Someone hunted down this post by DaveScot's biggest fan that contains all the posts that led the Blog Czar himself to be deposed (ironic, since Dembski likes to compare "Darwinists" to the Soviet commie bad guys and here he is overthrowing his own self-appointed "czar"). I missed the thread completely at UD, which was subsequently - stop if you've heard this one before - deleted as though it had never existed. The original post was by Dembski himself and it was about evolutionary psychology, specifically about Desmond Morris' notion that brilliant men are, by nature, philanderers and skirt chasers.
That brought a whole lot of comments, including Dave giving the standard "men are polyamorous by nature because we produce so much sperm" argument. He declares that polygamy for men is "a biological imperative" and argues that women are inherently attracted to smart men and want them to father their children. Denyse O'Leary responded to that, pointing out that when men engage in adulterous affairs with women, there are virtually never children involved. Indeed, both go to great lengths to avoid children, for obvious reasons. That made Dave get all snippy with her. And since O'Leary apparently ranks higher on Dembski's list of favorite sycophants than Dave, ol' Dave got the boss's boot in his posterior.
I should also point out that there is a significant irony in the fact that ID advocates continually argue that acceptance of evolution leads to all sorts of immoral behaviors and provides the justification for adultery and homosexuality and all sorts of other evil things, yet here is one of their own advocating precisely that - while I, an evolution advocate, think that position is nonsense. And to make it even funnier, he does so while bragging about his past as the Deuce Bigalow of Texas (in a comment that Janie apparently didn't copy on her page):
Don't you mean "all your girlfriends"? Oops. But really, once you've had a few wives of other men yelling at you in the throes of passion "I want to have your baby" then you'll understand. It's a little disconcerting at
first but you get used to it after a while. It's a dirty job but someone has to make the world a smarter place. Some choose to teach children so they'll be smarter and some choose to make them smarter via genetics. It's all good. -ds
My goodness, he does make a charming buffoon, doesn't he? DaveScot is big pimpin, baby. He's been so busy having married women beg him to sow his seed in their fertile wombs that he scarcely has time anymore to be a really good blog czar. He also says that he won't be commenting any more at UD, which I personally find quite disappointing. How will I ever replace such entertainment in my life?
- Log in to post comments
There's always Larry. *L*
Anyway, an egotistical buffoon like DaveScot can't possibly help but share his genius rantings with the world. He'll find a way.
It must smart though to be tossed aside for a mere woman. Semper Fi indeed.
For further evidence of how Dave feels about Denyse O'Leary, see HERE:
(http://udoj.blogspot.com/2006/07/mom-please-dont-read-this-one_18.html)
On July 18, 2006 4:44 PM, DaveScot said...
I hate to disappoint the church burnin' ebola boys but I won't be commenting on UD in the future. I just told the smarmy Canadian cross dresser to go fuck itself in an email. It would have banned me in any case as it's nowhere near as cool as Bill Dembski. The stick up its disgusting ass could make a redwood feel inadequate. I'm going to go ahead and forgive Bill for this monumental brainfart as he's going through some long term bad shit on the homefront with a sick child. I felt bad about bailing out on him at a time like this but he forced my hand. No big deal. I had a few extra hours today to finish rebuilding the carbs on my jetboat (it's back together and running great) and throw a ball in the water for my puppy. He's napping at my feet on the houseboat at the moment. I think we'll go out for a swim and then take the jetboat for a longer validation run.
P.S. if my dog was as ugly as the Canadian cross dresser I'd shave his ass and teach him to walk backwards.
HAHAHA - I kill me sometimes!
Dave seems to be becoming quite the raconteur now...
Holy crap! If anyone on our side had said anything even near that vicious about Dembski and O'Leary a week ago, DaveScot would have thrown a fit about how rude we are. My oh my, but hell hath no fury like a bootlicker scorned.
Rev. BigDumbChimp linked to this comment this morning too, and I found it hard to believe that even DaveScot could be so crude and pathetic. I dunno, maybe it's the real deal. I can't say I can prove it ain't.
That is really sad.
Yeah when I found that comment I almost fell out of my chair.
It sounds exactly like the emails I got from Dave, when we banned him from PT for threatening to hack the website.
Just so everyone's aware, we're trying to gather and sort all the comments we missed and they'll get posted to the blog where they go.
That project is currently on the back burner, though, as we're currently experiencing technical difficulties with our internet connection.
Thanks for the traffic, though.
JanieBelle
If you read many of the comments on Janie's blog, DaveScot actually appears quite reasonable. He seems to be enjoying joining in on the fun that AtBC has been having.
I don't read UD, to whom were the "smarmy Canadian cross dresser" comments referring?
Cheers.
He is referring to Denyse O'Leary.
Well, we all knew this would happen one day. Yes, Denyse may be a smoother snake-oil salesman than DaveTard, but ID is still ID, and Buffalo Bill is still Buffalo Bill. If there is any truth to the old adage that we are judged by the company we keep, then this is quite a telling little circus, with Dembski continuing to surround himself with clowns. I am sure we are all confidnet that a real autodict like DaveTard(or do you prefer real dick like DaveTard?) the self-professed genius with an IQ of 150+, will have no problem continuing to contribute to our knowledge base of how Homo Erectus interacted with others.
Um, so you think the comment listed above is reasonable? Taking that with all the idocy he displays..er rather... displayed at UD I think reasonable is the last word anyone could ever use to describe DaveScot.
Trust me, it's the real Dave Scot. Believe me. It's not out of character for him at all. And now that he's not employed by Dembski anymore, he's not bothering to make nice with the UD types who annoyed him.
Keep in mind that DaveScot's supposed IQ scores are in fact extrapolated (by him) off of his SAT scores from 25+ years ago.
I couldn't believe that comment, so I had to go check it out for myself to make sure it wasn't an impersonator. WOW. DaveScot really dropped a few depth charges on his way out of the harbor. We wll know that DaveScot is a hypocrit, but I wonder, with being virtually kicked off of UD, the last blog to keep him on, will Dave mellow out? Will he start up his own blog and yell at the wall all day? Or will he suddenly flip right around and tell everyone the inside details that Bill Dembski has revealed to him and do science a favor for once?
You know, the time he posted about growing his own mushrooms, I actually thought that he could do something productive for a moment. A moment.
Onw downside, though, I had a song I wrote about UD that I was going to have sung to a cartoon theme song, and now I'm going to have to change the lyrics. It may not work any more. Curses! Curses!
To find out a LOT about Dave Scot, go here:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=441d9eb0…
This is where his most devoted fans post their observations and collect his best bon mots.
DaveScot: It would have banned me in any case as it's nowhere near as cool as Bill Dembski.
Huh? Ms. O'Leary is much cooler than Dembski. Wow, what in the world is that boy been smoking? Holy cow.
I never, EVER, thought I'd say this, but I think Dave is right on this one (although I might have used slightly different wording), and O'Leary is wrong. Even if there are few children resulting from affairs (which I don't think is necessarily true -- try watching Maury Povich or Jerry Springer sometime), that has no relevance. People (in the modern world, with birth control) may try to avoid offspring in these situations for social reasons, but that says nothing about the deep biological drives that lead them into affairs.
Even if there are few children resulting from affairs (which I don't think is necessarily true -- try watching Maury Povich or Jerry Springer sometime), that has no relevance
Denyse's claims also seem to ignore the millions of years of human evolution that REALLY led us to where we are. 20th century Oprah-reality with easily available birth control is something quite new. For 99% of our history, things were quite different.
In fact, I see no reason to believe that for most of the history of humans that this was true:
"When men engage in adulterous affairs with women, there are virtually never children involved.
But fundies have a habit of thinking that what they see from their own immediate perspective is all that has ever existed.
Believing in a 6,000-year-old earth helps that habit.
I just don't think the evolutionary argument for polyamory is any stronger than the evolutionary argument for monogamy. One can just as easily construct a story that justifies monogamy - a father who sticks around to insure that his children are raised to adulthood, protected and fed, is more likely to pass on his genes. Bingo, we have a selective argument for monogamy that is just as plausible as the "men are programmed to spread their seed" story.
I also heard once that there was a biological basis for women being promiscuous because they're capable of having more sex than men are.
"I just don't think the evolutionary argument for polyamory is any stronger than the evolutionary argument for monogamy."
As it happens, they are both pop-psychology icons that are essentially worthless. The problem is that with the development of culture, the evolution of culture has far outpaced the physical evolution of humans.
We really don't know what social forms humans took before cultural takeoff (to use Marvin Harris' terminology). Our closest surviving relatives in the wild, bonobos, have a remarkably egalitarian structure where the whole troop has sex together and then communally raise the young. But that's not much evidence that humans were that way.
Instead, humans have used sex as a means of organizing society and controlling various negative behaviors, including would-be polyamorous males (or not, depending upon the needs of the culture). There is no evidence that this has influenced genetic evolution, however.
Most genetic evolution in the last 10,000 years has been focused on certain unavoidable survival problems, such as becoming lactose-tolerant as a means of combatting calcium deficiencies, or Tay-Sachs as a response to tuberculosis.
I don't think this is a particually effective rebuttal. Simply due to the nature of primate behaviour and the intermediary nature of human testis that does point to more promiscuous behaviour. This and of itself tips the scales in the favor of polyamory. If monogamy was more the norm in our primate relatives perhaps but it is not. The simple fact is the vast majority of humans have multiple sexual partners throughout their lives.
The majority of mammal species seem to take the 'more is better' approach when it comes to mate and offspring rather than the 'I'll stick around and raise a few' angle. So while monogamy would seem to have some validity as an idea it doesn't have much in terms of Biological evidence to support the contention.
Ed Brayton: One can just as easily construct a story that justifies monogamy - a father who sticks around to insure that his children are raised to adulthood, protected and fed, is more likely to pass on his genes. Bingo, we have a selective argument for monogamy that is just as plausible as the "men are programmed to spread their seed" story.
And one can just as easily construct a story that justifies both monogamy and polyamory. It's not an either/or proposition.
George Cauldron: But fundies have a habit of thinking that what they see from their own immediate perspective is all that has ever existed.
The fundies are far more clever than you think.
That was King James, the biggest fundie of them all.
Sure, that's one possible biological strategy. But if that's our genetic heritage, it doesn't do very well at explaining some obvious facts of human behavior, such as the famous male aversion to commitment, or "deadbeat dads", or the general tendency of many (not all) men to drop most of the burden of childcare on the mother. If men were genetically disposed toward the type of behavior you outlined above, it seems to me there would be far less friction between the sexes.
That was King James, the biggest fundie of them all.
Yeah, but King James was also gay, so whattaya gonna do? :-)
I don't see any evolutionary argument for or against monogamy that isn't totally ad hoc, either, but my point was merely that Denyse O'Leary was being a bonehead for implying that the day-to-day reality she's used to seeing in North America since 1950 is somehow a timeless universal truth.
I am quite certain human sexuality was exactly the same pre and post 1950.
"The majority of mammal species seem to take the 'more is better' approach when it comes to mate and offspring rather than the 'I'll stick around and raise a few' angle."
Irrelevant, and prone to the just so stories that are the stock in trade of sociobiology. Humans are different from most other mammels in that we do not have a specific mating season, nor does the female go into heat: Adam delves, but does not know when Eve spawns.
If anything can be said about human sexual evolution, it is that this uncertainty -- and the resultant sexual excesses thereby made necessary -- provides an ideal field for cultural evolution to preempt the field.
Kersham-
I agree to a point. With the first sentence. Humans are not so different than most other mammals and our differences are one of degree not seperation. The study of the other primates and our anatomy compared to theirs lends evidence to our biological leanings in this area. Our anatomy puts us somewhere in the middle between gorillas and chimps. We lean to polyamory but not to the level of our chimp cousins. Otherwise it's pretty hard to explain our testis size. A truly monogamous animal wouldn't waste so much biological capital in such a way.
And 'heat' is simply ovulation at a particular time. Human females most definelty do enter a 'heat' period. Once a month. You can call it whatever you like it's menstruation or estrus for all mammals.
"to go fuck itself in an email..."
Wow. I didn't even know that that was possible. Like, anatomically and stuff.
WJD said:
But what DaveScot said (as reported) was:
The men I've seen on the Springer show certainly don't seem to have the 150+ IQ of a DaveScot
DaveScot doesn't seem to have the 150+ IQ of a DaveScot.
Which explains why DaveScot is such an obviously embittered and lonely troll.
skemono: "I also heard once that there was a biological basis for women being promiscuous because they're capable of having more sex than men are."
Could you elaborate on this? It would seem to me that this statement is true only in the absurd extreme, i.e., a woman could theoretically subject herself to sexual penetration a dozen or more times a day, whereas even the most amped-up Casanova could not fire off his seed with such profligate frequency. Besides, women can only become pregnant in series, not in parallel.
On top of that, an organism's possessing the capability to perform a given feat does not imply it has the drive to fulfill that potential -- hunger and thirst can be powerful drives, but the fact that I could eat 10,000 calories a day and wash them down with three gallons of water doesn't mean I do.
Rev. BigDumbChimp said:
Sorry, I'm talking in relative terms here.
Looks like Ms. O'Leary has piled into the UD clown-car, and it should be starting up shortly. And she's off, with her first substantive contribution.
I like this line..."It seems to me that ID is so different from Darwinism that if IDers want to make their case, they should probably not focus primarily on trying to get papers published in a hostile atmosphere, useful as that may be, but rather by asking different questions of nature."
Yes, that's the problem. The ID community until now has just been too focused trying to publish all their data in support of ID. Now finding ways to criticising evolution, ahh that's the key. If only they would do more of that and less publishing.
Also a Joel Borofsky is joining the moderating cabal. He's apparently Dembski's research assistant (and you thought Bush's guy in charge of Lessons Learned had little to do). He has his own blog (or will have) called "Stop Lying to Us", so I'm guessing it's going to be a fair and balanced look at the controversy.