Google War

Conversely:

Creation: 43,000,000
Evolutionism: 85,500

Special creation: 15,600,000
Separate origins: 8,670,000
Common descent: 1,100,000
Common ancestry: 1,960,000

However:

"Evidence for evolution": 38,900
"Evidence for creation": 12,100

Evolutionary: 6,970,000
Creationary: 3,100

Theory of evolution: 545,000
Theory of creation: 16,900

Transitional fossils: 10,100
Fossilized talking snakes: 0

So the overall support for either position provided by this investigatory methodology seems to me rather equivocal.

-- Steven J.

So the overall support for either position provided by this investigatory methodology seems to me rather equivocal.

As is typical of Darwinists' selective use of evidence, Reed Cartwright at Pandasthumb posted the following

In his new book, "Random Designer," he writes: "It pains me to suggest that my religious brothers are telling falsehoods" when they say evolutionary theory is "in crisis" and claim that there is widespread skepticism about it among scientists. "Such statements are blatantly untrue," he argues; "evolution has stood the test of time and considerable scrutiny. [1]" Sharon Begley in Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution To Fundamentalists, Wall Street Journal, December 3, 2004; Page A15

Best news is that it took Dembski less than 1 hour from the moment it was posted on PT to address it on ARN. Good to know that Dembski is keeping an eye on PT which surely must be a thorn in his side :-)
But what else is there left to do when confronted by such onslaught of rebuttals and critiques than to attack a strawman.

Thank you Bill.

If Dembski thinks what I did was intended to be evidence in support of evolution, then he needs to examine his standards of evidence.

It is funny that Dembski chose to respond to this irrelevant post, when we have a sticky for "Theory is as Theory Does" right above it. I don't even know why he would care, after all it refers to "creationism" and Dembski is an "intelligent design theorist." Hmm....

After our friend Dembski was caught in such unseemly deeds as posting an anonymous "review" on Amazon where he acclaimed his own forthcoming book, why should anyone pay attention to his attempts at moralizing ("Darwinists using selective... bla bla bla...")?

'William Dembski is a feeble, desperate little man.' Discuss....

ARN :1,770,000
NCSE: 62,400
PandasThumb:2,430

"william dembski is the issac newton of information theory": 0
"isaac newton": 1,020,00

ARN: The Accounting Research Network?

What does this have to do with NCSE and PandasThumb?

Would this be a case of "selective use of acronyms"?

I think selective use of brain cells might be more appropriate.

PvM : 1,610,000
Richard Dawkins : 211,000

Ken Ham : 127,000
Kent Hovind : 71,600
Ken Miller : 52,900
Paul Gross : 52,900
Phil Johnson : 46,700
Henry Morris : 35,100

PZ Myers : 30,600
Matt Young : 28,900
Michael Behe : 27,400
William Dembski : 18,500
Stephen Meyer : 14,400
Eugenie Scott : 14,300
Jeffrey Shallit : 7,800
Taner Edis : 7,040

Jonathan Sarfati : 6,720
Jason Rosenhouse : 3,270
Jack Krebs : 2,100
Wesley Elsberry : 999
Ian Musgrave : 942
Richard Hoppe : 639
Reed Cartwright : 600
Alan Gishlick : 417
Salvador Cordova : 279
Nicholas Matzke : 263

Andrea Botarro : 2

Well, since the acronymn finder lists twelve different meanings of the letters "ARN", and Sal's search doesn't discriminate between them.... If we actually do a search on "Access Research Network" we get... 13,400. A difference of orders of magnitude.

And just to keep things in perspective:

Britney Spears: 7,670,000
Usher: 6,470,000
Jessica Simpson: 3,200,000
Snoop Dogg: 1,380,000

RgD wrote: If we actually do a search on "Access Research Network" we get . . . 13,400. A difference of orders of magnitude.

Not to mention

Darwin: 10,800,000

Not bad for somebody who doesn't have the marketing machine Britney does....

And Sal, you really should use some smarts when you google; the numbers for PvM don't mean a darn thing in relation to the actual PvM, just like your numbers for ARN are meaningless....

correction:

"National Center for Science Education" : 28,700

Mr. Cordova:
first rule of keyword searches: check your spelling... ;-)

Also, you may derive a better estimate of my google citation index using my nome-de-plume: "Britney Spears' naked pictures". :-D

ah, good point. salvador cordova naked turns up 1,490 hits - but I'm not sure that's good for public viewing. After all, there are women and children present!

38 hits for Dembski hell spawn of satan.

"william dembski is a respected scientist" = 0
"no he isn't" = 23,400

Aint looking too good for Billy (you silly little man).

"answers in genesis" : 96,700
icr creation : 87,500
"institute for creation research" : 41,700
"discovery institute" : 65,200
"access research network" : 13,400

"pandas thumb" : 3,060

"bearded men of science": 1

The numbers don't lie: men with beards have contributed very little to our understanding of science.

"clean-shaven men of science": 0

And yet those without beards have contributed even less.

As Sal engagingly points out, the numbers themselves don't mean anything at all; Google search index numbers are indicative of so many factors (length of time on the web; duplicate acronyms, etc.) that they can't really be compared.

What is far more interesting is Dembski strong and rapid response to the numbers. Why? What possible reason does Dembski have for being bothered by this?

He appears to have an extremely thin skin - so far as his chosen life's mission is concerned. But shouldn't he be doing... well, something else?

Why did this particular thread cause him to break cover and post?

"Why did this particular thread cause him to break cover and post?"

Panic, pure and simple. What Dembski saw was for him a road to Damascus moment. The tissue of mendacious calumnies by which he lives his life was torn and he saw for an instant the revealed truth of the principles of evolution. It was too much for him and he flipped into denial mode. From now on, I predict greater levels of irrationality.

Pericles

"pandas thumb": 3,060

I wonder what the pandas were thumbing?

"panda's thumb": 137,000

That's better. So, our lessons from Google Wars are:

1. Spelling matters.

2. So does punctuation.

Panic, pure and simple. What Dembski saw was for him a road to Damascus moment. The tissue of mendacious calumnies by which he lives his life was torn and he saw for an instant the revealed truth of the principles of evolution. It was too much for him and he flipped into denial mode. From now on, I predict greater levels of irrationality.

I can not imagine how I would feel or behave if I were subject to the degree of criticism that Dembski is. I think that the criticism is warrented, but it must take a toll.

The only career for Dembski is to burrow in at the bible college level, but even there his temperment will be a problem.

Poor little lamb.

If I were Dembski, the "Reader from Waco, Tx" incident would have been enough to make me hide under a rock. Or Information Theorists laughing when I'm called "the Isaac Newton of information theory". Or when even ID sympathizers like Del Ratzch say I've failed. Or after I write a book saying a math theorem disproves evolution, and then the guy who developed the theorem says I am wrong, and my ideas don't even pass 'the smell test'.
At this point, it's like the guy's a masochist, but for embarrassment instead of pain.

Now now folks - I know the knowledge that Bill Dembski faithfully reads these pages is hard to resist, but piling on is not fair, especially since he understandably doesn't like to post here (I cringe at what would happen if he did!). Let's keep it nice, willya?

But Andrea, I think it is a legitimate question to ask: why does this particular thread cause Dembski any consternation? There are innumerable threads, both here and on other sites pointing out the intellectual failures of his sole contribution to ID theory (the EF). Why should a google exercise bother him?

I suspect it botheres him becasue Google hits can be interpreted as a measure of one's influence in the public sphere. Since the whole ID movement is essentially a PR machine, this sort of exercise shines a light on the efficacy of the IDiots' methods. The fact that this light is weak and essentially irrelevant in scientific terms means nothing; the fact that it could be used as a weapon in the PR war is all that matters....

Well, considering that Dembski has a hard time coming up with meaningful answers to most of the criticisms of his work and ID in general, and finding new ways to repeat the same arguments over and over must be dreadfully boring, he probably thought he could score a quick one here.

The bizarre thing is that Reed's initial post is obviously tongue-in-cheek, too blatantly silly to be taken seriously. But I guess to anyone used to the DI's ham-handed style, it looked like a genuine attempt at P.R.

"At this point, it's like [Dembski's] a masochist, but for embarrassment instead of pain."

Perhaps. But he has a meal ticket that will be feeding him for life, an eager audience that is unlikely to hear any of the criticisms.

Especially if he can just get his books on the shelf at the Grand Canyon and other national parks.

I'm sure that knowledge goes a long way towards comforting him.

Especially if he can just get his books on the shelf at the Grand Canyon and other national parks.

"Dembski hell spawn of satan" now up to 45 hits on Google!!!!

At this rate, it'll be an idiom in a few years.

christianity 12,700,000
atheism 1,630,000

The winner is:
christianity

:)

act:

islam: 21,100,000

Apparently you need to rethink this whole 'majority rules' thing... or convert!

:)

You get 12 million or 21 million citations by telling people what they want to hear. Biology isn't in the business of insulting people; but it isn't in the business of flattering 'em either; and that guarantees science will remain a minority operation. Truth has no more to do with public opinion than love has to do with prostitution.