Dembski posted an anonymous email he received accusing a "prominent anti-ID proponent" of supressing an "ID-friendly" experiment (actually a computer model) that was developed by an undergraduate student.
What's interesting here is that, despite not being able to confirm anything in the e-mail, Dembski posts it, albeit with the name of the university and professor removed. While he cant prove anything specific, Dembski obviously feels that hints of bad actions by "scientific materialists" are useful for the cause. On the other hand, if the e-mail is a fake and a setup to get Dembski in trouble, it's also a plot by the "scientific materialists"! Useful, eh? The shills at echo chamber that is Uncommon Descent seem to think it's real and are engaging in some amateur detective work. Dembski is unsure.
In the comments section, Dembski offers an excuse for not getting any real research done:
The pressures directed against frontline ID proponents are real. From your armchair, it is easy enough to say that we need simply to get to work. But families and livelihoods really are under threat by these Darwinian fascists, and when our days are spent trying to shore up the latter, the former does not get done.
Yes, Bill. It is the "Darwinian fascists" who are preventing ID from developing into anything remotely like a scientific paradigm. It is the "Darwinian fascists" who are preventing you publishing in mathematical journals. It is the "Darwinian fascists" who are preventing you from holding down a non-theological job. It is the "Darwinian fascists" who are preventing you from applying your "vise strategy" as in Kitzmiller.
It is the "Darwinian fascists" who are causing the crisis in the Middle East, terrorism, high gas prices, American Idol, and the losing record of the Arizona Cardinals. Oh, and they set up Mel Gibson as well.
- Log in to post comments
(Pssst - that's "vise strategy)
Argh. Guess my mind was elsewhere :)
Fixed, thanks.
Friend Fruit: No, I believe that Dembski's real Kitzmiller strategy WAS a "vice strategy". For a guy, he seems to have a strange fixation on guys with beards, like JC and Darwin. He had best be careful, as his fixation with men will get him tossed out of the 700 Club, and most Baptist Seminaries. Plus, I don't think any of us really want to know what was REALLY going on with Dembski and DaveScott, but I don't think it's legal in most Southern States...and would certainly bring Dr. Buffalo Bill to the attention of the Vice Squad.
You forgot the real reason Dembski would not want to post the names of the professor and the university involved. If he did, we'd be able to find out the other side of the story, which might not corroborate with his conspiracy theories. For that matter, if he has the university and professor's name, couldn't he have done the leg-work to verify the story before posting it? But why do that or let others embarrass him (once again) by doing it for him when there's a juicy anti-Darwiniac story to drum up? Right?
BTW, it was the Darwinian Pressure Group, Delta Pi Gamma, who set up Mel Gibson. He bought the drinks, too. Sweet!
So, Dembski is howling at the moon that Darwinian Fascists prevented him from doing any research during his 5-year sabbatical at Baylor?
Call me cynical, but I think Dembski created the letter himself. It certainly has a lot of the "just so" qualities one associates with christian conversion stories.
I know that Heinlein's Razor says we should assume stupidity before malice, but Dembski has displayed plenty of both... I reckon he cooked this e-mail up out of whole cloth just to raise his rabble a bit, and maybe to deflect attention from the Kansas thing. But I'm just cynical like that.
Just when I think the shenanigans at UD can get no more comical . . .
This one smells really bad.
This must be a remarkable scholar. Despite the 'F' grade, which sunk his major in computer science, he was still able to qualify for a degree in three years! Do any universities actually grant "minor" degrees with no major?
These numbers look very suspicious. It should be easy to calculate the odds on the playing card analogy he offered, I get .25 survival for one pick and 0.44 for two rounds as described (0.25 + 3* (0.25 * .255)). As a rough approximation, that doubles the odds of survival, and about 0.94 of the Xenopus eggs should not have developed fully.
How unbelievable. It's hard to accept that as anything but a convenient plot device.
How many times have I heard that one? Doesn't DaveScot still insist he's an agnostic?
Perhaps he could inform us what work is being disrupted by this email--and just how it is that he is so easily rattled. Are they more evidence-free probabilities that he's working on? Then no harm done. Is he actually thinking of doing proper work with empirical data? Well, that would be interesting, if unlikely.
More importantly, what are the guidelines for such "work" done with the assumption that intelligence worked without any identifiable constraints?
In any case, what is really more pathetic than using a possible troll as an excuse not to do anything meaningful with ID? He even had a known troll (both on the forums and in personal harrassment) running his gawd-awful censorious forum (if you want something resembling fascism, UD is it--if on the mild side). So the man who consorts with and uses trolls (till DaveTard becomes too much of an embarrassment) is so delicate that he can't get any work done due to some nonsense emails.
For the record, Mirecki has the only likely claim to actually getting beat up over these matters, and he was on our side. And where does the vast majority of BS come from?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Isn't it so cute how Dembski snipped out his own e-mail address in the letter, rather than the student's?
"Concerned Scientist" - why does that seem to ring a bell?
It's 2006! How can anybody censor anything?
All this kid has to do is rewrite the code (he wrote it once, he can't write it again?) and post it on UD (or on Pandasthumb or right here, for that matter).
Poof! Censorship gone.
Having said that, don't hold your breath, everybody.
Male bovines?
I don't think Dembski could have possibly made this up. If Dembski had made this up himself, he wouldn't have so openly and repeatedly labelled it a "troll"; I don't think Dembski has that much of a sense of irony.
Ah, the one and possibly only great tragedy of the Kitzmiller case-- that Dembski weasled out of testifying, and thus denied us of the joy of seeing him try to speak in a setting where the goal is getting truthful answers, as opposed to providing a platform for PR. (To say nothing of the unfortunate circumstance that in the process of pulling out, Dembski automatically denied us the chance to see Shallit on the stand...)
Ah well, I guess one can't get everything one wants.
What is fascinating is that if you read Dembskis entire post on this, he presents it not as to the truth of what it claims but as an example of someone trying to SET HIM UP.
So you are misrepresenting the whole thing becaue you HATE his guts.
You all hate any oppositon because it SMELLS of religion.
The atheists like Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and their ilk are motivated to do whatever they can to eliminate religion.
Thats all this is about. If this was just about discussions of science and some philosophical objections there wouldn't be the viciousness attached to all this has become.
Look, if you would jus
Actu
Actually, it is atheism that is the problem...more specifically, the attempt to make man (or at least some men through the power of the state) God.
Then, when the idea of experimentation on humans, made acceptable by beginning with human embryos defined as not being human at all, is more and more accepted, cloning, combination of human and animal DNA and other perversions can be utilized on a grand scale to create a race of slaves governed by eugenically superior Supermen.
Nietzsche's syphillitic atheistic ramblings made real by the power of science and guided by the perverted lights of that science.
Thats the plan anyway.
But like all megalomaniac dreams it will fail.
I think you've misread the intent of Dembski's posting entirely.
It seems obvious to me that he considers the letter-writer a "troll" ( note the title: Troll Of The Month Award, and his second note to the writer "I'm going to conclude that you are a troll") and does not believe the content. His first email to the troll reveals that he is highly suspicious that corroboration is not produced.
You said:"Dembski obviously feels that hints of bad actions by "scientific materialists" are useful for the cause."
This is not obvious at all. What is obvious is that he thinks this letter-writer was engaged in bad actions.
"The shills at echo chamber that is Uncommon Descent seem to think it's real and are engaging in some amateur detective work."
This is a very unflattering reading of the comments.
Only two (possibly three) of the commenters give the letter-writer any benefit of the doubt.
What the commenters said:
"His non-replies and failure to produce anything concrete prove his own duplicitous behavior."
"the work the student supposedly did"
"Sneaky one this. "
"I don't believe it."
"Someone is pulling your leg, Bill."
"I am quite happy to place this one in the dumpster."
"A butch of story telling without any mechanism to back the huge claim. "
Charlie, while the comments from UD suggest that the posters don't believe the letter, they do suggest that they believe Dembski was set-up by "evil materialists." Those comments you quoted either explicitly or implicitly attempt to link the letter somehow to evolution.
So John Lynch's analysis is spot on: this letter is a win-win for Dembski, because it does rouse his small contingent of hangers-on.
Ric, I agree with everything you said except this:
"So John Lynch's analysis is spot on"
These comments by Lynch are very far from being on the spot:
"Dembski obviously feels that hints of bad actions by "scientific materialists" are useful for the cause."
"The shills at echo chamber that is Uncommon Descent seem to think it's real and are engaging in some amateur detective work."
The closest Lynch comes to accurately representing the situation is here:
"On the other hand, if the e-mail is a fake and a setup to get Dembski in trouble, it's also a plot by the "scientific materialists"!"
But this is not "on the other hand".
This is the only hand.
Dembski and his 'echo chamber' obviously believe the letter to be a fake and a set-up to get Dembski in trouble.
And yes, the implication is that it is from someone who would want to get Dembski into trouble.
Most likely and anti-IDist.
Do you agree with that implication? Do you consider it more likely to be a serious academician than an 11-year-old boy in Dayton, Ohio?
Another smelly thing about the letter: Someone with a bachelor's degree and a minor of economics signing themselves "Concerned Scientist"? If it's not fake it's remarkably pretentious.
Wamba,
What implication?
The term 'anti-IDist' makes, and is intended to make, no distinction between an 11-year-old in Dayton and a serious academician.
There is no sign of anybody, especially myself, equating this foolish hoax to a serious academician. Calling the troll an anit-IDist, or Darwinist has no such connotation.
What I implied was that somebody trolling an ID site, and trying to set-up the pro-ID proprietor of that site, would most likely be anti-ID.
Uh, I'm sorry but who cares?
"Darwinian Fascists"??
Where is the word "fascists" in Dembski's post? He uses the word "Darwinian enforcers", not "fascists". Or did Dembski edit his words since Dr. Lynch posted his response?
This is the full quote from Uncommon Descent, as of 7:21pm E.S.T. (Thursday, 8-2-06):
"Barrett1: What have you experienced at the hands of scientific materialists? Are you aware of the Sternberg case? The pressures directed against frontline ID proponents are real. From your armchair, it is easy enough to say that we need simply to get to work. But families and livelihoods really are under threat by Darwinian enforcers, and when our days are spent trying to shore up the latter, the former gets short shrift. Of course, that is only as long as the persecution lasts. My persecution at Baylor lasted just a few months, after which I had essentially a 5-year sabbatical, in which I was highly productive."
Best regards,
apollo230
He edited it and changed "fascists" to "enforcers".
And I don't remember reading
in the original version.
Apollo, Dembski changed his comment without mentioning it.
Here's the original exchange:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=1…
That's so funny! Yes, I read "fascists", too. I didn't think I had to screen capture Dembski's site being an upright Christian wouldn't lie sort of person he is.
Or was.
Or never was.
A few years back, wasn't Dembski promoting a software package that some ID-minded pal was writing to demonstrate the futility of selection in generating 'complexity' or something like that? Whatever happened to that simulation? What was the name of that package?
It seems a lot of their early ideas tanked and were quietly euthanized without leaving a ripple in the pond afterwards (mixing some metaphors in that last sentence...). Wasn't there another idea about technological development 'theory' as well? We should archive these gems somewhere.
Unsympathetic Reader asked
It was called MESA (Google Mesa Dembski Bracht for more), and Dembski is still making reference to it -- see, for example, his Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Witnesses in the Kitzmiller trial, part of his masturbatory fantasy of having actually testified there.
How many of the seven warning signs of hoaxes does this story trip?
From Robert Park:
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
(Park's version here: http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm)
Just to toss in a few cents worth: when Dembski posted the "troll" email, he pointedly noted it was after he had posted my "assinine emails" (see the context in DEMBSKI ALERT at Talk Reason.org and Panda's Thumb coutesy posting).
Whether Bill is getting paranoid and thought I was somehow connected to the troll email remains to be seen, but the odd context of his bringing me up did strike me as curious.
I don't understand why Dembski finds it hard to do ID research. I have an ID experiment running here at my house and it cost me almost nothing. I sealed up an empty cardboard box with duct tape and placed it on a bathroom scale. I expect that sometime in the near future The Designer is going to design something and poof it into existence in the box. I figure I should be able to see the scale change by at least a few pounds if not more.
Should I keep this really quiet? Will my family be threatened by Atheists if they find out that I am close to proving ID? Please advise.
Hey, stop picking on the Cardinals. This is their year. That's why Dembski isn't getting anything published! He's been counteracting the Darwinian fascist suppression of the Cardinals. Of course. Well, I for one am pissed that Dembski et al took the (w)Edge away from my Colts.
Damn their wedge fixation!
Dembski knows the guy is a troll because of
Dembski knows full well that those aren't his principles and that no one can seriously believe they are.
There's a lot that isn't obvious to truth-denying IDiots.
I like the phrase "prominent anti-ID proponent". Could the Designer please assemble a Strunk and White for Dembski please?
Dembski is notorious for editing his own posts and not mentioning it. I have seen him edit posts in threads that make all the follow up comments seem ridiculous non-sequitors. The man is a charlatan and a disgrace to the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
WAD is always posting shit without identifying the source, other than "a trusted colleague" or "a senior colleague" etc. Either it's fabricated or it's plausible deniability but clearly what it's NOT is honest.
apollo230,
So will you go back to the UD thread now and ask why Dembski edited that, or ask them to delete your comment, in order to clarify now?
With all the money that the DI has, can't it afford a little electronic journal to publish this "research"? Technical articles by ID-iots exposed to scrutiny aren't forthcoming, now are they? The only "work" they expose is in their books, which, of course, are not highly technical as they are aimed at their Evangelical supporters, and have already been debunked.
My bet is that the DI will be around for quite a while, with all the rich fundies out there who drool after the idea of injecting anything resembling God/religion back into the public school systems. But, my bet is that the longer this sham goes on, some of the more moderate (read: honest) ID-iots will lose faith in the promise of data. And, martyr stories like Sternberg's can only tide you over for so long, in the face of obvious resources at their disposal to publish the work themselves.
Look, quite whining. I know how to shut up the IDists."
Just create life.
And do it by a mindless process.
End of Story.
Look, quite whining. I know how to shut up the IDists."
Just create life.
And do it by a mindless process.
End of Story.
It's already happened, numbnuts, look at the evidence for mindless and non-rational "design" appearing in organisms. Nothing shuts up the obtuse, however.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Charlie said: I think you've misread the intent of Dembski's posting entirely.
So how about if you tell us what Dembski's intent was. I get several emails every day from fake sources, but you don't see me posting them. What exactly is Dembski's point?
Look, quite whining. I know how to shut up the IDists."
Just create life.
And do it by a mindless process.
End of Story.
And while we're at it, we can shut up the Holocaust deniers by creating a time machine. And we can shut up the Loch Ness Monster evangelists by draining Loch Ness. And we can shut up the flat-earthers by taking a picture of the earth from space. Oh wait... we already did that, and it didn't work.
He's now a disgrace to the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary as well.
Hi Secondclass,
The intent of Dembski's post seems to have been to make good on his warning to the troll ("conclude that you are a troll and will use your letter any way I see fit. -WmAD"") and to expose the troll's tactic.
I think it had nothing to do with implying that there was any wrong doing on the part of the professor (that Dembski refused to name) or the university (that Dembski refused to name) supposedly involved.
I think it had everything to do with showing the lengths to which some people will go to discredit him and maybe even to discourage similar attempts.
I wrote "I think you've misread the intent of Dembski's posting entirely" because Lynch was well off the mark in his opening statements:
"What's interesting here is that, despite not being able to confirm anything in the e-mail, Dembski posts it, albeit with the name of the university and professor removed."
It is precisely because the letter-writer's accusations could not be confirmed, in any way, that Dembski posted the email. The fact that he withheld the names is proof positive that he did not take these claims seriously and that he was not implying "bad actions" on the professor's part.
"While he cant prove anything specific, Dembski obviously feels that hints of bad actions by "scientific materialists" are useful for the cause."
In posting the letter Dembski demonstrated no intent of proving anything specific about the professor, nor of implying anything about him. His post was entirely directed at the con-man who libeled the professor and was trying to implicate Dembski in the same.
There is also the element of self-preservation here. If this hoax blows up in some way in the future Dembski's position is now a matter of public record.
And, after all, isn't it human nature to want to demonstrate when we are wise to a gag?
I have trouble buying that, given the line about "Darwinian fascists". Do you realy think he would use such a term to describe an obvious underage hacker?
Charlie:
And yes, the implication is that it is from someone who would want to get Dembski into trouble. Most likely and anti-IDist.
Wamba:
Do you agree with that implication? Do you consider it more likely to be a serious academician than an 11-year-old boy in Dayton, Ohio?
Charlie:
What implication? The term 'anti-IDist' makes, and is intended to make, no distinction between an 11-year-old in Dayton and a serious academician.
Wamba:
I have trouble buying that, given the line about "Darwinian fascists". Do you realy think he would use such a term to describe an obvious underage hacker?
Wamba, you have conflated two different things here.
Dembski did not use the term "Darwinian fascist" to describe the troll.
Notice that I introduced the term anti-IDist in reference to the troll.
Nowhere did anybody say that the troll was an academician or that 'anti-IDist' implied such a thing.
Now you (re)introduce the "Darwinian fascist" remark, which was a response and reference to academia/the scientific establishment. But there never was any implication that the troll was part of this establishment, nor that "Darwinian fascist" (now "enforcer") referred to him.
In Dembski's parlance he was always the 'troll', in mine, the person trolling an ID blog was likely an "anti-IDist".
Again, the claim that someone was trolling the blog, and my reference to him as an 'anti-IDist' do not make any implication about age, power or geography, as per your first question: "Do you agree with that implication? Do you consider it more likely to be a serious academician than an 11-year-old boy in Dayton, Ohio? "
Charlie, you repeat yourself. It is boring. Your apologia is no more effective with repetition.
That's right, Charlie. It is now a matter of public record that Dembski used the term "Darwinian fascists", and that he later edited this without acknowledgment.
Now go away.
My repetition is a reflection of the questions asked of me, Wamba.
"Now go away."
Are you banning me now that you've interviewed me to your satisfaction?
Regarding the computer simulation Dembski reported quite some time ago, RBH mentions:
Hmm... Last sighted 2002. Mentioned in 2004 by Micah Sparacio as a project 'on haitus'. That's what I thought.
I also recall an even older claim by Dembski about a model (by a Russian?) of technological innovation that he thought had parallels to biology in such a way as to suggest the influence of a designer in life's history. That one has been MIA for quite some time too.
Seems the well has been pretty dry...
Look, Legion has shown up. Still looking for places to spew your ignorance since you all have been banned at RSR?
I also found it pretty humorous how amazed some at UD were of a simple WhoIs look up on the email.