I'm a graduate student studying the molecular and biochemical evolution of HIV within patients and within populations. I also study epigenetic control of ERVs.
Does anyone watch TV anymore?
Anyone?
I mean, seriously, its like every other day Creationists are doing something infinitely more hysterical than anything Hollywood can think up.
Todays side-splitting sitcom is brought to you by William Dembski and a new character*-- a buxom young brunette named Sean McDowell. They wrote a new hip (some would say, 'groovy'... perhaps even 'ZANY!') book on ID Creationism for teenagers, 'Understanding Intelligent Design'.
I think Creationists are going for 'The Odd Couple' spin with this mismatched duo! Check this out!
Dembski: theotard with no scientific trainingMcDowell: theotard with no scientific training
WHOA! You just KNOW their bizarrely erotic book on Creationism for kids is gonna be something new and awesome!
PARADIGM SHIFTING!
Check out the first chapter, available for download for free online! It alone contains mind-blowing, REVOLUTIONARY ideas like:
- Degrees in 'Bible' make you competent to discuss biology, physics, and biochemisty
- Science makes atheists
- Reading the Bible makes atheists
- There is no difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism
- Public schools indoctrinate children with atheism
- Darwin = Propaganda
- All scientists are atheists
- Science and Christianity are at war
- Only Christians have A Purpose(TM)
- Evil is the result of The Fall
- "Redemption is found in Jesus Christ"
- Stupid Evilutionists believe we can solve our own problems (I shit you not, page 19/20)
- Stupid Evilutionists believe one day the Sun will burn up the Earth
- Buddhist believe something else, and we dont care
- Darwinism is a religion
- Darwin is in 'Lilo & Stitch'
- Darwinism is false AND an ideology
- Gratuitous reference to Marx
- ANTHONY FLEW CONVERTED!!!!!
- The world looks designed
- Darwinism cant explain INSECTS + BIRDS
- Bacterial flagellum
- 'Just so story"
- Judge Jones is a poopy head
WOW! I mean WOW! I havent seen any of those arguments before! Man, Dembski and McDowell TOTALLY blind sided us with this hammer!
ROFL!!!!
* Michael Behe appears to have been written out of this seasons script. He was last seen giving Creationists $6.99 blowjobs in the Amazon.com bargain bin.
Comments
"The Edge of Evolution" is still waaaay overpriced at $6.99.
Posted by: Olorin | July 1, 2008 8:32 PM
Poor Mike, he seems to have been blindsided by arguments that only bolster what he already believed, and he seems to have been turned away from realizing that reality is what it is, not what he wants.
And I wish I had the power of the "Darwinist conspiracy" to at least suppress all the evidence for intelligent design, even if they can't suppress the voluminous output from intelligent design proponents. The conspiracy is so effective that I have yet to hear any scientific details of what the theory of intelligent design actually is, much less any scientific evidence for it.
Posted by: Yoo | July 1, 2008 8:32 PM
I thing the premises are missing in your syllogism. Here, let me me fix that for you:
Major premise: "Science makes atheists."
Minor premise: "[Degrees in] Reading the 'Bible' make you [competent to discuss biology, physics, and biochemisty] a scientist."
&rArr Conclusion: "Reading the Bible makes atheists."
Now, wasn't that better?
Posted by: Torbj�rn Larsson, OM | July 1, 2008 8:37 PM
Omnious Appendix D title: "Dealing with Critics of Intelligent Design"
Posted by: rpenner | July 1, 2008 8:50 PM
$6.99?! Usually you have to pay twice that much! Time for a road trip to the LEHIGH valley.
Is it bad that I have the Lehigh disclaimer bookmarked so I can go laugh at the guy every once in a while?
Posted by: BMatthews | July 1, 2008 8:58 PM
Nope - at least I hope not, otherwise I am equally evil...
Posted by: Lee Harrison | July 1, 2008 9:53 PM
But ...but... but ...Intelligent Design doesn't have anything to do with religion, does it?
This is a joke, right? ;-)
Posted by: Stacy S. | July 1, 2008 10:51 PM
In my experience, science (more precisely critical thinking upon empirical evidence as opposed to blind faith in revealed dogma) makes many people into atheists. Granted, other fields also encourage critical thinking, but with the exception of law you aren't usually expected to use reason and evidence to ward off the criticism of one's peers.
My faith was untouched by a degrees in physics and math, though, until I decided to reread the Bible for myself. So I'd say points 2 & 3 in the post have some real merit. More to the point, it is interesting that they've taken to discouraging such study.
Posted by: DAM10N | July 1, 2008 11:02 PM
What I thought was funniest is that this book, explaining in plain language about intelligent design, which is supposedly all about science and nothing to do with religion, has a foreword written by a well-known conservative Christian apologist.
I guess they're right. It doesn't get much plainer than that! :)
Posted by: James McGrath | July 1, 2008 11:25 PM
These two ijuts are truly the Beavis and Butthead of ID Creationism.
Creotard dumbass dipshit, thy name is Billy Boy Dumbski.
I downloaded and read their first chapter of slime.
Barf.
Posted by: waldteufel | July 2, 2008 12:27 AM
*waves at Dave*
Posted by: Bob O'H | July 2, 2008 1:48 AM
Guys! (and ERV). You have to check out the customer tags for the book on AMAZON.
the most popular:
breathtaking inanity (24)
cdesign proponentists (19)
creationism (19)
quackery (14)
assinine (13)
fugly sweater (13)
*SPIT-TAKE!*
Posted by: freelancer | July 2, 2008 1:56 AM
Animals evolved from protostomes and deuterostomes.
If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are INSECTS + BIRDS??
Posted by: Ritchie Annand | July 2, 2008 2:53 AM
6.99$ I wouldn't pay one p (=0.01 GBP) for that crap, its not even good as shit paper.
Posted by: baley | July 2, 2008 4:35 AM
Meh. A paradigm is only worth four nickels.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 2, 2008 7:17 AM
New internets rulz!!
You are not allowed to mention buxom and brunette (or blond) without providing at least a link to a picture. =P
Love the tags on the Amazon page... heh
Posted by: FastLane | July 2, 2008 9:44 AM
BillyD lent authentic sound effects to that Judge Jones video. Oh yes, that was BillyD himself talking or "talking". The cover of of the latest rag out of that stable has BillyD once again, painting himself in a/(the?) corner.
Posted by: rimpal | July 2, 2008 9:56 AM
Dembski has been reduced to quoting an episode of Family Guy as an example to support his philosophy.
Family Guy.
It's a freaking cartoon, Dembski!
Oh, but, then again, so is Dembski's philosophy, so I guess it all works out.
Posted by: Doc Bill | July 2, 2008 10:48 AM
Here you go. Definitely a brunette, but the head shot doesn't allow us to evaluate "buxom".
Posted by: carlsonjok | July 2, 2008 11:10 AM
That was made of all kinds of blech
Posted by: Michael Faltesek | July 2, 2008 2:17 PM
HT to PZ: A better way to explain those difficult concepts: ID for the hard-of-thinking
Posted by: Barrabas | July 2, 2008 3:17 PM
Abbie, didn't your old blog have a post that you were the only brunette, uh, "qualified" to speak about science matters to the general public, at least by CNN's standards?
Oh, shameless plug, gang: Christopher Hitchens was recently waterboarded for a magazine article. Seriously. With video. Go here.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | July 2, 2008 3:32 PM
1) For the last time can we stop hearing about how ID is all about the science *cough* *cough* and not religion?
2) Any idea what actually motivates people like Dembski? Is the pay for the same old tripe he peddles really that good? Does even he, after all this time, think he has some brilliant scholorly contribution to make to the world? The Templeton Foundation wanted their money back from him.
Comments? Ideas?
Brian
Posted by: Brian | July 2, 2008 3:53 PM
ERV on "WEdge of Cdesignpropentioists" by Mike:
"$6.99 blowjobs"
Ok, its a bargain, but for $6.99 will he spit or swallow?
On second thought, that image is not something I want to pursue further...
Posted by: steve murphy | July 2, 2008 4:31 PM
My guess is that he likes the feeling his religion (whatever it is) gives him. But he has the intellectual integrity to realize that science contradicts his holy book, so he thinks of anything he can to discredit the conflicting science. Too bad he doesn't apply his intellectual integrity to actual science.
Or maybe he just likes the fame being a well-known figure in the intelligent design movement gives him.
Posted by: Yoo | July 2, 2008 9:26 PM
Haha, the tags on Amazon are amazing! I took the liberty of adding a few of my own as well.
Posted by: Sam L. | July 2, 2008 9:48 PM
Posted by: Bayesian Bouffant, FCD | July 3, 2008 10:01 AM
I downloaded the sample chapter and made it about four pages into it before the lies, distortions and down right bullcrap made me so angry I couldn't read on. These people are claiming the moral high ground but seem to have no issue with lying to children. It makes me sick.
Posted by: Anderw Dart | July 3, 2008 11:27 AM
These people are claiming the moral high ground but seem to have no issue with lying to children. It makes me sick.
And that, Andrew, sums it all up rather perfectly.
Posted by: Josh | July 3, 2008 3:14 PM
My, my, my, the cover of that book is unfortunate.
Green buttocks, indeed.
Posted by: susanbrown | July 3, 2008 5:28 PM
What a steaming pile of schmutz.........
Posted by: EyeNoU | July 3, 2008 10:19 PM
How many science books need to start with "Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible" Oh well, I guess we can say that at least Dembski isn't a KJV onlyist.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | July 3, 2008 10:38 PM
I'd so nail that book cover.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 3, 2008 10:50 PM
Hi all,
I asked their publisher for a review copy so I could write a review of it at Amazon.com, but he's had a change of heart. Guess he realized that I'd be writing a harsh condemnation of Dembski's latest example of mendacious intellectual pornography. Judging from the chapter headings provided in the only - and favorable - review posted so far at Amazon.com, I should have no problem reviewing it, whether I receive a copy or not.
Cheers,
John
Posted by: John Kwok | July 5, 2008 10:50 AM
At least its not a complete Denyse O'Leary word salad. It'd actually be well written if it wasn't all wrong. Thats actually a little scary now that I think about it. People are going to READ this.yikes.
On the other hand, his summarization of the naturalistic worldview is kind of close to what at least some of us think, christians are so crazy that they don't even need to distort us to scare them...
Posted by: nanoAl | July 6, 2008 11:08 PM
Does he actually think the sun is going to last forever and NOT swallow us up like any other star? I've only ever heard lunacy like that from young-earthers. nasty.
Posted by: nanoAl | July 6, 2008 11:10 PM
John Kwok,
Maybe he realized you had largely composed your review before reading the book, as you more or less just admitted. Nobody, not even Dembski, deserves that. As much as it grieves me to side with team Dembski, you were nailed to rights on that unprofessional practice in the past. (What was your lame explanation before?---something about checking it out of some unnamed library...even though no copies had been sent to a library... uh huh. Right.)
I would rather read amusing reviews that trash the book from someone who takes time to read it. You have no credibility.
Posted by: heddle | July 7, 2008 10:32 AM
I absolutely LOVE the title "Green Buttocks" - that alone made my day.
As long as I'm here, I would like to ask - how long shall your image be that of your dog's happy tongue? I miss the sophisticate with the wine glass.
Posted by: KillerChihuahua | July 7, 2008 4:35 PM
Dear Heddie:
Enjoy your membership in the Discovery Institute IDiot Borg Collective. Dembski's publisher realized that mine would be negatively based on my other reviews of Dembski's mendacious intellectual pornography posted at Amazon.com. Anyway, I just posted my review of Dembski's latest mendacious intellectual pornography at Amazon.com, in which I do admit not having read the book, but stating my qualifications as someone trained in paleobiology and evolutionary ecology who could evaluate well at least some of it without having read it beforehand.
John Kwok
Posted by: John Kwwok | July 7, 2008 5:08 PM
John Kwok,
A statement too stupid to comment upon, other than how I just did.
This statement:
is doublespeak. The correct wording is: "in which this time, having been outed before, I do not lie about having read the book."
I am taken aback by people who are embarrassments to their side of a debate, regardless of whether or not I am aligned with their position. You are such a person, I'm afraid. Unapologetic dishonesty is never an attractive feature.
Posted by: heddle | July 7, 2008 5:33 PM
Hello! First time poster here, but I've read PT for quite some time now.
Question from someone too lazy to do his own research: Is Sean McDowell related to that paragon of tolerance and diversity Josh McDowell? If so, then no act of Sean's short of eating babies in church will surprise me. Although siding with Dembski is kinda low...
Posted by: MarcusB | July 8, 2008 4:33 PM
Dear Heddie:
Unlike you, I have had a graduate education in paleobiology and evolutionary ecology, so I am entitled to review Dembski and McDowell's latest example of mendacious intellectual pornography. Why? They demonstrate their woeful understanding of the fossil record by concentrating on the so-called "Cambrian Explosion" as though it was the most important event in the history of life on Planet Earth
(As eminent vertebrate paleobiologist Donald Prothero notes in his recently published book, "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters", the "explosion" was actually more like a "slow fuse" since it unfolded over 80 million years of geological time from the latest Precambrian to the early Ordovician. So since Dembski and McDowell have their facts all wrong with the fossil record, then why should you believe anything else they've written in what I - and others - have noted accurately is intellectual child abuse?
I trust you'll continue enjoying your membership in the Discovery Institute IDiot Borg Collective.
Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),
John Kwok
Posted by: John Kwok | July 8, 2008 5:30 PM
John Kwok,
No, you are not. Nobody is entitled (in the sense that it would be professional behavior) to review a book if they haven't read it. I'm a nuclear physicist--by your logic I am magically entitled review any nuclear physics book without reading it. Nonsense.
You could say, "I am sure this book is garbage and I am even going to bother reading it." That would be honest. But writing an actual review of a book you haven't read is pond-scum behavior.
And your "review" on Amazon is quite unprofessional--in fact it sucks.
Posted by: heddle | July 8, 2008 6:04 PM
Dear Heddie:
I would be derelict in my understanding of what is - and what isn't - valid science if I saw a favorable review of a book that perpetuates obvious lies, omissions of fact and other serious distortions of published scientific data in a field that I am qualified to comment on, given my graduate education. So for this very reason alone, I am correct in posting a harshly negative review of Dembski's latest published example of mendacious intellectual pornography, but limiting my remarks to his woeful understanding of the fossil record.
Only an IDiot such as yourself would make this rather inane observation:
"And your 'review' on Amazon is quite unprofessional--in fact it sucks."
An inane remark which Mike Heath, R. Ross and a reader from Northern California would strongly disagree with.
Indeed, judging from your latest inane comment, you are so obviously enjoying your membership in the Discovery Institute IDiot Borg Collective.
Peace and Long Life (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),
John Kwok
Posted by: John Kwok | July 9, 2008 10:52 AM
John Kwok,
Wrong again. You are, if anything, derelict in your duty if you see a favorable review of a book, and even though you are virtually certain that the book is garbage, you don't, as a self-proclaimed expert, read the book and then post a scathing review. This is so obvious, that if you don't see it I can only conclude that you are breathtakingly stupid.
You tactic is now obvious. Write the review, then jump about bragging about how you stuck it to Dembski again. Last time you were discovered as a liar when it was demonstrated that you could not have had access to the book. This time you tried to avoid a repeat of that embarrassment (which would have humbled a greater man) but when you couldn't obtain a copy gratis you decided a preemptive strike admitting that you reviewed it without reading it was the safer course of action--and would still afford you with the opportunity to brag about your prowess.
I reread your review, giving you the benefit of the doubt. It was worse than I remembered. Not because it criticized the book, of which my expectation not having read the book is exceedingly low, but because you can't write and have no concept of how a proper review is supposed to be constructed.
You keep talking about your "graduate education." You mention how qualified you are at every opportunity. "Graduate education" can mean many things. Did yours culminate in a graduate degree?
Posted by: heddle | July 9, 2008 12:12 PM
Dear Heddie:
Wrong again. There are others who have posted negative reviews of books they haven't read - starting with the creator of this blog - simply because they believe that it is their civic duty to do so. Again, I would be derelict in mine if I didn't write a harsh condemnation of Dembski's latest pathetic example of mendacious intellectual pornography - which others over at Panda's Thumb - have observed correctly is intellectual child abuse.
Here's what a reader from Northern California had to say about my review in the comments thread posted after it:
"Excellent review John! Thought I would add a little quote that Dembski made on his web site on June 12:
'What's our strategy. The strategy is multipronged. Let me just give you one prong: WIN THE YOUTH.'
(Here's the entire blog entry: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/theistic-evolutionists-close-ranks-let-the-bloodletting-begin/)
That's right, his strategy is not to write scientific papers, or do research, or develop hypotheses (I suppose it could be another of his 'prongs', but as John has pointed out he's had years and years to do this and so far has shown no intention of doing any actual science). Instead it's purely an evangelistic approach - in fact the sentence above would work just as well for a Christian evangelism campaign, and of course that is no coincidence.
ID's success is measured by polls with the general public and how much people 'believe' in ID, not by how much their ideas are accepted by the scientific community, or whether there are useful predictable & testable results from ID (and so far the score on this is: ZERO). After all, Dembski doesn't need to do any actual research because he already 'knows' the truth, so why bother with pesky and irritating concerns such as observations, data and empircal evidence and all that annoying 'sciency' stuff?
An afterthought: if irreducible complexity is such a definitive sign of Intelligent Design, then why aren't the IDers constantly coming up with new examples? You would think they would be flooding the Intertubes on a daily basis with new examples of IC. Yet, as far as I know, they only have maybe a dozen or two examples (and they've all been refuted) and nothing new has appeared for quite some time...I guess Billy D and his pals are too busy meeting with their PR companies..."
As for my writing skills, several notable writers have praised them.
John Kwok
Posted by: John Kwok | July 9, 2008 12:45 PM
Dear Heddie:
Get your priorities straight. What's reprehensible? My review of a book I haven't read, or the un-Christian acts of one of its authors? For your benefit I am reposting this opening comment in a discussion thread I created at Amazon.com which you've missed.
John Kwok
As for someone who is indeed a genuine liar, thief and con artist extraordinaire, I must nominate my "pal" Bill Dembski; an assessment which many would agree with, including not only Abbie Smith, but also my friend Ken Miller, noted Brown University cell biologist and Jerry Coyne, eminent University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist (whom I had the pleasure of meeting here in New York City at the Rockefeller University evolution symposium on May 1st.). Why?
Here's why:
1) Bill committed the legal equivalent of grand theft larceny against the Dover (PA) school board, by charging them $20,000 for "services rendered" as a potential defense witness, then declining to serve as such when he could not have his private attorney represent him during the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial.
2) Bill had a clip of someone farting associated with his online essay critical of Judge John E. Jones after Jones' historic ruling at the end of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial.
3)Bill contacted the U. S. Department of Homeland Security two years ago, requesting that they investigate eminent University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka as a "potential bioterrorist".
4) Bill orchestrated a "death threat" campaign against eminent University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka and the Texas Academy of Sciences.
5) Almost exactly one year ago, Bill, along with his fellow intellectually-challenged Uncommon Dissent pals (including Mike Behe) held an online "roasting" of Johns Hopkins biochemist David Levin, simply because Levin had spotted some errors in Behe's "research".
6) Bill made a rather crude, quite despicable, comparison of notable University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne with Herman Munster at Uncommon Dissent last year (Jerry thought that Bill's act was truly a very "low blow".)
7) Bill followed up this bizarre display of infantile behavior with another Uncommon Dissent comparison of distinguished University of California, Berkeley paleobiologist Kevin Padian with Archie Bunker, "rhetorically" asking whether Padian was the "Archie Bunker of evolutionary biology".
8) Bill has admitted at Uncommon Dissent - with ample malicious intent - that he stole a Harvard University cell animation video made by the Connecticut-based video production company XVIVO (This has been noted by others, including Abbie Smith, and David Bolinsky, XVIVO's president, elsewhere online.).
9) Last December, Bill tried to exercise a crude form of censorship against yours truly by asking Amazon.com to delete my harsh, but accurate, review of Bill's latest published example of mendacious intellectual pornography, otherwise known as "The Design of Life" (which I did read, but won't admit how I obtained a copy). He also organized an online smear campaign against me, which IDiot William Wallace has noted in his latest post at Abbie Smith's blog (www.scienceblogs.com/erv).
10) In early May, at Uncommon Dissent, Bill had the gall to whine and to moan about "rich Darwinists" like Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Francisco Ayala and Ken Miller for "making money" off of evolution. He also made the inane observation that we ought to support Intelligent Design since it is a "middle class" idea, whereas evolution is an "upper class" idea. Bill also made the absurd claim that he is a member of the middle class, when the real truth is that he is a graduate of a prestigious Catholic boarding school (Portsmouth Abbey), and had, growing up, a childhood that was far more "upper class" than either mine or Ken Miller's.
So much for honest, decent, "Christian" behavior from devout "Christian" Bill Dembski, right? These aren't the acts of someone who truly abides by Christ's teachings, but rather, Lucifer's.
Respectfully yours,
John Kwok
Posted by: John Kwok | July 9, 2008 12:57 PM
John Kwok,
If others posted reviews of books they haven't read, then they are equally guilty. Dembski, IIRC, also, at some point, engaged in dishonest behavior on Amazon over the Mark Perakh et. al., anti-ID book. He too is guilty. The "others do it too" defense is not what I'd like to hang my hat on.
Why are you giving me this anti-Dembski sermon?
Posted by: heddle | July 9, 2008 1:01 PM
Dear Heddie:
'Tis obvious to me that you seem more interested in defending the Josef Goebbels of the Intelligent Design Movement (Bill Dembski) than in agreeing with my rhetoric or Abbie Smith's. Neither Abbie nor I need to read mendacious intellectual pornography like Intelligent Design for us to recognize that it is mendacious intellectual pornography.
If you don't want an "anti-Dembski sermon" from me, then start demonstrating that you are no longer worthy of one, by allowing your intellectually-challenged mind to refute finally, at long last, the Discovery Institute's mendacious intellectual pornography.
Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),
John Kwok
Posted by: John Kwok | July 9, 2008 1:08 PM
Dear Heddie:
Are you willing to condone someone like Dembski who is willing to lie, to steal and to commit "frat boy antics" (a harsh assessment from Ken Miller which I concur with), all in the name of Jesus Christ? If you are, then you are a religious hypocrite, willing to sanctify such outrageous conduct, so long as it is perpetuated in Christ's name (Incidentally, I am a Deist and a conservative Republican, not an atheistic Liberal.).
Peace and Long Life (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),
John Kwok
Posted by: John Kwok | July 9, 2008 1:18 PM
Joh Kwok,
Are you really so clueless as to conflate condemning you for writing a review of a book you haven't read with supporting the career of the victim of your dishonesty? It seems that you simply cannot grasp that your crime is a crime regardless of whom it is perpetrated against.
And, sorry to burst the bubble of your ignorance, but my anti-Dembski street-creds are well established. And, I would speculate, more credible than yours, given my background.
You are actually quite creepy. If I were Dembski, you'd scare me.
Posted by: heddle | July 9, 2008 1:18 PM
Dear heddie:
Your "anti-Dembski street-creds" are nonexistent to say the least. If they did exist, then I'd see them cited at Panda's Thumb and elsewhere. As for myself, I will only note that at least one prominent ID critic approves of my online conduct against Dembski.
And yes, I do hope that Dembski is "scared of me". I want him to be afraid, very afraid, of me. Why? It's time he receives an ample dose of the "medicine" that he's been dispensing towards his critics for years. Indeed, for his own despicable behavior towards me, he owes me a used black Leica M7 rangefinder camera in near mint to mint condition and several brand new Zeiss Leica M-mount lenses.
Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),
John Kwok
Posted by: John Kwok | July 9, 2008 1:28 PM
Hi John.
Dave is a committed Christian and also a respected teacher and physicist. Whilst Dave and I disagree on many things:
Is there design in nature
Is there a god
Is NASCAR more fun than pouring bleach in your eyes
He is quite outspoken against ID, dembski, Behe etc. Please consider Dave was once on the 'top secret ID list-serve' until he got booted for being too sciency. Please swing by 'after the bar closes' to see how he feels about ID, or check his personal blog out.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4874fc918cb424f5;act=SF;f=14
Rich
Posted by: Rich | July 9, 2008 1:58 PM
mendacious intellectual pornography
Discovery Institute IDiot Borg Collective
John, John, John. You forgot to mention that you went to Stuyvescant High School. That would have shut Heddle up, fer sure. Heddle is just a product of the inferior Pittsburg, PA city schools.
Posted by: terryf | July 9, 2008 2:18 PM
terryf,
John has been misspelling my name as "heddie" which is fine, but dropping the 'h' in Pittsburgh is the true blasphemy challenge. If you continue to do that, I can't help you. Ever.
Posted by: heddle | July 9, 2008 2:24 PM
Dear terryf and Rich,
Thanks for setting me straight about heddle (I prefer heddie however for obvious reasons, such as his sounding like an IDiot poseur.). Maybe I should impress him by mentioning that at Stuyvesant HS, I overlapped with two people he may have heard of: Brian Greene and Lisa Randall (BTW, I see Lisa has done a fine job tearing Bill Dembski and his noxious ilk to shreds in some of her recent writings.).
Appreciatively yours,
John
Posted by: John Kwok | July 9, 2008 2:45 PM
Dear terryf and Rich,
Wesley has been looking at this thread too and just sent me an e-mail regarding heddle. Okay, so I have to apologize to heddle for calling him a Discovery Institute IDiot Borg drone. Still, I'm a bit surprised that he would be so hostile towards my review of Dembski's latest piece of mendacious intellectual pornography. Given Dembski's "hospitality" towards heddle, you would think that heddle would be more supportive of my position.
Best,
John
Posted by: John Kwok | July 9, 2008 2:51 PM
No Worries John - I admire your endless enthusiasm for fighting creationism. Dave calls things as he seems them, and is certainly no friend of the DI.
Posted by: Rich | July 9, 2008 2:52 PM
Dear Rich,
Well to paraphrase my college classmate Rich Moody (Yes, THE Rick Moody), he's amazed that I have enough energy to deal with these cretins. So am I. But it's an important civic duty, especially in light of such "pleasant" developments as the signing of the Louisiana Academic Freedom Bill by a fellow colllege alumnus who ought to know better (Thankfully he matriculated there years after I had graduated.) and Comer's dismissal from the Texas department of education.
Appreciatively yours,
John
Posted by: John Kwok | July 9, 2008 2:58 PM
I read the first chapter of this book, "Understanding Intelligent Design." I don't need to read any more to know that this is a very dishonest book.
(BTW, the link in Abbie's post is busted - missing ".pdf" at the end of the URL)
http://www.conversantlife.com/files/resource_downloads/UnderstandingID.pdf
Reading the comments above, I am struck that John Kwok could also read the first chapter and have all the ammo needed for a critical review. I expect I'll be writting one later today.
Posted by: Gary Hurd | July 9, 2008 3:21 PM
Dear Gary,
I chose to play to my strengths, as it were, and review only Chapter Four, since it is devoted to the fossil record. Dembski came across as utterly foolish in his treatment of that in his "The Design of Life" and the sole positive reviewer at Amazon.com gave me more than enough ammunition for me to realize that Dembski was making the same foolish errors as before.
Regards,
John
Posted by: John Kwok | July 9, 2008 3:30 PM
MarcusB @ #41
Josh McDowell wrote the forward for this steaming pile. Sean McDowell co-wrote (w/ Josh) Evidence for the Resurrection (snort-which one?).
Sean is also the editor of the Josh McDowell Youth Ministry Handbook.
So I would say there is some relationship, yes, although his website doesn't reference any. As you note, that is not a tick in Sean's favor re: credibility.
Posted by: chris | July 9, 2008 3:41 PM
Uh oh, I just realixed I used two apostrophes and a colon in my last post. Does that mean Im headed for the penalty box?
Posted by: chris | July 9, 2008 3:44 PM
Buxom:
1. (of a woman) full-bosomed.
2. healthy, plump, cheerful, and lively.
I'm pretty sure you did not know what this word meant when you used it in reference to Mr. McDowell. How amusing. Making a stupid error while accusing other people of being stupid.
Posted by: BarryA | July 10, 2008 12:18 AM
DaveScot,
I know you're here because you linked to this post at UD. Imagine the following: a physicist invents a new theory for why particles have particular masses. Instead of working to advance his theory among his fellow physicists he goes to local school boards to push the teaching of his theory to schoolchildren. Instead of writing papers for scientific journals he writes popular books for lay-people. Instead of doing research he goes on the lecture circuit. Wouldn't this be odd behavior for a scientist? But this is exactly what the top advocates of ID, such as Dembski and Behe, do. How do you explain this? Is it the result of a grand conspiracy against IDists carried out by hundreds of thousands of biologists over more than a century? Really? It seems to me there is a much simpler explanation. ID is a con game.
Posted by: Benjamin L Harville | July 10, 2008 3:02 AM
DaveTard has linked to this post, prepare yourselves for an invasion of tard from the usual suspects (i.e., BarryA above).
BTW Arrington, since you've proven yourself so adept with dictionary, you may wish to look up the definitions of "sarcasm" and "derision".
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 10, 2008 3:46 AM
Funny that someone would complain about Josh McDowell's record on tolerance and diversity in a blog thread that approvingly includes references to "theotards" and $6.99 blowjobs, and statements like these:
I could have quoted more, as you undoubtedly recognize
Obviously you think these guys are really wrong, and even so wrong their intelligence is seriously in question. Fine if you see it that way. But while one commenter is talking up tolerance and diversity, much of the rest of this discussion is spewing absolute hatred. Don't you see the disconnect there?
Here's a challenge for you: will you respond to this comment with an attitude of tolerance and diversity, or will the hatred flow?
Posted by: Observer | July 10, 2008 8:01 AM
Oh noooooo! A link from UD! I dunno if the SB servers can handle the extra 5 site hits! LOL!
Posted by: ERV | July 10, 2008 8:58 AM
John Kwok,
Don't be surprised by the cool reception of your non-review. Reviewing a book without reading it is bad practice and heddle was totally justified in nailing you on that.
Now go ahead and label me a DI shill. And feel free to remind me about your successful classmates at Stuy, I'll be impressed.
Posted by: olegt | July 10, 2008 9:25 AM
Observer - Yeah, put me down for some of that flowing hatred.
Thanks!
Posted by: J-Dog | July 10, 2008 10:06 AM
Olegt,
I was intending to write something similar but you have expressed it better.
John,
You strike me as being a compulsive name-dropper who is more impressed by their own abilities than is justified by the evidence that I have seen to date.
Posted by: Richard Simons | July 10, 2008 10:25 AM
Dear olegt:
Sorry, but I beg to differ with you. Again, as I noted yesterday, it is part of my civic duty to expose the DI frauds for what they are: crypto-Fascist mendacious intellectual pornographers. If the best way of doing it is to write a review of a book that I haven't read, PROVIDED that I employ those relevant aspects of my education that are appropriate, then I shall do it. But, to be perfectly honest, it is something I have done rarely at all.
As for being "impressed" about my "successful classmates at Stuy", then maybe you ought to remind the Josef Goebbels of Intelligent Design - my "buddy" Bill Dembski - that his credentials are quite impressive too (It's funny, but I've heard more logical reasoning - even though I strongly disagree with his politics - from someone who never attended high school - actor and writer Malachy McCourt (whose brother Francis is a certain well-known bestselling Irish-American memoirist and a former teacher of mine at Stuy) - than I have ever read or heard from my "buddy" Bill Dembski.). In plain English, what does this mean? Maybe credentials aren't as impressive as how one uses them, right?
I am willing to bet that Abbie Smith - even though she never attended the elite schools which Bill and I graduated from - will be a much better scientist than Bill can ever possibly hope to be, so long as he remains deluded by his advocacy of Intelligent Design. Care you join me in this wager?
Respectfully yours,
John Kwok
Posted by: John Kwok | July 10, 2008 10:38 AM
Observer -
I second J-Dog's request, and I'll give you yet another.
I am looking forward to attending Bill Dembski's funeral. With any luck, Christ will call him home soon via natural means.
Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),
John Kwok
Posted by: John Kwok | July 10, 2008 10:41 AM
Dear Richard,
The most "compulsive name droppers" I've come across are the Uncommon Dissent DI IDiot Borg drones like BarryA and DaveScot. I don't think I qualify remotely.
I'm willing to make the same wager with you regarding Abbie Smith's scientific abilities that I have made with olegt. Care to join me?
Respectfully yours,
John
Posted by: John Kwok | July 10, 2008 10:44 AM
Thank you for the good wishes, anyway. May you live long and prosper also.
Posted by: Observer | July 10, 2008 10:57 AM
Dear Observer:
Perhaps you ought to enlighten Abbie Smith too, since she's reviewed Dembski's two most recently published examples of mendacious intellectual pornography ("The Design of Life" and "Understanding Intelligent Design") without actually reading it.
And then there are those who read a book, like, for example, Ken Miller's "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul" and somehow miss the two key points of his book, which are as follows:
1) Thanks to ID's militant promotion, we are indeed in a battle for America's scientific and technological soul.
2) If we do take the claims of ID advocates like Dembski and Behe seriously, then can we assert that ID is a valid scientific alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory that does a much better job in explaining the structure and history of Planet Earth's biodiversity?
If you read the reviews posted at Amazon.com, then you'll note that only a handful picked up on and discussed adequately both key points of Ken's book.
So by not reading "Understanding Intelligent Design", it doesn't follow automatically that I don't understand what Dembski and McDowell are trying to accomplish. Believe me, I understand completely, which is why my review is entitled, "A Sterling Example of Intellectual Child Abuse".
Peace and Long Life (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),
John Kwok
Posted by: John Kwok | July 10, 2008 11:12 AM
John,
The message from heddle, Rich, Richard Simons and me is simple: the ends don't justify the means. Make of that what you will.
Posted by: olegt | July 10, 2008 11:34 AM
Why does John Kwok remind me of John A Davison?
Posted by: Benjamin L Harville | July 10, 2008 11:46 AM
John,
1. You "reviewed" Dembski's book without reading it.
2. You jumped on David Heddle before bothering to learn about his actual position re Dembski and ID.
3. Your response to Richard Simons' criticism of your name-dropping is essentially to say "Oh yeah? They're even worse at Uncommon Descent!"
4. You reflexively label those who disagree with you as "DI Idiot Borg drones".
Why does this irrational behavior strike you as an appropriate response to the irrationality of Dembski and the DI?
Posted by: keiths | July 10, 2008 11:50 AM
Dear olegt,
Sometimes the ends do justify the means. Unfortunately, this is one of the points which historian Niall Ferguson has emphasized in his recent book "War of the World" and the television documentary miniseries from which it is based.
Whatever abuses I may be guilty of pale in comparison to those employed frequently by Discovery Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers Mike Behe, Bill Dembski, Jonathan Wells and their fellow noxious peers. Maybe that's something which you, Heddle and the others ought to bear in mind in the future.
Regards,
John
P. S. You wouldn't happen to be the same Oleg I knew back in high school?
Posted by: John Kwok | July 10, 2008 11:51 AM
Dear keiths,
I suggest you read my latest posts to observer and olegt before jumping to conclusions.
As for my term "Discovery Institute IDiot Borg Collective", it is an apt description for those who are intellectually-challenged, such as the frequent Uncommon Dissent posters and others of their ilk whom I've encountered, all too often, at Amazon.com.
Am surprised you're not offended by my description of ID as "mendacious intellectual pornography" too; it is truly an apt description of it.
Respectfully yours,
John
Posted by: John Kwok | July 10, 2008 11:57 AM
I just had an entertaining thought. What if Bill Dembski actually said something sensible in one of his books, and lots of less prejudiced people were reading it, but others like John Kwok didn't even know it was there?
It would be like having that same secret agenda that the DI has been accused of, but (here's the hilarious part) it would be just as public as it could possibly be! Everyone would know about it except the people who think they ought to be trying to stand against it.
Dawkins and PZ have insisted it's unnecessary to know what theologians think--they can attack religion by means of derision. John Kwok doesn't need to know what Dembski thinks--all he has to do is mock him. Hey, the more this keeps up, the less relevant, and the less effective, Kwok et al. are going to be!
John Kwok, may your tribe increase, for the good of Intelligent Design proponents everywhere.
Posted by: Matt | July 10, 2008 12:04 PM
@ John Kwok
Sorry to pile on, but I too think you should tone down the pompousness. I undermines any reputation you may have acquired as a serious reviewer.
Posted by: Alan Fox | July 10, 2008 12:36 PM
@ John Kwok
Sorry to pile on, but I too think you should tone down the pompousness. I undermines any reputation you may have acquired as a serious reviewer.
Posted by: Alan Fox | July 10, 2008 12:37 PM
P.S. to my 12:04 pm comment:
David Heddle, I guess you're not totally an ID supporter. If you were, this is what I'd say to you:
Shame, shame, shame on you for trying to help John Kwok see the error of his ways. He's far less trouble the way he is.
Posted by: Matt | July 10, 2008 1:03 PM
Dear Matt,
Very funny, but I believe in these words: "Know thine enemy". That means reading his work and understanding his mind set. Unfortunately for Bill Dembski, he's been so prolific, that one only needs to read a select few of his publications in order to realize just how deluded he is. It's too bad he hasn't followed my advice and devoted his time towards writing a textbook on Klingon Cosmology. He might find it a lot more profitable than peddling his mendacious intellectual pornography.
I also believe in injecting a bit of levity where possible, so if I seem a bit pompous to you, then you obviously don't get it. Thankfully others, including Abbie Smith and J-Dog, among others, apparently do.
Best,
John
Posted by: John Kwok | July 10, 2008 1:14 PM
Posted by: Richard Simons | July 10, 2008 1:14 PM
Dear Richard,
You're as bad as the IDiots in indulging in quote mining. I think the points I was making is not WHERE Bill Dembski and I have graduated from, but rather, what we have done with our education, and that Abbie has demonstrated already that she will be a much better scientist than either Bill or myself, even though she hasn't graduated from the same elite schools.
John
Posted by: John Kwok | July 10, 2008 1:27 PM
You're right about one thing, John. Somebody here may be having a little difficulty recognizing a bit of levity when he sees it ;-) .
That same somebody may be displaying a little trouble recognizing other things as well. The term, I think, is "personal blind spots." When everybody tells you the same thing and you keep disagreeing, you have to consider the possibility they're seeing something genuine that you are missing in yourself.
But oops--there I go offering you advice. Same strategic error Heddle made. :-)
Posted by: Matt | July 10, 2008 1:36 PM
I'm angry and upset the world doesn't understand me. Please ignore my sociopathic threats to society. Please realize that my degrees are like, so totally friggen awesome they deserve to allow me to review books that I don't know how to read, becuze, well, dey don't com in awedio format.
John cock.
Posted by: john cock | July 10, 2008 2:13 PM
Dear Science Avenger:
You're so friggin' awesome too. Maybe ought to cool it, since the ID trolls have linked in.
Darth
Posted by: Darth Vader | July 10, 2008 2:32 PM
DaveScot:
If you are still here, on UD you wrote, "No one needs to know more about evolution than the microevolution which accounts for bacterial and viral drug resistance. It doesn't matter one tiny bit in any practical way whether birds were created 6000 years ago or descended from dinosaurs millions of years ago. If either of those concepts offends people then just drop them both out of public education and no one will be the poorer for it."
This is completely at odds with what Dembski, whose site you are posting on, says in his latest book. Read the excerpt for yourself. According to Dembski (and McDowell), ID is all about bolstering faith in Jesus.
Also, if you believe evolution is a trivial issue, why do you bother posting about it?
Posted by: Benjamin L Harville | July 10, 2008 2:35 PM
Benjamin -
DaveScot is the same UD sycophant - I like Kwok's term of Discovery Institute IDiot Borg drone - who was bragging about his three star Amazon.com review of Behe's "The Edge of Evolution". Surprising, isn't it, that he's still allowed to post there.
BTW, he's issued Abbie a challenge about having Kwok as one her allies. So my advice to all is to realize that the UD crowd is looking in at this thread.
Darth
Posted by: Darth Vader | July 10, 2008 2:45 PM
Wow, Dave, that takes the cake! By the same token we should get rid of astronomy: who cares whether the Universe is 13 billion or just 6 thousand years old? And physics, who needs physics? Basket weaving for all!
Posted by: olegt | July 10, 2008 2:46 PM
As usual, the ID haters excel at hypocrisy, name-calling, and ad hominem attacks -- and very little else. With the exception of a few that are able to recognize and point out the silliness associated with reviewing a book you haven't read, the rest of you (particularly Kwok) are simply becoming more and more irrelevant (a point made by Matt). PLEASE continue this behavior. It really does help our cause. To ASSUME that random chance can account for EVERYTHING is a blatant philosophical exercise bearing very little resemblance to science. Unless you've got real evidence regarding the origins of life, how specifically complex bio-mechanisms "evolved" (as opposed to unfalsifiable fairy tale explanations), and real answers to why this universe exists with its life-affirming properties (as opposed to unfalsifiable fairy tales like string theory), ASSUMPTION and BIAS is all you have. Until you get real answers to all these nasty questions, keep an open mind. Be willing to admit you don't KNOW everything. Keep researching. Keep considering alternatives. Exercise a little intellectual integri