…and this is a 
You bastards!
Category: Creationism • Humor
Posted on: December 20, 2007 10:22 AM, by PZ Myers
You've hurt little Billy Dembski's feelings! You keep promoting negative reviews of his book!
The Design of Life has 13 five-star reviews and 4 one-star reviews. None of the one-star reviews give evidence of the reviewer having read the book. Yet the three reviews placed front and center by Amazon are the one-star reviews and none of the five-star reviews appear there. That's because the Darwinists keep voting up the negative reviews and voting down the positive reviews. Please go to the link right now, look at the reviews, and vote on them (toward the bottom of a review are "yes" and "no" buttons for whether a review was helpful).
Now Denyse O'Leary is urging all of her minions ("Fly, my pretties, fly!") to rush over to Amazon and correct this deplorable situation. Why?
Like intelligent design? Hate it? No matter. This is a blow for civilization.
Gosh. I like civilization. Civilization is important. I scurried right over and voted the stupid reviews down and the smart ones up. I hope you do, too.
It is civilization's only hope; our culture hangs by a thread on our ability to make thin-skinned Billy Dembski cry.
Uh-oh. The dembskyites noticed that all of their reviews were getting panned and that a host of new negative reviews have shown up. After Dembski had the gall to exhort his fellow creationists to get over there and pack the voting, after O'Leary begged them to help save civilization by skewing the Amazon reviews, they discover that their own ploy has rebounded against them and we get this amazing example of irony from the UncommonDescent commenters:
My suggestion is that we leave Amazon alone and let these guys freely post all the evidence any intelligent person needs to decide whether that line has been crossed. I've always found it deeply asinine and comical that such as Kwok consider the Amazon reviews to be so important. I don't have any deep interest in joining them in any of their nursery school games. Victorious at Amazon? Only a loser would care.
Such deep, self-referential irony that my irony meter did not explode — it had an orgasm instead. Now it's lying there snoring and absolutely useless.
That didn't take long — I knew a poke at his ego would get poor tissue-thin-skinned Dembski fuming.
THE DESIGN OF LIFE is being shamelessly manipulated by the Darwinists at Amazon. Not only are they posting negative reviews that give no indication that the reviewers have read the book but they are also voting up their negative reviews so that these are the first to be seen by potential buyers.
Wait a minute…Dembski himself shamelessly urges his acolytes to rush off and manipulate the reviews because he doesn't like the one-star reviews his book is getting, and now he shamelessly protests because we called attention to his shameless manipulation? My poor exhausted irony meter is stirring again.
Although I do think it's pretty funny that the IDists can intentionally try to flog the vote, and all it takes is a casual mention of their games here to launch a juggernaut that easily overwhelms their efforts.
Is civilization safe yet?
Politics
Comments
See, this is how the post-dyspeptic stuff starts. First Billy, now O'Leary.
Posted by: danley | December 20, 2007 10:27 AM
I wish there was a an option to vote a review as ignorant, or lacking basic understanding of science.
Posted by: zer0 | December 20, 2007 10:31 AM
It is civilization's only hope; our culture hangs by a thread on our ability to make thin-skinned Billy Dembski cry.
meh, i fought that war already in WWI: Billy boy tries to play "Street Theatre".
if he has any tears left after all the bitchslaps he's (deservedly) gotten over the last 5 years, they should dissect his tear glands for science.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 20, 2007 10:32 AM
Little Billy sold his good name long ago and has been laughing all the way to the bank ever since.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 20, 2007 10:34 AM
By the way, while mocking Little Billy for other things let us not forget to pause and admire the abject stupidity of pretending that a supposed contribution to the scientific literature is to be judged by its Amazon.com reviews!
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 20, 2007 10:37 AM
Now if Dembski could also get creationists to promote more favorable peer reviews for his work, civilization would be even further advanced!
Posted by: David Wilford | December 20, 2007 10:38 AM
It's no surprise that moron BarryA is the first 5 star reviewer on there.
/retch
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 20, 2007 10:43 AM
Amazon should let us vote on their "editorial" reviews too, and there should be a "NO STAR" choice.
Posted by: TomDunlap | December 20, 2007 10:48 AM
I am surprised (maybe not - maybe disappointed) that Amazon allows reviews by people with an obvious conflict of interest.
Posted by: True Bob | December 20, 2007 10:49 AM
It's also no surprise that half of the 5-star reviewers have reviewed only one book.
And I love the Denyse O'Leary "Denyse." Hi, my name's Denyse - that's Denyse to my friends. But just call me Denyse.
Got it.
Posted by: Kristine, | December 20, 2007 10:50 AM
Not just any regular civilization... NO!
"Mind-based"? As in, "In the fevered imagination of a moronic twit"? Ah, thought so.
I'd pay good money to see zombie-Julian Jaynes eat her little bicameral "mind".
Posted by: Sarcastro | December 20, 2007 10:50 AM
This, at least, is true
Posted by: artificialhabitat | December 20, 2007 10:52 AM
I really loved that most of the 5 star posts are from DI people (Luskin, O'Leary...) Thanks, I'll keep my money for a WORTHWHILE book to read. If I want to read trash, I'll buy The Star at the grocery checkout desk. Just as informative, more amusing, and less money.
Posted by: Dawn | December 20, 2007 10:54 AM
This also has a ring of truth to it
Posted by: artificialhabitat | December 20, 2007 10:55 AM
As if "mind" is some kind of disembodied thing. Really now. Can't we drive a stake through such Zombie Dualism once and for all? The phrase "state of mind" is closer to the mark of what's going on in the brain, IMO.
Posted by: David Wilford | December 20, 2007 10:56 AM
I suggest Bones:Recipes, History and Lore. It has ultimately more meat than any argument from the Clown Show.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 20, 2007 10:57 AM
Dembski is bad enough, but that Wells cretin is another
case. Several times I have watched a debate between
Michael Shermer and Jonathan Wells on Book TV that I had
recoreded last year on my cable TV DVR box. Held at the Cato Institute in October of 2006. The debate, titled
"Why Darwin Matters", was Shermer's new book, and which
was ripe for the likes of the insane moron Wells to try
and pick apart. Good grief, that Wells idiot is an
incredible religion soaked piece of shit. I wish I had been
in the audience and called to ask a question. My question
would have been put in such a way that he would realize
that he was being shown to be the brain-dead crud that he
truly is. I have watched this clown in other debates and
talks and he is ripe for the most vitriolic sleaze we can
throw at him.
Posted by: Jim Jordan | December 20, 2007 11:01 AM
Interestingly, the book doesn't show up on the UK Amazon site unless you explicitly search for the ISBN number; and even then it's not in stock, and unlikely to ever be in stock.
I did, however, note that he has a book called "Intelligent Design: The bridge between science and theology". But I thought Intelligent Design had nothing to do with theology; what with the "intelligent agent" not being god 'n all...
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | December 20, 2007 11:14 AM
Steve LaBonne wrote:
You hit the nail on the head, Steve.
Billy isn't doing science, he's selling books to the credulous.
Posted by: Norman Doering | December 20, 2007 11:15 AM
Somewhat off topic, but has anyone read Ann Coulter's latest stupid comments on evolution?
Posted by: Todd | December 20, 2007 11:15 AM
Kristine, that's "Demiyse" to us mortals.
Posted by: danley | December 20, 2007 11:17 AM
So, the pages within the book are, uh, blank?
Posted by: Billy | December 20, 2007 11:20 AM
You know, the 5-star reviews are helpful, at least to me. They inform me that this is a book that I won't have the slightest inclination to read, since my views are negatively correlated with those of the 5-star reviewers.
Posted by: lylebot | December 20, 2007 11:28 AM
Todd. Coulter cites Berlinski. Here's a ditty on David:
http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/03/berlinskis-bad-math.html
Posted by: danley | December 20, 2007 11:33 AM
There are five "leading ID theorists"?
Who knew?
Posted by: tacitus | December 20, 2007 11:35 AM
David Wilford #15 wrote:
But Michael Egnor, the distinguished brain surgeon, has opened hundreds of brains and never saw a "thought" or "value" fall out of one and roll across the floor like a marble. This refutes materialism, since that is what reductionism would predict! Atheists are such clumsy literalists, believing our minds are made up of Thought Marbles. There are no such things, so Material Reductionists are stymied.
Bottom line, you just can't see love with a microscope, Mr. Smarty-Pants Scientist. Those with a more rarified, sophisticated understanding of mind realize that it's made of out spirit, it works by magic, and God is a disembodied Mind which creates things ex-nihilio just by imagining them into existence. Atheists can't account for things so neatly.
Posted by: Sastra, OM | December 20, 2007 11:36 AM
Here's another suggestion for those concerned about Amazon's treatment of Bill Dembski, which is to say those who are concerned it isn't sufficiently harsh. You can suggest a phrase to the autobots that will tend to link people to Bill Dembski's work. I entered 'intellectual fraud' and the autobot prompts you for a brief (250 characters) explanation as to why said phrase would be appropriate. I wrote:
"The author, a mathematician, deliberately misrepresents the work of others in his field as evaluative of scientific theories, all the while concealing his real motivation, which is religious. Yet, when others point out this flaws, he affects a pose of martyrdom. Sounds fraudulent to me!"
So, let's bombard the Amazon system with links that suggest how we really feel about Dembski, and why. Some will end up sticking, and then he'll have publicity that he never bargained for.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | December 20, 2007 11:41 AM
Oh that was fun, I even got to demote Denyse O'Leary's review. I love being part of the evil Darwinist conspiracy as much as being part of the evil Homosexual conspiracy and the evil Atheist conspiracy. I hope the IDiot's fawning reviews get demoted so far down their little heads explode. Messy I know but very fun to watch.
Posted by: Natasha Yar-Routh | December 20, 2007 11:42 AM
"The reader will find no signs of intelligence in either biological systems or the author..."
Priceless.
Posted by: Deepsix | December 20, 2007 11:43 AM
And don't forget to associate it with a "tag". I chose "breathtaking inanity".
Posted by: Rob the Lurker FCD BMWCCA | December 20, 2007 11:49 AM
THis is a fascinating glimpse into what it must be like to be Dembski. He's entire self-image apparently turns on reviews posted to Amazon. Who raised this boy? That he gets a sense of love and belonging from reviews of his book on Amazon? That is really sad.
Posted by: fardels bear | December 20, 2007 11:51 AM
"I'll get you my pretty, and your little god too!" Wicked Atheist of the East...
Posted by: PeteK | December 20, 2007 11:52 AM
Incidentally, has anyone looked at (or does anyone want to 'fess up to tweaking...) the "tags customers associate with this product"? Number one is "breathtaking inanity". Genius! This is what tag clouds are for, I suppose...
Posted by: Julius | December 20, 2007 11:54 AM
If anything argues against intelligent design, its these cdesign proponentists
Posted by: Thadd | December 20, 2007 11:57 AM
I did, however, note that he has a book called "Intelligent Design: The bridge between science and theology". But I thought Intelligent Design had nothing to do with theology; what with the "intelligent agent" not being god 'n all...
It could be god. Or it could be aliens or something. It doesn't have to be a god or gods. It's all about detecting the design, not the deigner.
So it should read like this: "Intelligent Design: Maybe the bridge between science and theology, or maybe not. We really don't care. We just know it's designed, that's all."
Probably a typo!!
Posted by: 386sx Santa!! | December 20, 2007 11:59 AM
Gee, I wonder who wrote the 5 star reviews - let's see...
A sockpuppet of Billy... a few DI minions... SOme UD rejects...
Posted by: slpage | December 20, 2007 12:00 PM
#27:
"So, let's bombard the Amazon system with links that suggest how we really feel about Dembski, and why. Some will end up sticking, and then he'll have publicity that he never bargained for."
Excellent idea. I dubbed it "Junk Science", and ended with "laughingstock" :D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | December 20, 2007 12:03 PM
It even turns out that the director of research at the Discovery's Center for Science & Culture has been writing reviews as B. L. Gordon (Redmond, WA USA).
Which would be fine except the FTE then use it to promote their book without mentioning this fact http://www.fteonline.com/newsletters/200712.html
More in this post
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=476aa091269fa1cb&act=ST&f=14&t=5332&st=
Posted by: omitsddi | December 20, 2007 12:11 PM
Better link to the thread, last was borked.
http://tinyurl.com/2qareu
and my post on Bruce
http://tinyurl.com/2mbhg9
Posted by: omitsddi | December 20, 2007 12:13 PM
How pathetic. Advance copies were sent to pro-IDists, not to anti-IDists like Elsberry, then paid liars like Casey Luskin wrote "reader reviews" on Amazon (I don't actually blame Amazon for that, since they can't prevent Casey's sock puppet which no doubt would appear if he didn't--but I do blame charlatans like Dembski and Luskin).
So unsurprisingly, the first negative reviews were obviously not well-informed by the book, if the authors had read it at all (like we didn't all know what it said without reading it). Dimski squeals like the well-greased pig that he is, and gets John Kwok's negative review taken off (this is good inference, we don't have the official story). And then for a short while, all we have are the orchestrated lies from the ID side as "reviews".
Irons wrote his review, complaining about the loss of Kwok's review. I don't know when, but eventually Kwok's review did return. And gee, the soapy rhetoric of the paid and unpaid liars gets less votes than do the honest (except perhaps for the reading of the book part, not trivial, but not the most important aspect of ID book review honesty) reviews. And civilization is threatened because the orchestration of sublime blather in favor of abject repeated dishonesty has been warded off for the time being.
There is nothing that ID touches that doesn't become imprinted with their filth and slime.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 20, 2007 12:15 PM
Sorry, I ended up saying "no" to all the negative reviews. That's because the question was, "Was this review helpful to you?" If it had been "Without having read the book, do you agree with this review?" I would have voted differently. But it didn't sound like anyone on either side had actually read it either. At least the ones who gave it five stars often had a blurb about what's actually in the book - no doubt given to them directly by the authors, but that's still more helpful than someone who hasn't read it telling other people not to read it either.
How is that different from, say, calling a boycott on a movie you haven't seen?
Posted by: Epistaxis | December 20, 2007 12:17 PM
It's not just that the "editorial review" is so lame, it's also who wrote it: Behe.
Thus proving that it's still safe to share back-scratchers.
That is such a clear and obvious conflict of interest that I think amazon should remove it from the book's web page.
Posted by: MikeM | December 20, 2007 12:21 PM
Can we have a tag for irreducable drivel?
Posted by: SJN | December 20, 2007 12:22 PM
Maybe it should just be tagged as what it is: 'fiction'.
Posted by: True Bob | December 20, 2007 12:24 PM
Scott -- better to choose a tag that people will actually search for as well. I'm kind of in favor of 'apologetics'. To direct the right people to it, y'know. And the O'Leary minions don't seem to be too savvy on the interwebs stuff -- they're clearly not adding tags (except for someone, probably Billy, who added about 100). Or maybe there just aren't any aside from the ones who've already posted their 5-star reviews.
Posted by: MyaR | December 20, 2007 12:25 PM
And, gee, I completely missed the deal with Dean Kenyon.
Conflict of interest on conflict of interest. Just bolsters my case.
Posted by: MikeM | December 20, 2007 12:28 PM
As entertaining as tags can be, the first thing anyone's going to see is the '3.5 out of 5 stars' at the top. The most useful thing you can do is write a new review, really.
Posted by: MartinM | December 20, 2007 12:28 PM
At first, I thought PZ saw someone kill Kenny.
Posted by: True Bob | December 20, 2007 12:32 PM
Epistaxis (#41): I wrote a one-star review, and actually read the book. So don't jump to conclusions. There are now hundreds of people voting on the "helpful-not helpful" buttons (my review has 745 votes) and I doubt if many on either side have read the book (which Amazon doesn't even stock right now). BTW, there are now 7 one-star reviews at the top, thanks (I suspect) to PZ. As they used to say, "vote early and often." And as I've said, this is silly, but it's fun to bait O'Leary and Dumbski.
Posted by: peter irons | December 20, 2007 12:36 PM
Scott: that wasn't very xian of you but well deserved by Be-hee-hee, obviously hanging out around here is making an evilutionist of you, MWAHAHAA :)
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | December 20, 2007 12:36 PM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 20, 2007 12:41 PM
Ya know the easy way to marginalize these nuts is to link them to the UFO nuts. Sure, life on earth was intelligently designed!! By the greys! They came from Mars and seeded earth so they could use us as food.
That is what Dembski's arguing, right?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | December 20, 2007 12:44 PM
My favorite:
130 of 132 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Total Bunk
Painful to even try to distort reality enough to make sense of this. If its approached as Fiction, it might be entertaining. Other than that, its a bizarre glimpse into a demented mind.
Also worthy:
The reader will find no signs of intelligence in either biological systems or the author while reading this waste of what could have been fine toilet paper.
Posted by: CalGeorge | December 20, 2007 12:47 PM
O'Leary really ought to focus her efforts on the really important issues. Like griefers on YouTube.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 20, 2007 12:47 PM
Doesn't amazon also support "reading list" features?? Someone needs to put up a reading list of "pseudoscientific garbage" so whenever people go to one of these books they'll see it on listmania.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | December 20, 2007 12:48 PM
I think someone should also point out that it's essentially a vanity publication, too, not from a real publisher.
Posted by: MyaR | December 20, 2007 12:52 PM
Hmmmm....27 reviews (so far), of which 14 are 1 star (lowest possible) and 13 are 5 star (highest possible), and nothing in between. I can't imagine anything else put out by Amazon that would elicit such diametrically opposite responses!
Posted by: Dave S. | December 20, 2007 1:06 PM
Goddamnit! Get it right. It's Demi-nyse.
Posted by: danley | December 20, 2007 1:07 PM
Voting down those Christards was great fun.
I love this blog more every day.
Posted by: Xopher | December 20, 2007 1:08 PM
Wells and Dembski, together in one volume?
Girl Scouts all over the world are fainting. The flag is drooping. Even apple pie tastes flat.
With both of them on the project, I suppose every fact fled the book in self defense.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | December 20, 2007 1:14 PM
Well, it's different because creationism is just utter bunk to begin with, just as astrology, phlostigon and ectoplasm have no scientific validity whatsoever. This isn't a matter of mere taste ala your favorite rock band sucks. It's a matter of a creationist like Dembski trying to again pull a fast one.
If Uri Geller came out with a new book claiming he could bend spoons using telekinesis, would you read it? Or would you just recall what P.T. Barnum once said about the birth rate of suckers?
Posted by: David Wilford | December 20, 2007 1:23 PM
Why does Epistaxis hate civilization?
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 20, 2007 1:31 PM
I think I broke my keyboard pounding on the "No" button as to whether Casey Luskin's review was helpful.
Posted by: John Pieret | December 20, 2007 1:34 PM
Question. How can anyone write 401 pages on intelligent design? I guess it must help to be a Moonie.
Posted by: pcs | December 20, 2007 1:36 PM
John Pieret @ 63: So now I'm looking for the "No" button on my keyboard, to do the same thing. So far no luck.
Posted by: Pyre | December 20, 2007 1:40 PM
Any vote against this book is a vote FOR education and will even remotely keep the trash out of the hands of people who may not know better.
Posted by: JimC | December 20, 2007 1:45 PM
I think this is one of the most humorous things I have seen on a blog in some time. He is getting trounced over there.
Posted by: Chance | December 20, 2007 1:54 PM
PZ, don't worry- this is a blow FOR civilization. I hate to agree with such a half-wit. I didn't realize she had changed her position. Indeed, that's one more point for rational people who won't let trite nonsense in the guise of scientific-sounding language and vacuous hypotheses claim the credibility of empirical research and sound methodology. Go team!
Posted by: tyaddow | December 20, 2007 1:57 PM
Thanks danley!
For a mathematician Berlinski doesn't seem to use a whole lot of...well...math.
Posted by: Todd | December 20, 2007 2:23 PM
Great fun reading all those negative reviews of morons
Dembski and Wells on Amazon! I wonder if the crazed duo
are following the glowing reviews, or if Amazon has quietly
suppressed those reviews to save the idiots embarrassment
from being compared to toilet paper. We all know that
dreck book will sell to the millions of deranged cretins
who sop up this mindless drivel. I like civilization also,
no matter what battering and debasement it is subjected to
by the insane religious rabble.
Posted by: Jim Jordan | December 20, 2007 2:30 PM
Don't mess with the Amazon ratings, you're interfering with Wedge Strategy Phase II (Phase I was canceled due to lack of science).
Posted by: lone pilgrim | December 20, 2007 2:36 PM
Denyse O'Leary just posted this in the comments section over at post-darwinist, in response to somebody who suggested she might want to edit her review to admit her role in contributing to the book:
"It is of no consequence to me if Amazon ditches my review. I wrote the index for the book (and thus read the manuscript, obviously) and contributed a small amount of information to the End notes, mainly re animal counting abilities, et cetera. I currently post items of interest to the Design of Life blog - but I presume you know that."
Yet, just before this she had her knickers all in a twist that people were voting down the reviews. Maybe it's finally dawned on her how silly and trivial this really is...but as somebody pointed out they really do ask for all the baiting!
Posted by: Fred | December 20, 2007 2:38 PM
"Maybe it should just be tagged as what it is: 'fiction'.
Posted by: True Bob "
Subtle, I like it. In fact, I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it for the lulz.
Posted by: jba | December 20, 2007 2:39 PM
PZ, #62:
I don't hate it; I just define it differently. My version doesn't include suppressing the voices of those who disagree with me.
</sanctimony>
Don't worry, I'm not really taking this more seriously than anyone else. Still, it would be nice if the people who've actually bit the bullet and read the book (like Peter Irons, #49) would give the rest of us a little preview of what's in it, with or without a play-by-play rebuttal. Except for the ethical quandary of actually paying for them, sometimes it's handy to have creationist books around as references.
Posted by: Epistaxis | December 20, 2007 2:43 PM
From a review of Dembski's book:
Oh. Come. On. All the IDers have to show the world their case for ID are single books. There is no scientific case that's been made for intelligent design, as shows by the lack of actual peer-reviewed research. The the book reviewer above is willing to insult the intelligence of others by pretending there's a 'movement' out there that's been plagued by the lack of a book like Dembski's shows that the only case being made for ID is a bogus one.
Posted by: David Wilford | December 20, 2007 3:07 PM
Don't knock it until you've read it. This might be the one that finally reveals all the science they've been doing, in secret.
[snicker]
Posted by: Bobby | December 20, 2007 3:10 PM
I haven't read the book yet. It's the sequel to "The Secret", right?
Posted by: Timcol | December 20, 2007 3:13 PM
My favorite Amazon comment:
Posted by: Steve in MI | December 20, 2007 3:17 PM
In accordance with Lex Anthony Flew, a victory for the IDiotists on Amazon would probably have made them proclaim the site to be the single most important media outlet in recorded history.
Posted by: forsen | December 20, 2007 3:22 PM
Sorry, but this is a pointless exercise. A bunch of anonymous reviews on a website are absolutely meaningless.
Posted by: Larry | December 20, 2007 4:12 PM
I just checked Amazon again. Looks like Denyse O'Leary's review got zapped. I'm sure Amazon would have kept it had she come clean and stated her contribution to the book, and looks like somebody on her blog tried to get her to do this, but I guess she is above taking other people's advice.
Posted by: Fred | December 20, 2007 4:14 PM
For some reason, I just feel slightly... VICTORIOUS! HELLS YEAH!
Posted by: Kyle | December 20, 2007 4:17 PM
Uncommon Descent must also be unaware of Amazon's explicit condemnation of vote packing- to the extent, that when they find out, they remove those votes.
Posted by: Jedidiah | December 20, 2007 4:34 PM
I just went looking on Amazon.ca, and again you have to use the ISBN to find it - searching on either title or author doesn't show it. Looks like they're going to have to get their minions up here to actually buy copies in order to get it to show up. Maybe they should buy 10 each and really boost sales.
Posted by: rp | December 20, 2007 4:55 PM
Do Androids dream of electric sheep?
Do cdesign proponentists cry irreducibly complex tears?
Posted by: Jesse | December 20, 2007 5:14 PM
I just finished reading for the second time those hilarious
reviews of dembski and well's crappy book, provided by the
great reviewers of this site. I had tears in my eyes and
could barely control my unmitigated laughing! Our great
and illustrious reviewers should be honored by such rave
reviews of this ravenously insane book.
To all who have not read the "reviews", please do so and
be prepared for uncontrolable laughter. The best example
of "unbiased" reviewing to fully explain the mindless
crud of this piece of crap. The dembskiyites found us out
at the beginning of page 3 and are trying to stem the tide
with a broadside of their own pathetic insane reviews!
Again, if you have not read our reviews, do so and prepare
to howl! Love it!
Posted by: Jim Jordan | December 20, 2007 5:35 PM
When future intellectual historians list the books that toppled Darwin's theory, THE DESIGN OF LIFE will be at the top. --Michael Behe, biochemist, Lehigh University
I'm sold.
Posted by: Nathan | December 20, 2007 5:40 PM
Thing is, too, under Amazon's new review posting system, the quickest link to the review will list the most helpful positive review and the most helpful negative review. No amount of votes will change that.
And even the most helpful reviews at the bottom of the page change only slowly, and are not completely linked to how many positive votes they get. They're also linked to the current phase of the moon and certain spells by Harry Potter. Least, that's our best guess for how it works.
Posted by: Jedidiah | December 20, 2007 6:04 PM
LOL!
Erm... in Microsoft Word there's a function for this. It was already there in Word 6.0, so...
I'm just saying.
ROTFL!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 20, 2007 6:56 PM
Thank you for the correction, David. I had a timer going off as I was posting and I had a small brain fart about the actual spelling of 'proponentsist' and couldn't double check before posting.
Posted by: Jesse | December 20, 2007 7:13 PM
There are five "leading ID theorists"?
Human ones. The sixth ranking ID theorist is, in fact, a chicken that was designed to play tic-tac-toe...
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | December 20, 2007 7:20 PM
Scott: that wasn't very xian of you but well deserved by Be-hee-hee, obviously hanging out around here is making an evilutionist of you, MWAHAHAA :)
Oh, I dunno. I was kind of hoping it would make me a better Christian. At any rate, I don't condemn Dembski or Behe as people. I just think that they shouldn't mislead people deliberately, or (as some old book says) otherwise bear false witness.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | December 20, 2007 7:49 PM
Like intelligent design? Hate it? No matter. This is a blow for civilization.
Maybe it's time for a truce between creationists and evolutionists and time to mutually admire our innate talents.
Evolutionists do not have a monopoly on rationality; we just do it so very much better. Likewise, creationists don't have a monopoly on hyperbole; they just do it so much better.
Giving a negative review on Amazon is a blow for civilization? I admit it; I'm out of my league. I will never attempt an argument in hyperbole with a creationist and will give in that, by default, they are the natural masters in that particular rhetoric.
Now if only they'd concede the same about us and rationality.
Posted by: woozy | December 20, 2007 8:58 PM