting for:

Doesn't want his peers finding out how much time he wastes acting like an idiot. They might ask why he wasn't available for that collaboration but had enough time to pretend to compare acorns and people.

By Shirakawasuna (not verified) on 11 May 2008 #permalink

Also, if others haven't noticed, the Wayback Machine has 'thebrites.org' junk which has been taken down on the actual site...

By Shirakawasuna (not verified) on 11 May 2008 #permalink

Joshua Z,

Abbie, is this fair? Galapagos Finch was painfully unfunny but I don't recall anything that GF ever said that seemed to merit the description of "truly disturbing."

I have to agree with Abbie. I always found GF and The Brites to be truly disturbing.

Funny is good. Funny and disturbing is "edgy," a la, at times, The Onion. But unfunny and disturbing--well that's just "truly disturbing."

We have a thread for Willy Wally to talk science at AtBC, where he doesn't.

Shirakawasuna (#30):

I was doing a bit of searching and found this: http://science-live.blogspot.com/ .

I tried to report it, but it turns out I need a blogger account + blog to do so :/. Isn't it violating the TOS/somewhat illegal to be be doing what they're doing, besides being a pretty asshole thing to begin with?

I've reported it.

And as another sign of the End-Of-Times,where End-Of-Times = End Of ID, DaveScot just banned noted Creo-Jonathon Sarfati from UD!! :)

Nice to see Davey putting down the ID Kool-Aid and coming back to reality. Before he comes all the way back though, I think he still needs to issue an apology to Abbie, for his past behavior.

Re: Comment # 37 by Rich re: Billy Wallace: 10 pages and WW still hasn't commented about the "Science of ID".

Be vague about what exactly is meant by the word "evolution". Use the term in the most expansive way when referring to support for or the importance of the theory ("evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence" or "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"). You can imply that any kind of evolution (cosmological, chemical, biological) is strongly supported by the evidence, but when pressed to defend this, drop back to the less significant but well-proven examples like antibiotic resistance.

Whatever his identity, he is correct in writing this.

By Robert O'Brien (not verified) on 12 May 2008 #permalink

I live in Ames, IA. ISU got rid of Guillermo Gonzalez for his incompetence, contrary to what Expelled would have you believe.

That accounts for your backwater perspective.

Oh wow, William Wallace's thread is epic.

also:

Although ID proponents, unlike creationists, are really quite good about sticking to scientific arguments

On which planet?

I now believe that this is not satire, but is, in fact, a transmission which has tunneled through from the bizzaro/mirror universe (where Spock has a goatee, and PZ is clean-shaven) into our world. This provides the best evidence for the existence of a multiverse yet. More research is clearly warranted.

By Bouncing Bosons (not verified) on 12 May 2008 #permalink
I live in Ames, IA. ISU got rid of Guillermo Gonzalez for his incompetence, contrary to what Expelled would have you believe.

That accounts for your backwater perspective.

What, being correct?

By Thomas S. Howard (not verified) on 12 May 2008 #permalink

ROFLMAO. I would honestly never have guessed.

Still, I'm having another one of my schadenfreude orgasms.

Dustin, me too. In fact, we could be at the same groupschadenfreude party. Was it good for you too?

And as for the rest, the brites web was disturbing (didn't read galapagos finch after the first comment, it wasn't funny), so my previous slight sympathy for Marks *POOF*ed.

Man, I think my brain hurts from that kind of mental gymnastics that Marks must go through.

Well, yes. First he has to purposefully distinguish what happens under experimental conditions from what happens in nature, kind of like the "soul" guys have to impose an unnatural duality. A trivial "mistake" you don't expect from a scientist, but just another day in the murky world of creationists.

Then he goes the "frontloading" route, if his pdf "in review" papers with Dembski are any indication. He somehow imagines that setting up an algorithm that solves a problem brings in the solution with it. I guess a general algorithm like simulated annealing combined with the problem parameters must contain the solutions to a potentially infinite number of problems before actually working the algorithm, according to Marks. Sort of an unvalidated meta-problem that he doesn't care to find out about.

As an example how they reason, the ev perceptron models an earlier evolved gene code. MAD (Marks And Dembski) take all the information this brings, disregard the information that the ev actually learns from its "environment" when it simulates selection, and whines that the earlier evolved gene model is 'designed in'.

As the first paper in the series is supposed to have the original work, but instead still contains the errors that Wesley Elsberry and secondclass has found (see Elsberry's blog), it looks like MAD tries a bait-and-switch peer review publication attempt. We'll see.

By Torbj�rn Lar… (not verified) on 12 May 2008 #permalink

"And as another sign of the End-Of-Times,where End-Of-Times = End Of ID, DaveScot just banned noted Creo-Jonathon Sarfati from UD!! :) "

Sarfati makes Davetard look like fasionable country gentleman with an Ivy League diploma. His 'God can do whatever God wants and it is never wrong' attitude is frightening.

#13 Joshua Zelinsky,

"The Honorable Utphray Opsla"? Is it my Igpay Atinlay that suck or his? The only thing I can make it out to be is "Fruit Loops" ...

Pig Latin. How 5th grade!

I wonder when Baylor will realize they've got their very own Behe.

I'd say disclaimer on the engineering department website within a year.

@WW, #53: Please distinguish the norm from the aberations. Not all men are created exactly equal, since most human traits appear to be distributed according to a Gaussian curve, more or less.

I confess I had not heard of this Baylor place until recently, but now it does seem a little bit suspect in my eyes.

Remember, there is probably at least one krazy kook or "slow one" in every village, and everybody knows who it is. Who is this in your surroundings, do you reckon, WW? I mean, since you are suddenly so keen on generalizations...

Paul Lundgren (#5): "Abbie, are you saying this clown wrote a forged document claiming it to be from an ISU professor, trying to give marching orders on how to discredit ID and implying that the scientists didn't have any really good evidence to go on?"

Poe's Law strikes again, Paul.