Pharyngula

Posted by: The Science Pundit | August 9, 2009 2:08 PM

I notice that nowhere in that requirement does it state that the 2000 word posts need be original.

Posted by: Jadehawk | August 9, 2009 2:16 PM

it's not like we didn't already know that trolling is an essential skill in the creationist toolbox, on the same level of importance to them that the scientific method is for actual scientists :-p

Posted by: MPG | August 9, 2009 2:16 PM

Wow. That speaks volumes about the nature of the whole ID movement. A significant chunk of the final grade is centred around writing about the "theological significance" of ID. Note also the "develop a Sunday school lesson plan" portion of AP810. Will Caseytits continue to claim ID is non-religious? The whole "go and troll blogs and forums" thing is the crowning turd in the water pipe - never mind doing research, never mind adding to the body of knowledge, it's all about the proselytising.

Posted by: formosus | August 9, 2009 2:19 PM

Wow. I just noticed they want their students to come up with a 20-year plan for defeating science. I think they're actually trying to one-up the Soviet Union and Maoist China. I don't think that even at the peak of their 'communist' regimes they managed to destroy the scientific method. They sure came close, though.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 2:22 PM

Trace the connections between Darwinian evolution, eugenics, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. Why are materialists so ready to embrace these as a package deal? What view of humanity and reality is required to resist them?

1. There is no connection between evolution (Darwinian or otherwise), eugenics, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. Creationists like Demski and Ben Stein pretend there's a connection, but they're lying out of their anuses.

2. Materialists are not ready to embrace these things as a package deal. It's only creationists lying out of their asses who pretend this.

3. Belief in a mythical Big Guy In The Sky is necessary to resist reality.

Somehow I don't think these are the answers Billy Dembski wants.

Posted by: Emily | August 9, 2009 2:24 PM

Surely that's not real?

If it is, obviously all 2000 word rants by creationists should be deleted, to prevent them being able to provide evidence and pass.

But...it can't be, can it?

Posted by: tsig | August 9, 2009 2:26 PM

Taking a course from DR.DR.must be like shitting with your underwear on.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 9, 2009 2:27 PM

Holy hell.

AP810 This is the D.Min. course. You have four things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 30% of your grade); (2) write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God -- for instructions, see below (20% of your grade); (3) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 30% of your grade); (4) develop a Sunday-school lesson plan based on the book Understanding Intelligent Design (worth 20% of your grade).

D.Min, by the way, is Doctorate of Ministry. I guess that, after Dover, they decided to stop lying about ID not being a religious tenet rather than a science.

This is particularly funny; from his Critical Thinking exam:

13. You are the head of a large public relations firm in New York. A consortium of Christian
businessmen and foundations is fed up with the godlessness of our society and approaches
you to run a “rhetorical campaign” to make Christianity and its moral values credible again
to the wider culture. You have $100,000,000 a year for five years to make the campaign
work (i.e., half a billion dollars total over five years). What programs are you going to
institute and how are you going to allocate that money to restore Christianity as a credible
world view? What objectives could you realistically hope to accomplish? [Example of a
zero-credit answer: give all the money to the ACLU or to the UN.]

(Emphasis mine.) In other words... How do we sell something people find morally repugnant?

Posted by: DaveL | August 9, 2009 2:28 PM

Strange, I was never asked during my Statics course, or Intro Electromagnetism, or Thermodynamics I, to go on the Internet and defend them.

That must be because they were science courses, not propaganda.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 9, 2009 2:28 PM

Better yet, he's depending on child labor to come up with a better legal defense for ID:

3. You are an expert witness in the Dover case. You’ve been asked to summarize why
you think intelligent design is a fully scientific theory. Do so here. Sketch ID’s method(s) of design detection and then show how it/they apply (or might apply) to biological
systems. Further, indicate how ID is testable: what evidence would confirm ID and what
evidence would disconfirm ID? Also, indicate how ID differs from creationism and from
natural theology. Finally, what would you say to the charge that ID is “pseudoscience”?
What would you say to the charge that ID is “religion”?

Yowza. This is seriously a treasure trove of inanity.

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | August 9, 2009 2:30 PM

Well, Yes. Because we all know that scientific theories win acceptance within the larger scientific community through debates in church basements, popular books written by lawyers and sold in Christian bookstores, and and posts to personal blogs.

Only delusional, fake scientists - evilutionists, physicists, astronomers, geologists, chemists, medical researchers, biologists, (add any other "ist" you choose) - would think that publishing research papers in academic journals, presenting them professional conferences, and wrangling with your colleagues at academic institutions, is how science works.

Have FUN, PZ ?!! I just don't have enough of a sense of humour left to laugh at people who claim to want ID respected as a "genuine alternate theory" while blatantly pitching it in a guerrilla promotional campaign aimed at the stupid and naive.
Could I get drunk enough to see the humour before I passed out cold?

Posted by: The Science Pundit | August 9, 2009 2:34 PM

I was just reading the final exam for the apologetics course. It's priceless!

Please answer each of the following questions in 500 words or less. Answer every part of each question. Be concise. This exam is open-book, but you can only consult general reference books (e.g., the Bible), the five books read in class, and the notes you took in class. You may not cruise the Internet in search of answers or in any way seek the help of others. Your completed exam needs to be emailed to the grader, Jack Greenoe, by Thursday 12:00 noon. In turning this paper in you agree, on pain of divine judgment, that this is entirely your own work.

And the 5 questions are even better. It's everything from explain to your nephew why going to a liberal seminary is a huge mistake to respond to atheist criticisms that gØd doesn't heal amputees. Awesome!

Posted by: The Science Pundit | August 9, 2009 2:38 PM

ALERT! as they state in the post at Dawkins.net, it IS satire.

Yeah, I was beginning to suspect as much. Stung by Poe!

(However, my previous comments stand. The words still work with the new context.) :-)

Posted by: chuck morrison | August 9, 2009 2:39 PM

Poe's Law strikes again.

Posted by: Ben Mueller-Heaslip | August 9, 2009 2:43 PM

@18

ALERT! as they state in the post at Dawkins.net, it IS satire.

That's not true. I just visited there and, while there certainly is a lot of "I can't believe this isn't a joke!" comments.... it really isn't a joke. It's hard for me to wrap wrap my mind around too.

If you go to the actual site hosting this material:

http://www.designinference.com/

...it's actually Dumbski's personal site. It's not satire - it's tragedy.

Posted by: chuck morrison | August 9, 2009 2:45 PM

Oh man. I was momentarily comforted by the thought that this was another of Dembski's hamfisted attempts at satire. Now you guys go and tell me it might be real after all?

Excuse me while I curl up in a fetal position and weep softly.

Posted by: Rob | August 9, 2009 2:47 PM

@Mena (2)

Apparently he also has a course on critical thinking

You are the head of a large public relations firm in New York. A consortium of Christian businessmen and foundations is fed up with the godlessness of our society and approaches you to run a “rhetorical campaign” to make Christianity and its moral values credible again to the wider culture. You have $100,000,000 a year for five years to make the campaign work (i.e., half a billion dollars total over five years). What programs are you going to institute and how are you going to allocate that money to restore Christianity as a credible world view? What objectives could you realistically hope to accomplish? [Example of a zero-credit answer: give all the money to the ACLU or to the UN.]

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 9, 2009 2:50 PM

DEFINITELY not a satire. This is his real site.

Registrant:
William Dembski
538 Post Oak Lane
Riesel, TX 76682
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: DESIGNINFERENCE.COM
Created on: 02-Jul-01
Expires on: 02-Jul-11
Last Updated on: 02-Jul-09

Administrative Contact:
Dembski, William wdembski@designinference.com
538 Post Oak Lane
Riesel, TX 76682
United States
2548962188 Fax --

Posted by: Rob | August 9, 2009 2:51 PM

D'oh, Mike The Infidel found it before me.

Posted by: XD | August 9, 2009 2:56 PM

Are we absolutely sure this isn't a fake site, or that it hasn't been hacked? I mean, I know they're stupid, but this is... it's no use, I'm lost for words.

Then again, I did see this today on FailBlog. Perhaps that photo was taken outside the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary?

Posted by: Zeno | August 9, 2009 2:58 PM

I had always thought that trolls were spontaneously generated. Now I see the possibility that they are unintelligently designed.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 9, 2009 2:59 PM

"nonmaterialist neuroscience" . . . This is one of those times when I don't know whether to laugh or tear my hair out in frustration. I mean seriously, can't these people see that this is an oxymoron? "Nonmaterialist neuroscience" would fail to fulfill the SCIENCE part of neuroscience. What they are actually advocating is an argument for nonmaterialist neuro-quackery that is no better than homeopathy or crystal therapy or any of the other ridiculous new age pseudo-medical fads and in actual fact may be far more dangerous to the patient's health.

You either accept that neuroscience is an extremely complex and delicate process that requires the most sophisticated scientific understanding of neurophysiology or you might as well go at the poor sod's cranium with an angle grinder and a soup ladle. I thought trepanning had gone out of fashion centuries ago, but the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is fighting hard to bring this golden oldie back!

*sound of tearing hair*

Posted by: guyfromlubbock | August 9, 2009 3:02 PM

Love your blog, but I'm basically a lurker. I'm also a software dev/network admin. I'd love to find a way to figure out exactly which comments are part of his "Course Requirements". I don't know what kind of access you scienceblogs' guys have to your web traffic logs, but if your like most sites I'm assuming you can see the majority of it.

So, here is the trick. If their providing Dembski with the URL's you should be able to figure out which comments are part of class assignments....which if we gathered together would show the "quality" of the science education they offer.

Basically, there are a couple of things to look for. One you should see a lot of get requests in the apache(or iis, etc) for the actual comment id. You can then cross reference these by the ip address doing the requesting. Their university will probably have their own unique set of ip address', not to mention u can use a geo-location lookup to determine who looked directly at what comments at what time.

Anyway, I would be happy to help do the analytics for this but I would need a copy of your log data. Of course this information is usually considered sensitive so you proabaly arn't going to ant to d that.

However, I would be happy to give you any advice you'd like on how to do this. Or if you could send me a sample (scrub out all sensitive data), of a single days activity I could bang together a script you could run on your side to get the results.

I'd be happy to help you out for free, I've actually been writing some scripts to parse your comment system and do comparison of the "trolls" postings. I don't have anything to special yet, but I'm mainly copying the comments and then comparing the different comments to see if I can create an algorithm to pick up on common creationist claims.

Imagine having a spam filter that could block out e-mails from people babbling about "piltdown man" or etc. Or have your comment system mark the copy and pasted responses. Anyway, just ideas I've been toying with, and you site has a wealth of "crackpot" data. LOL

Posted by: daveau | August 9, 2009 3:04 PM

Can you just say "bible" 200 times?

Posted by: raven | August 9, 2009 3:09 PM

Crosspost from PT.

Dembski the christofascist kook:

The implications of intelligent design are radical in the true sense of this much overused word. The question posed by intelligent design is not how we should do science and theology in light of the triumph of Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism. The question is rather how we should do science and theology in light of the impending collapse of Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism. These ideologies are on the way out…because they are bankrupt.

Dembski’s goal was to destroy Western civilization. The Enlightenment and science are the basis of 21st century Western civilization, including the leader's, the USA. To set up another unworkable hell on earth theocracy.

Which is silly, it (science) worked well enough that rather than living in caves and fighting lions for a carcass, we have huge telescopes in space and just saw a planet a 1000 light years away.

And he didn’t even come close, a failure at Nihilism. Just some spray paint graffiti on the pillars of civilization. Might explain why he is a bitter, aging kook spiralling towards irrelevancy.

Oddly enough, his father was a college professor who taught evolution. Where is Freud when we need him?

Posted by: Joel Jacobson | August 9, 2009 3:11 PM

I saw there was the question of why prayer can't restore human amputee's limbs. It's not that complicated.

Salamanders can regenerate lost limbs and tail. (And believe me - there's hardly anything worse than lost tail.)

Clearly, salamanders are better at prayer than humans.

Posted by: The Science Pundit | August 9, 2009 3:15 PM

Poe's Law strikes again.

The beauty of Poe's Law (as it's actually stated) is that it works both ways. In other words, if you mistake genuine creationist stupidity for satire, that's also a Poe. It appears that Dumbski is the Poe that keeps on giving.

Posted by: Escuerd | August 9, 2009 3:16 PM

Some of my religiously-oriented friends are also big on sending out emails that can be counted as uplifting and encouraging others to follow a spiritual path. These are particularly heinous.

This explains an email that my roommate got last year from a Mormon student who had interned at his company a year prior to that. He said that it was a mass email encouraging people to vote "yes" on California's Prop 8.

Truly disgusting.

Posted by: crsiwell | August 9, 2009 3:18 PM

(swap "on" for the first "one" and "Dover" for "Dovee" in my post above; I really need to see if the preview function is working again..)

Posted by: raven | August 9, 2009 3:19 PM

Bill Dembski's Intelligent Design course at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has some interesting course requirements.

I keep saying creationists are stupid. They have to go to college to learn how to become trolls? Amazing.

Southwestern Baptist Seminary=Troll school

"Learn how to babble like a loon on the internet. Sockpuppetry, multi-aliasing, evading ignore lists and filters, being crazy. Advanced preparation for telling eveyone they are going to hell and threatening to kill them." I wonder if they provide advice in the unlikely but not impossible event that their internet service cancels them or the FBI comes calling.

Doesn't look like xianity is doing so well lately here in the USA if it has come down to this.

Posted by: tsig | August 9, 2009 3:25 PM

"Posted by: Joel Jacobson | August 9, 2009 3:11 PM

I saw there was the question of why prayer can't restore human amputee's limbs. It's not that complicated.

Salamanders can regenerate lost limbs and tail. (And believe me - there's hardly anything worse than lost tail.)

Clearly, salamanders are better at prayer than humans."

Or the world was designed for salamanders.

Posted by: Sauceress | August 9, 2009 3:27 PM

@formosus

I just noticed they want their students to come up with a 20-year plan for defeating science.

Yeah their last one, The Wedge Strategy, didn't live up to their expectations so they're obviously looking for new ideas.
Reminds me of when Dembski was asking his Uncommonly Dense customers back in January to come up with, and post, testable predictions for proving ID was feasable.

Nice scam...ask your customers to create a saleable product and then sell it to them.

Posted by: Sauceress | August 9, 2009 3:29 PM

@ #63
feasible even!

Posted by: Monado, FCD | August 9, 2009 3:32 PM

I found the reference to sarcasm a little confusing but I've sorted it out. The link is to Dembski's own Web site. The introduction to the link says

Thanks to Baron Scarpia for alerting us to this website, which outlines the rigorous academic standards [Quote-miners, please note: this is sarcasm] which William Dembski’s students have to achieve...

Dembski should file for intellectual bankruptcy. Those essay requirements wouldn't tax a high-school student if one was deluded or cynical enough to do the work.

Posted by: Joe Felsenstein | August 9, 2009 3:34 PM

The material at www.designinference.com is real; that is Dembski's own website.

Appalling. I teach evolutionary genetics at a public university, and take care not to require that students agree with me about these debates. If in my tests I ask for an evolutionary explanation of something, I try hard to ask them to say how an evolutionary biologist would explain it. That way I do not require them to make an affirmative statement of their own beliefs, and I also don't allow them to get out of answering the question and get full credit by saying simply "Goddidit".

Dembski is at a religious seminary and is probably within his legal rights in requiring his students to be on his side in the debates over ID. At his school's main web site I see no statement saying that they try to respect the diverse religious views of all students.

Still, just requiring students to participate in blog debates on evolution, even if you allow them to take either side, strikes me as compulsory free speech, and I would never make such a requirement of my students.

Posted by: Rik G | August 9, 2009 3:40 PM

Sauceress @ #63, I don't know if this is a substitute for The Wedge Stragegy; it looks like they're pretty well in line with it....

http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm

... the only thing missing is the research!

I noticed that you can get extra credit for the Christian Apologetics class by reading Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" and writing "a 750 to 1000 word reflection on lessons to be drawn from that book for Christian apologetics". Holy Town Hall Meetings, Batman!

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 9, 2009 3:42 PM

guyfromlubbock @ # 45: ... I've actually been writing some scripts to parse your comment system and do comparison of the "trolls" postings.

I've long felt that the success rate of threadjackings by trolls here approaches 100% - so few of the ilk can resist taking a swing at a dumbass that even the most interesting original topics are quickly forgotten. Never mind "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal" - the motto at Pharyngula should prob'ly be "No troll goes hungry!"

Is there any way you might be able to adapt such scripts to confirm or deny my little hypothesis?

Posted by: Jack Last | August 9, 2009 3:51 PM

Will any of Bill's students troll *this* thread for their class project?

Posted by: Jadehawk | August 9, 2009 3:55 PM

oh, and I also notice that on a handful of the assignments, talking to your fellow students is a no-no.

wouldn't want an actual active exchange of ideas happening, now would we

Posted by: raven | August 9, 2009 3:56 PM

What? I though that ID was going to produce its own evidence and not just rely on Christian ideology!

They don't rely on xian ideology. The majority of xians worldwide are OK with evolution and science. Half of all US scientists call themselves xians.

These are weird xian Death Cults.

Posted by: Azkyroth | August 9, 2009 4:04 PM

I hope someone is saving copies of these pages...

Posted by: XD | August 9, 2009 4:08 PM

wtf? what's with the timeframe? either you've read the book and understand what it's about, or you haven't, [...]

[...] which would reflect in your essay, wouldn't it?

Posted by: Carlie | August 9, 2009 4:08 PM

These are weird xian Death Cults.

Tomayto, tomahto.

Posted by: BobbyEarle | August 9, 2009 4:12 PM

Jadehawk @72...

I seriously don't understand why the syllabus is built the way it is...

I think you meant "sillybus".

Posted by: 386sx | August 9, 2009 4:17 PM

Billy Bob's theological seminary and fillin' station. Free dozen o' worms if yoo buy ten gallons or diploma.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 9, 2009 4:22 PM

This made me laugh, but the more I've thought about it, it's actually quite good. What better way to teach the students what they are about to come up against in the secular world. If students want to learn science arguments, *rolls eyes*, or top of the line bible quotin', send them here to troll. The best part for the christians, we train them up for free. Diabolical bastards.

Posted by: natural cynic | August 9, 2009 4:27 PM

Trace the connections between Darwinian evolution, eugenics,

Some ahistorical twit made it up

abortion,

The say-so from another imaginative twit

infanticide,

The Spartans, the Thebans and other ancient cultures were channelling the future.

and euthanasia.

'Cuz it makes a good story to tell the rubes about Obamacare.

Why are materialists so ready to embrace these as a package deal?

'Cuz our teacher sez so.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 9, 2009 4:31 PM

I think you meant "sillybus".

Short bus.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 9, 2009 4:34 PM

Short bus.

indeed. People completing Dembski's "re-education" courses could actually be considered to have been intellectually retarded in the process.

I lost brain cells even reading the shortbus.

It should be criminal, to even label something like this "teaching".

Posted by: XD | August 9, 2009 4:44 PM

I've got a brilliant idea! How about all of the "hostile" websites just block all IP addresses from Ft. Worth. Sure we would lose a couple of good posters but it would throw a major wrench in their plan.

Posted by: Andrew | August 9, 2009 4:47 PM

Also, extra credit for every post you make in ALL CAPS.

Posted by: Brian | August 9, 2009 4:49 PM

I imagine that a lot of this has been said before, but here it goes again. The fact that for most of these courses, including the "graduate level" ones, 20-30 percent of your grade was writing a book report on _That Language of God_. Great rigor there. And that on top of making ten posts being %20 of your grade.

One question that I thought was kind of interesting was:

"You are an expert witness in the Dover case. You’ve been asked to summarize why
you think intelligent design is a fully scientific theory. Do so here. Sketch ID’s method(s)
of design detection and then show how it/they apply (or might apply) to biological
systems. Further, indicate how ID is testable: what evidence would confirm ID and what
evidence would disconfirm ID? Also, indicate how ID differs from creationism and from
natural theology. Finally, what would you say to the charge that ID is “pseudoscience”?
What would you say to the charge that ID is “religion”?"

Translation: What would you do that I didn't have the balls to do in Dover?

I also like how other questions are about how to get people through seminary school without loosing their faith, because they are interested in a "liberal" school.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 9, 2009 4:54 PM

"Scholarly paraphernalia," indeed.

Explain why the Cambrian explosion is incompatible with common descent.

Um...

I have to say, I found it fascinating. It's really all about teaching rhetoric. One of the final-exam questions actually asks the student to provide the best defense of "modernism" (as defined by Philip Johnson) that (s)he can. Of course, the students aren't really equipped to do this, but it's really interesting.

The trolling requirement may backfire in some cases...

***

http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/

Posted by: October Mermaid | August 9, 2009 5:04 PM

That is the most childish course requirement possible, but I guess it's ID we're talking about.

"Go annoy my enemies and soothe my ego for an A."

How old is Dembski, exactly? Pushing seven?

Posted by: LongtimeLurker | August 9, 2009 5:09 PM

I see one of the questions Dembski set for the Christian Faith and Science exam requires the student to define 'Information'. Given that Dembski and his cronies have never managed to do this it seems a bit harsh to expect undergraduates taught by him to manage it... Maybe he's hoping that his students will build a functioning argument for him?

Posted by: Brian | August 9, 2009 5:14 PM

And one more thing: This is yet another iteration in Dembski's frustrated revenge fantasies. He's just gotten together a bunch of young people to stroke his ego. I'd like to see a Freudian rundown of Dembski and his motivations. Could be both an interesting satire...and a little to close to the truth.

Posted by: Ariel | August 9, 2009 5:19 PM

Shit like this lowers the value of people with REAL degrees. As I just got mine, that really sucks. How do we make the standards for being an accredited university higher? I'm not sure what's more annoying, this stuff or the degrees in homeopathy that have been popping up lately.

Posted by: Alex | August 9, 2009 5:22 PM

I had an employee that is a grad student at South Western Seminary School. Great guy. Debated with me for over a year about how evolution wasn't true, the evidence was false or non existant, and tried to convince me of Inteligent Design.

Two weeks before he quit, in a moment of exapseration after he had me watch Expelled, I asked him, "Have you even looked at the evidence for evolution."

He said "no," and that evolution leads to atheism so he wont accept it.

Stuff like this helps me understand how he learned to be so thick.

Posted by: Greg Laden | August 9, 2009 5:29 PM

Gee. I'm giving a class this week in human evolution in a creo-evo course for teachers. I get to assign whatever I want. Hmmmm....

Posted by: Pat | August 9, 2009 5:48 PM

I'd be really happy if there was some sort of quality control on these requirements. Like requiring that they be of substance, intelligent, or at the very least, coherent.

Probably hoping too much...

Posted by: Wildflower | August 9, 2009 6:13 PM

I thought April Fool's Day was yesterday.

Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | August 9, 2009 6:25 PM

Dembski is sort of a cross between Alfred W. Lawson and Gilderoy Lockhart, isn't he?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 9, 2009 6:30 PM

Give us your testament Smoggy. You we can believe. The other godbots, not so much, if at all. ;)...

Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 9, 2009 6:40 PM

Despite Rand's atheism, Limbaugh and company have adopted many of her philosophies by replacing the atheism with their ideas of religion.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 9, 2009 6:57 PM

Somewhat OT :

I was totally flabbergasted when while reading the latest Jeffrey Deaver novel over the weekend I came across a passage where 2 prisoners talk to each other and Deaver lets the one guy say something down the lines of "great im going to get killed in prison for telling someone that intelligent design is rubbish",and then goes on to let that guy say "you know there is this guy Richard Dawkins,go read some of his books".
Pretty cool !

Posted by: bobxxxx | August 9, 2009 7:39 PM

Just imagine how hopelessly stupid a person has to be to become a student at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Posted by: Holbach | August 9, 2009 7:47 PM

Zarquon @ 126

As you so simply stated, and it is as simple to understand, and yet atheism is continually straddled with baggage that is not of it's description or intention. Why this never-ending association with ideologies to make it appear as wanting to belong to things it completely rejects? I know that as an atheist, as yourself, we are loathe to be subjected to false associations as an appeasement for lacking something to embrace.

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | August 9, 2009 8:38 PM

#122 Smoggy
PZ's next book just has to be be "The Collected Poetry of Pharyngula", featuring the poems of S. Batzrubble and Cuttlefish.
If it gets released by December , I just finished all my Christmas shopping.

Posted by: DistendedPendulusFrenulum | August 9, 2009 8:48 PM

OMFSM, he's still using Paley's Watch, even though he admitted under oath that that argument "fails to address the central problem of natural selection."

Mendacity is apparently morally OK as long as it promises to produce more politico-religionists.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 9, 2009 9:07 PM

Dear Hypatiadottir (my sweet delectable pumpkin)

You are very kind, but I am sure PZ knows full-well that the sinuous Cuttlefish OM is a real poet, whereas I am a doer of depraved doggerel. My goal is to be ejected for offensive religiosity, but sadly thus far I have failed.

Yours, loosely lyrically,

Smoggy

Posted by: A Recovering Catholic | August 9, 2009 9:46 PM

This is all insane.

Posted by: DistendedPendulusFrenulum | August 9, 2009 10:03 PM

OK, this is in one exam:

You are the Templeton Foundation’s new program director and are charged with overseeing its
programs and directing its funds. Sketch out a 20-year plan for defeating scientific materialism and the
evolutionary worldview it has fostered if you had $50,000,000 per year in current value to do so. What
sorts of programs would you institute? How would you spend the money?

Then, this is in another:

3. Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross have characterized intelligent design as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to undermine our democratic institutions by substituting religious dogma for scientific theory. Accordingly, they see intelligent design as part of a “Wedge Strategy.” Briefly recount the history of the “Wedge” and indicate why Forrest and Gross may be wrong to paint it in conspiratorial terms. Is the “Wedge” a legitimate cultural movement? Explai

Posted by: Iris | August 9, 2009 10:04 PM

Travis @46:

I had no idea you could get a Bachelor of Arts with a concentration in homemaking.

Well maybe I could, Travis, but I'm pretty certain you could not. Having a penis would disqualify you from this particular major: only godly women need apply.

Okay, on second thought there's no way I could get that BA either.

Posted by: Levi in NY | August 9, 2009 10:36 PM

So he's basically admitting that Christianity has lost credibility as a source of morals in our society? Great!

Though you have to wonder, if it was designed by a perfect being with perfect understanding of human nature, wouldn't you expect its credibility to be one of the most self-evidently obvious things in existence? Why did God design it so poorly that three-fourths of the world's population doesn't believe it? Why did God make it more difficult to convince someone of the veracity of Christianity than of things like relativity and quantum mechanics (which are also very counter-intuitive)?

Posted by: I will be anonymous for this one, thanks | August 9, 2009 10:44 PM

Back when I was a heathen Catholic High School girl at St. Pius in the northland, some of my girlfriends and I used to go "porky piggin'" through the grounds of that august institution to test the resolve of the baptist boys.

For the uninitiated, porky piggin' involves a convertible - in our case a 65 Mustang - and occupants who are naked from the waist down - in our case, hot nubile cheerleaders with high GPAs who were all on the pill six months before we lost our virginity.

Posted by: hje | August 9, 2009 10:52 PM

"porky piggin"--that's hilarious. How about "donald duckin?"

Posted by: Fil | August 9, 2009 11:00 PM

@ anonymous heathen from St Pius. Almost makes me wish I were a baptist, it certainly conjures up an hilarious image. What a delightful post. :-)

Back in the days when the boys and girls schools were separate at Aquinas College, we'd meet in the newspaper storage shed in between, for our daily sex-ed lessons. Until mother superior caught about twenty of us pashing on something fierce. Ah, school days and sinning, what fun.

Posted by: Zarquon | August 9, 2009 11:19 PM

Wow, Scooty Puff Jr doesn't know what an ideology is, how surprising. Christianity as the Pope and all his little cardinals would acknowledge, really is an ideology, well it's a bunch of them.

ps

Stay away from wet paper bags, would you?

Posted by: Chris | August 9, 2009 11:23 PM

The new retort is: "I hope Dembski gives you an A for that one."

Posted by: R. Schauer | August 9, 2009 11:35 PM

What I find dumb-founding is that Southwestern Baptist Theological is accredited by http://www.sacscoc.org/

I guess the Southern Association of Colleges and Universities is being operated by a bunch of yahoos who care little wtf these schools teach in their courses let alone what coursework is required to graduate. Fricken great!

The Commission’s mission is the enhancement of educational quality throughout the region and it strives to improve the effectiveness of institutions by ensuring that institutions meet standards established by the higher education community that address the needs of society and students.

Yeah, right! Some batshit-crazy commission with zero accountability toward achieving their mission...outstanding!

IMHO, they're ensuring retardation of learners who've not only been fraudulently hoodwinked and bamboozled by these "colleges" but serve as a detrimental bulwark to society and the functioning thereof. Fucktards!

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 9, 2009 11:52 PM

MikeTheInfidel, #35

GoDaddy! He registered the domain through GoDaddy!? I knew Dembski was a weasely little slime slurping puppy bonker, but this tears it. Anybody who register a domain through GoDaddy is sponsoring domain name theft and squatting.

(Yes, I am pissed about losing "mythusmage.com".)

Posted by: Paul Burnett | August 10, 2009 12:13 AM

"I will be anonymous for this one, thanks" (#149) wrote: "Back when I was a heathen Catholic High School girl at St. Pius in the northland, some of my girlfriends and I used to go "porky piggin" ... For the uninitiated, porky piggin' involves a convertible - in our case a 65 Mustang - and occupants who are naked from the waist down."

Dang, I thought she was kidding - "to drive around naked from the waist down" -
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=porky%20pigging

Posted by: toth | August 10, 2009 12:27 AM

That's nothing--I hear they get extra credit points for each time they Rickroll someone.

Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | August 10, 2009 12:45 AM

I notice none of them have the testicular fortitude to try and gain their 20% off THIS thread.

Posted by: Grenangle | August 10, 2009 12:54 AM

I've made lots of post for evolution. Can I have a PHD P.Z.? No? Oh well back to work then.

Posted by: Aquaria | August 10, 2009 1:28 AM

You are the Templeton Foundation’s new program director and are charged with overseeing its programs and directing its funds. Sketch out a 20-year plan for defeating scientific materialism and the evolutionary worldview it has fostered if you had $50,000,000 per year in current value to do so

Interesting how Dumbfucki seems to think that the Templeton Foundation isn't actually interested in supporting science, but instead wants to assert the supremacy of religion...

Posted by: rufustfirefly | August 10, 2009 2:21 AM

What I would like to see is a sampling of the tests taken and papers written for these "courses".

Posted by: maus | August 10, 2009 2:45 AM

"I notice that nowhere in that requirement does it state that the 2000 word posts need be original."

The less so, the higher grade they get.

Posted by: Gorogh | August 10, 2009 2:54 AM

ID: A lesson in zeal, not truth.

Posted by: 2ndAtheistChild | August 10, 2009 3:12 AM

Completely OT

@MikeM

Our local wackaloon university, William Jessup in Roseville, is pretty useless as well. The only way to get a degree there that's worth anything is to take classes at a Los Rios campus at the same time.

Even Los Rios has a ton of wackaloon fucktards. American River has a large vocal community of evilgelicals. They invited Eric Hovind to speak last semester and had the school officially support Prop. 8, as well as a ton of other racist, homophobic and anti-humanist actions. The best bet out here seems to be the UC and State university systems.

Posted by: Aquaria | August 10, 2009 4:21 AM

How long can the 'University' allow this to go on? Sure martyrdom is a big thing with them, but being the butt of the joke isn't quite the same thing.

They don't think of themselves as the butt of jokes. The school has vomited from its ranks the likes of Rick Warren and Mike Huckabee, among many, many others. They're proud of producing so much hateful stupid. So it's safe to say the board likes what Dumbfucki is peddling. Scarier still, is that Dumbfucki is undoubtedly an intellectual step up for SWBTS.

Scariest of all, SWBTS is sort of the Harvard of Baptist seminaries to hard-line Southern Baptists.

If this is the best, then the Baptists are even dumber than I thought they were, and I thought pond scum might be a little dumber. Thankfully, I am wrong about that. I would never have insulted pond scum so heinously if I'd known better.

Side note: Where Dumbfucki works, Riesel, is something of a joke in Texas. When the local creek was damned up for hydroelectric power, the resulting reservoir was named Lake Creek Reservoir, but it somehow got the name Lake Creek Lake through local usage. It stuck, to the eternal delight of people in places like Troup, Bovina, and Iraan.

Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | August 10, 2009 5:37 AM

Smoggy @ #168

I have never had any doubts whatsoever regarding the fortitude of your testes. Given some of the things I've read in your posts I actually imagine them to be somewhat the size of grapefruits.

Posted by: Shaun | August 10, 2009 5:48 AM

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Posted by: Ragutis | August 10, 2009 6:12 AM

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 9, 2009 3:42 PM

... so few of the ilk can resist taking a swing at a dumbass that even the most interesting original topics are quickly forgotten. Never mind "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal" - the motto at Pharyngula should prob'ly be "No troll goes hungry!"

That's just because everybody wants to be the one that gives Mr. Creosote the troll the "wafer-thin mint" that makes them go "Kablooie!".

Posted by: ElitistB | August 10, 2009 6:22 AM

@184
Sometimes a troll is just a troll.

Posted by: strangebrew | August 10, 2009 6:51 AM

# 124

"I'm just sayin that Atheism certainly has some baggage comparable to theistic tards pretending to rationalism, i.e. Dumbski."

No one has the baggage comparable to the truly 'retarded for jeebus' clones...they are a 'demski' class apart!

An evolutionary branch that is heading for the buffers at such a high rate of knots does not display such cognitive dissonance in belief or social mores...the rabid clones are simply barking fit ta rapture and frothing more then is good for any delusion...and then some!

Desperation does that...they are just a fucking disgrace to humanity...simple like so!

Posted by: Ranson | August 10, 2009 7:30 AM

@#183

Are you saying Smoggy hasn't had his mumps vaccination?

Posted by: Becky | August 10, 2009 7:50 AM

Class credit for playing on the web. I wonder if you can get a masters in Solitaire too......

Posted by: DistendedPendulusFrenulum | August 10, 2009 8:14 AM

You know, Dembski may be smarter than we think. What he has going here is the idea that any casuistry at all, regardless of how contradictory one argument may be over another, is OK as long as it supports Christian apologetics. Thus, we get pastors and political operatives and so on who are trained in ignoring their own moral relativism! Perfect!

Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | August 10, 2009 9:12 AM

I'm of two minds about the "anti-crank filter" idea. On one hand, it would get rid of a lot of noise. On the other hand, it would let the cranks scream even louder about how we're supposedly censoring them and fostering an echo chamber. On the gripping hand, trolls make such good punching bags!

Frankly, if something like this were to be written, it should probably be akin to Advogato. In a nutshell, a few root users (here, it'd probably be PZ himself, and maybe the OMs) would be unconditionally trusted, unable to be flagged as a crank. Other users would have their posts rated. The less cranky a given user, the more weight is given to their ratings of other users.

Thoughts?

Posted by: Ronald Perl | August 10, 2009 9:19 AM

I Know Why The Caged Troll Sings

Posted by: Fake Al Gore | August 10, 2009 9:51 AM

This story (not from your site, though) has made it to the front page of Slashdot:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/10/1237245/College-Credits-For-Trolling-the-Web

Posted by: JennyAnyDots | August 10, 2009 10:35 AM

Felix,

I particularly liked the interviewer describing part of it simply as "flawed" when Parker seemed to be flailing around on the evidence vs speculation line! That made me want to cheer.

Posted by: MK | August 10, 2009 11:03 AM

Perhaps that makes them read the atheist bogs? And if one of them is slightly intelligent, would drop pursuing a degree. Talk about playing with fire!

Posted by: Lynna | August 10, 2009 11:47 AM

What I find dumb-founding is that Southwestern Baptist Theological is accredited by http://www.sacscoc.org/

How *do* these institutions get accreditation? Seems like an obvious angle from which to attack them -- change the accreditation system so that only those who truly educate (as opposed to indoctrinate) are accredited.

Posted by: Lynna | August 10, 2009 12:17 PM

ALERT! as they state in the post at Dawkins.net, it IS satire. Yeah, I was beginning to suspect as much. Stung by Poe!

Where have the morons who believe this is a Poe or have trouble believing it's real BEEN? This is Dembski as he has always been. Get your heads out of the sand.

I never for a moment thought Dembski's site was Poe. Sounded/looked/smelled like the real thing to me. Reasonable people make the mistake of thinking that no one could be that far off-kilter and still walk upright. But I have lots of examples around me for comparison. It's a miracle that they can still walk upright, but, lo, they do.

Posted by: Barklikeadog | August 10, 2009 12:23 PM

You have to admit it's pretty fucking funny!

Posted by: JafafaHots | August 10, 2009 12:29 PM

WTF? What is with you people saying it's satire?

Wherever do you get that idea?

(The word "sarcasm" in the link simply refers to the preceeding words, "rigorous academic standards.")

Posted by: Carlie | August 10, 2009 12:34 PM

This is sobering news,’ says Ed Stetzer, director of Nashville-based LifeWay Research, which is affiliated with the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. ‘It seems the teen years are like a free trial on a product. By 18, when it’s their choice whether to buy in to church life, many don’t feel engaged and welcome,’ says associate director Scott McConnell”

A lot of that is their own damned fault. I quit going to church (Southern Baptist) after college because there was nothing there for my age group. They push so much energy into child and youth programs that there's nothing for people who are young adults without children. I tried probably close to a dozen different churches across a few states, and none of them had anything for people between the ages of 20-35. Some then come back once they have kids and need to feel like they're upstanding church people raising their kids right, but more likely once people quit going they realize that they really don't need it, and the longer they stay away the more bizarre it all seems when they go back.

Posted by: stogoe | August 10, 2009 12:40 PM

Lynna,
No reputable accrediting organization will touch them, so what they've done is create their own accreditation system. They really, truly are building a parallel society apart from the rest of us.

Posted by: JafafaHots | August 10, 2009 12:43 PM

Ok nevermind I'm confused. (insomnia)

Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | August 10, 2009 12:49 PM

Wot? No questions like 'Calculate the CSIs of a crocodile and a duck and explain the difference?'

No 'Explain how the explanatory filter distinguishes between a brick and a chimpanzee?'

No 'Explain why the Boulder Dam is irreducibly complex?'

Not even 'How many beans make 5?'

Posted by: House Martin | August 10, 2009 12:57 PM

A bit of fresh air compared to Father Tom's madness.

http://thomas2026.wordpress.com

A xian who can see the the reality of Ham's Disney world and the likes of mad Tom himself.

Posted by: pixelfish | August 10, 2009 1:37 PM

I suppose for the possibility that some of these folks will end up arguing themselves straight into apostasy and critical thinking, we should be glad that these course requirements exist. Who knows, but that some poor deluded fool will reach a point where their mind can no longer deal with all the cognitive dissonance, and they seriously begin to consider the rational arguments. This was definitely a pattern on the ex-mormon boards I used to frequent.

At the same time, I'm trying to think of the reaction that these same people would have were they to discover a science teacher requiring their students to go to a theological site and argue for evolution. The words "shit fit" come to mind.

And too, I'm appalled that the teacher is requiring his students to hew precisely to his beliefs in order to maintain their grade. No challenges to the material he presents are allowed, no new information can be allowed to shape new thoughts and provide new theories. Meh. How can they call that science?

Posted by: Jesse D. | August 10, 2009 1:54 PM

I really don't see what's the big deal here. To get a BS in Physics at my university, you have to graffiti the Chemistry building with such anti-chemistry slogans:

"Chem ∈ Phys"

"Newton > Lavoisier"

"The notion of an orbit is merely a quaint abstraction that obscures the reality of the probabilistic nature of an electron's position."

Posted by: MrFire | August 10, 2009 2:35 PM

Jesse D:

Them's fightin' words!

While you were off spray-painting our buildings, we were making out with your girlfriends and boyfriends.

/maturity

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 10, 2009 2:54 PM

Doug Little, Smoggy is not a Poe, Smoggy is a very well done and sharply barbed parody. And we are blessed that Floyd Rubber forces Smoggy to hang out with this unruly mob.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 10, 2009 3:39 PM

I do not see Smoggy as a Poe for the simple reason that he is not trying to fool anyone about who he is and what he is doing. And he is funnier and insightful than any Poe I have stumbled upon.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 10, 2009 3:52 PM

I don't see Smooggy as a Poe either. He is just too over the top to be considered as being a serious poster. Considering the comic value of some godbots, that say something about his style.

Posted by: Jadehawk | August 10, 2009 4:24 PM

thanks for making my point, walton. only an libertarian idiot could say "As far as I can see, the present US status quo is the best solution all round." with a straight face.

Posted by: Walton | August 10, 2009 4:28 PM

only an libertarian idiot could say "As far as I can see, the present US status quo is the best solution all round." with a straight face.

I didn't mean to say it was perfect. The point I was trying to make, as I thought was clear from the rest of the post, is that in a country where there is massive, irreconcilable public disagreement over the most fundamental questions of what constitutes a "real education", I can't see that forcing government officials to adjudicate on what constitutes a "university" would be a good route to go down, for the reasons which I outlined above in considerable detail.

Posted by: E.V. | August 10, 2009 4:45 PM

#242:
Now that's funny.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 10, 2009 4:55 PM

Hell, I'm a troll and that's the stupidest thing I"ve ever heard. An ID class? Come on...

Allen MacNeill, who calls himself an evolutionary psychologist (yes, that's an actual field now - don't get me started), taught just such a course at Cornell Uni a couple years back:

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/

Well, technically, it was supposed to be a comparison between the vacuity that is ID and the substance based thing we like to call the ToE, but it devolved mostly into inane debate that Allen let go on and on. The "IDEA" club on campus was ecstatic.

http://soundingthetrumpetblog.com/category/evolution/

IOW, it was pretty pathetic, and many of us called him out on it many times.

It did far more harm than good, frankly.

Posted by: Jesse D. | August 10, 2009 5:45 PM

As far as I can see, the present US status quo is the best solution all round. The existence of Liberty and Oral Roberts "Universities" isn't harming you or your children.

If only this were true. These Universities hand out law degrees to people who then go on to further their ideological agenda, now with the letters J.D. beside their name. See this article.

Posted by: CJO | August 10, 2009 6:36 PM

Smoggy actually achieves a disproof of Poe's Law. Remember, it's supposed to say that you can't tell the difference. The term "Poe" is experiencing some creep, e.g. the common use of the term "obvious poe." That should be oxymoronic, but it's currency indicates that the term is now applied to any online commenter who parodies fundamentalist lunacy without a. explicitly acknowledging the parody, or b. taking it to obscene lengths, e.g. Smoggy.

"Paliban Mom" was a classic Poe. Smoggy's just Smoggy. Maybe we need Batzrubble's corollary to Poe's Law: If you talk enough about your cellmate and make enough references to anal and oral sex, they'll be able to tell the difference.

Posted by: David Wiener | August 10, 2009 7:46 PM

Ha - this is now spilling over in the (geek) mainstream over at slashdot:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/10/1237245/College-Credits-For-Trolling-the-Web?from=rss

Posted by: Anri | August 10, 2009 8:10 PM

Walton sez:

"As far as I can see, the present US status quo is the best solution all round. The existence of Liberty and Oral Roberts "Universities" isn't harming you or your children."

Until, of course, the graduates begin voting.

Then, they are hurting both myself and my family (I don't have children). And my friends (especially the gay ones).

Until, of course, the wave of mail-order diplomas reduces the value of my own education, and the ones my family members earned with hard work and sacrifice.

Until, of course, someone puts these diploma-mill graduates in a position of power or responsibility, like on the board of directors for the insurance company taking care of my medical bills. Or an advisory council for future energy solutions. Or a fact-finding team for a diplomatic resolution in the Middle East.

So, yes, the case can be clearly made that so long as they never enter society at all, they aren't doing me any harm.

Posted by: Shihali | August 11, 2009 1:25 AM

While not related, I've noticed that there is a correlation between rejecting science in favor of the Bible and believing in medical quackery. Since the Bible does not explain how to treat asthma or how to diet, any explanation is presumably equally valid (since the scientific method has been rejected) and is worth using based on grounds such as cost-benefit analysis with scientific evidence excluded - in which remedies using some magic-powered explanation of the universe will usually win.

Posted by: TalkingSnakeBite | August 11, 2009 2:51 PM

There is a delicious irony in seeing the SW Baptist Theological Seminary's curriculum, where they have a course entitled "ID or Unintelligent Evo" - it's listed in the "philosophy" section.

More ammo for the NCSE at the next courthouse flogging of ID?

Posted by: Slucid | August 11, 2009 9:14 PM

"For now, Iron-Balls Batzrubble will do."

Rimmer reference there Smoggy?

Posted by: Mike in Ontario, NY | August 18, 2009 1:44 PM

I know that this thread is days old and nobody's reading the comments anymore, but I was struck that on Dumbski's page, he even misspelled undergrad as "undgrad". Christ, they can't even get an informal colloquialism right.

Posted by: Rob | September 20, 2009 12:35 PM

Now he's decided to give his students extra marks for attending a screening of NOVA's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" and the subsequent panel discussion and "engaging the Darwin-lovers" they'll find there:

"New as of 09.16.09! Dear Class, I want to share with you a few things: (1) For extra credit I'd like you to go to SMU on September 24th. On that day there are two back-to-back events at SMU celebrating Darwin -- go to smu.edu/smunews/darwin/events.asp and scroll down to September 24th. I don't want you going there merely as spectators but will indicate in class how you might actively participate and engage the Darwin-lovers you'll find there."