The Unintentional Irony of William Dembski

It continues to be a tragedy that real scientists doing real science in the interests of expanding humanity's knowledge about the world are continually distracted by the hand-waving, self-serving shenanigans of Dembski and the rest of the ID frauds in the interests of stifling knowledge and defending fundamentalist dogmas.

Years ago someone predicted to me that the ID movement, through lack of any real scientific theory, publications or research, would eventually slide into the same state of irrelevance as Young Earth Creationism.

The first example I saw of this prediction coming to fruition was WAD appearing at a conference alongside the likes of "Dr." Carl Baugh.

But Dembski, as he continually loses his grip on reality, is far more entertaining than even Baugh. If I were a psychologist, I would say that Bill is suffering the same kind of frustration and petulance the skinny kid with glasses on the playground feels when he can't "play with the big boys." And indeed, as the criticisms of his work go unanswered, the tantrums are only mounting.

The next piece of evidence that ID will be standing next to the water boy on the sidelines will surely be Dover.

What is also amusing, and quite revealing, is years back Dembski referred to NCSE as a "cheesy little non-profit"... and then goes and rents a PO Box and calls it an "Institute," complete with phone lines to the various officers with extensions. However, the extensions were all single digits. This seemed odd. I've worked in a lot of offices, but never one with single digit extensions.

The building he claimed was the "suite" turned out to be a Mailboxes Etc!
http://www.antievolution.org/people/dembski_wa/ISCIDoffice.jpg

This little stunt took "cheesy" to a whole new level.

So it is with great amusement, as my friend's prediction continues to come true, we watch Dembski lead the charge to marginalization.

First, the number of talks to atheist organizations

You know, there's another aspect of this that I've not seen pointed out, and that is the total irrelevency of Dembski's claims even if he is correct and there are things that natural science takes to be undesigned that are in fact designed.
There are two things he's not taking into account (nor are Heddle, Scott, Behe, Cordova, or any of the rest of the IDiots):
some things exist which are not designed, else WAD et al have no basis or ability to extract properties as indicative of design.
When you put this together with the fact we know of many designs which are never implemented, we can clearly see that design is reduced to a scientific irrelevency.
If things may come about in undesigned fashion, design *by itself* is not sufficient. It cannot be since we have countless examples of designs which are not implemented and of implementations which were not designed.
Implementation, the act of doing with the design or according to the design is essential.
And all that we know about doing with design is mechanistic. So even if we were to determine that the FSM, sauce be upon him, designed the universe, we are still fully warranted to seek the mechanisms by which the thing designed is brought to being. And that is what science does -- it is never about design, it is always about implementation.
And it is absurd for Dembski or his ilk to claim that they are doing science without need of mechanism. If all he wants to claim is that he is studying design per se, fine, but we might well ask why he doesn't broaden his field to include the unambiguous cases.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

What was better about Dembski on the Daily Show, the irony or the farce?

To me the best part of the show was when Jon asked Dembski:

Jon: Which came first? The religious conversion or the evidence convincing you?

Dembski: )pause( The religious conversion.

Watch here.

Political movements need money and usually aren't too scrupulous about how they acquire it since even illegal activities can be excused as means to an end--before the revolution, Stalin used to rob banks. Of course most revolutions don't come off, but there's a consolation prize. It is often possible to go on using even a Lost Cause to make more money for a long time. Various organizations of the old right, for example, morphed into straight-up mail fraud after the failure of McCarthy. If ID flops as a movement, as I think it is beginning to do in a country that is obviously getting a little fed up with reaction, I expect that people like Dembski will go for years on cashing checks for delivering the same old spiel, though, like many an aging TV actor, I expect he'll find himself invited to less and less impressive venues for less and less money. Well, cutting the ribbon on the new strip mall isn't grand work, but it's a living.

Thanks for the publicity for Rationalists, Empiricists and Skeptics of Nebraska. We are indeed a congenial mixture of theists and atheists (and probably others as well).

In 2003, the Discovery Institute used $122,809.00 for travel expenses, when in the same year NCSE spent $16,803.00. The DI's travel budget that year was over 7 times the size of NCSE's travel budget for 2003.

I'm looking forward to speaking at the Greer-Heard Forum next spring. I wonder if Dembski will complain about that one, seeing as he is on the panel there, too.

Can anyone remember Dembski ever admitting to making a mistake--and not laughing it off as inconsequential or irrelevant?

I can't.

It's this sort of behaviour that places this man firmly in the company of people like Baugh, Ham, and Hovind. It doesn't matter how complete and irrefutable the evidence against him (e.g. in this very topic) he won't--no, *can't*--admit to being mistaken.

I've come across people like that in my own life, and they can be incredibly frustrating to be around. Even the most grevious of mistakes are brushed off as an irrelevance. I've found they don't make for good friends or good colleagues.

For example, Dembski proclaims to be a Christian, and yet he constantly churns out snide and mean-spirited attacks on anyone he see as an enemy. No thought of taking the high-road, no consideration for even the most basic of Christian virtues. And what does he do when confronted about his behaviour? Laugh it off as a big joke.

I'm curious to know if there is a proper psychiatric term for this type of personality. He might make an interesting psychological study one of these days :-)

The serious questions are completely left off of Dembski's tantrum: Why isn't Discovery Institute talking to university departments? What about all those religious groups Discovery Institute addresses -- why no science groups?

Genie Scott is talking evolution to scientists. Bill Dembski, a professor at a theological institution, is talking religion to churches. And he has the gall to complain about Scott's work for education?

Maybe it's not gall at all. Maybe it's a lack of wit.

Wasn't it Euripides who said, "Whom the gods destroy, they first make mad?"

Dave Scot writes at Dembski's blog:

"Ed doesn't seem to grasp what those speaking engagements have in common.

Hey Ed, does the phrase "preaching to the choir" ring any bells for you?

LOL"

Is Genie speaking to undergrads more "preaching to the choir" than ID theorists speaking to a church (where "preaching" may be a more literal description of what's going on)?

We educate the press and public about the scientific, educational, and legal aspects of the creation and evolution controversy, and supply needed information and advice to defend good science education at local, state, and national levels. Our 4000 members are scientists, teachers, clergy, and citizens with diverse religious affiliations.

The University's non-discrimination policy prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, veteran status, sex, or age.

IIRC, Dembski's bill to the Thomas More Legal Center was closer to $22,000 than to $100,000.

I do believe meetings to IDEA clubs are open to anyone, but a few years back I attended a conference sponsored, in part I believe, by the IDEA clubs. In a meeting about how to organize an IDEA club on your campus Casey Luskin pointed out that only Christians could hold positions of leadership in an IDEA club.

Which brings up an interesting question: If ID is really about science and not about religion, what is the scientific basis for the institutionalized religious discrimiation practiced by the IDEA clubs?

Do they have a "Jesus Gene" that the rest of us don't? And if so, is there a plausible evolutionary pathway for this gene? Is it a duplicate/modification of the John, Mark, Matthew or Luke gene?

Maybe this could be the first actual scientific problem for ID to take on.

George asked: Speaking of GMU and its IDEA club, does this pro-ID college organization allow non-Christians to join, or are IDEA centers Christians-only clubs?

The real irony so far as people not getting a cut, of course, are the thousands of evolutionary biologists whose work ID advocates parasitize, and who don't get a dime from the ID advocates' "talks" around the country. (I was at a lab get-together of a group at U.C. Davis the other night, where we were talking about the number of graduate students in evolutionary biology a department could support with the level of funding one DI CRSC Fellow receives. The number we came up with was between three and four. The typical evo-bio grad student, they said, manages at least a couple of scientific publications during grad school, and many produce a lot more than that. Compare that with the post-ID-recruitment scientific productivity of the major ID advocates, and it's like I said in 2001 at the CSICOP conference, "Maybe the DI is funding the wrong people.")

I can't think of a single thing produced by ID advocates de novo. Either they've passed on, pretty much verbatim, arguments made by young-earth and old-earth creationists before them, re-worked young-earth and old-earth creationist arguments (expansion of "What good is half a wing?" into "irreducible complexity", expansion of "Tornado in a junkyard" into "specified complexity", bringing in different examples for Paleyist argument, etc.), or used critical-sounding stuff from the biological literature as a jumping-off point for their own misinterpretations. Yeah, there's a basic unfairness to be pondered, but it certainly isn't the one Dembski thinks it is.

Hey Salvador,

What does the IDEA Center have against non-Christians?

How are they less qualified to lead an IDEA club than Christians are?

Or are the IDEA clubs really about religion?

I would have no beef at all if they would just confess that IDEA clubs are really about evangelizing, and therefore, Christians are best suited to lead such clubs. That is more than reasonable.

But to claim that IDEA clubs are about science, and then disenfranchise groups that have non-Christians on the board is just plain crap.

Our GMU constitution allows them to join and be even be elected. However if non Christians are elected to become officers, the club can continue under it's constitution, but it can no longer be a recognized as sanctioned chapter by the IDEA center in San Diego, but rather would have to delcare itself a renegade ID chapter.

Much as I know that ID'ists in America need a thorough kicking since rational arguments and science seem to be blatantly ignored by them, I still can not agree to the increasingly ad hominem attacks that are being launched on this site. Educative as I find it (being a linguist myself), it is increasingly becoming more of a slugfest and less in-depth response to people or discussion of evolutionary theories (I quite enjoyed the article on lateral gene transfer posted her e not long ago).

Admittedly, I see things differently here since I am in Europe but I do not see why good and respectable scientists should lower themselves to shouting matches with creationists in disguise using only such arguments as 'but you do it much worse than us!' whereas the real argument gets muddled by all this. Maybe I don't underestimate the American christian lobby, but can anyone in the higher-ups be ultimately convinced by fallacies? That answer should be 'no', which means there should be no attacks on ID the kind I've seen. If the answer is 'yes', then I'm happy that I'm dutch and not American...

Our GMU constitution allows them to join and be even be elected. However if non Christians are elected to become officers, the club can continue under it's constitution, but it can no longer be a recognized as sanctioned chapter by the IDEA center in San Diego, but rather would have to delcare itself a renegade ID chapter.

See my comments on the issue: Is GMU trying to Justify a Witch Hunt? Salvador

Skip asked: Which brings up an interesting question: If ID is really about science and not about religion,

... forget what I said, this Salvador guy is rather scary.

So, in other words, Salvador, the IDEA organization is merely paying lip service to college anti-discrimination rules

The Christian organizations have rolled the red carpet out for IDEA on 3 of the Virginia campuses. In my view, this is wonderful to see the churches defending real science versus unscientific Darwinian dogma.

Anyway, enough about my club

the topic was Dembski's making $100,000 a pop being an IDist expert witness.

Very interesting. So IDEA clubs exist for religious students (of a specific stripe) who feel their faith threatened by evolution.

Therefore, IDEA clubs feed them a bunch of stuff the mainstream scientific community soundly rejects in order to bolster their faith, regardless of the materials standing in real science.

Then, they can go out into the world and redefine science as it is currently practiced, combine science and religion, and basically bring out a new way of thinking not at all unlike the Orangs in Planet of the Apes.

Thanks Sal, that was the best and most honest description of what ID is really all about. I think we, and the public at large, owe you a debt of gratitude.

... forget what I said, this Salvador guy is rather scary.

Allen Orr on the situation: Although many science, and all biology, students are required to endure molecular courses, evolution - even introductory evolution---is often an elective. The reason is simple: biochemistry and cell biology get Junior into med school, evolution doesn't. Consequently, many professional scientists know surprisingly little about evolution.

In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. Jerry Coyne

Oh, Brother, Jerry Coyne being quoted out of context by yet another creationist. What a shock.

ID is simply a different label on the same old antievolution playlist of invalid criticisms of evolutionary biology. It is pseudoscience. It is, by the words of its major advocates, aimed at furthering a particular religious outlook in the society at large. These are not fallacies. These are solid facts. The Dover case is going to put exactly these issues into the courtroom. I expect that the judge will also consider these to be facts after all is said and done there.

King Canute failed to turn back the tide at command, and wishful thinking does not constitute planning for disaster relief. Neither does the evidence accommodate "intelligent design" as a legitimate alternative to science.

"The loophole I give the creationists is the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:20 where the "science only" approach is offered....Our arguments seem to do a good job of immunizing them from Dariwian indoctrination and brain washing "

Evolution doesn't get you into med school, biology does.

Salvador

While you are not anwering awkward questions here, could you also find time to not answer why you are misrepresenting the company Genetic-ID as applying Dembski's explanatory filter in their work, when they are just performing standard DNA fingerprinting techniques in analysing crop samples. Care to comment, Salavador.

Excuse Freudian typo; S/B Salvador

Hey Sal, are you gonna answer my questions, or aren't you?

Maybe I don't underestimate the American christian lobby, but can anyone in the higher-ups be ultimately convinced by fallacies? That answer should be 'no'

Slightly off the topic and on a personal level, I find it very disheartening that two of my alma matters, James Madison University and George Mason University, have IDEA clubs.

IDEA clubs are a joke. I went to a local chapter to hear the President of the club whine after ID had been given a public drubbing by a professor during a seminar. During the IDEA meeting, this guy was thoroughly demolished on intellectual and scientific standards, and I mean it was so bad that he really looked like he was about to cry. Several professors from the departments of biology/biomedical research came and provided the scientific evidence for evolution -- there was even an engineer who provided the most damning testimony of just how unintellligent the supposed "intelligent design" was. If I recall, everything that was said of ID was either in a political or cultural context. The club officer valiantly tried to shift the focus anytime he was asked to detail an ID experiment.

Here's what happened after that meeting (the second in the only two years it was active). This guy, a biology major who had been gloating about wanting to participate in the "defeat of Darwin" on a scientific level, went on to law school. None of the other other club officers reconvened a singled IDEA meeting thereafter. As far as I know, this local chapter of IDEA is dead. Last time I checked the student government records, it received no funding what so ever. Good riddance.

I for one am happy that IDEA requires it's officers to be christian. They should take it further. Require all their members to be christians.

I'm looking forward to Dover.

Frankly, I don't see it as any great disaster for a school to have an IDEA club. In fact, if can be helpful. If you are at a university that has an IDEA club, encourage biology and other science majors to attend.

One of the problems facing pro-science activists used to be the large number of scientists who were ignorant of what creationism really is. Thankfully, that is changing for the better.

These clubs offer a great way for those who will become our scientists and science professors a chance to see it firsthand, better equipping them to deal with it after graduation.

Heck, I love going to creationist shindigs!
http://venomouspenguin.com/modules/Pages/2005-08-07/index.html

It's like going to a nightclub to hear comedy without the two drink minimum!

Hey, "wad of id", drop me a line. I'd like to find out which school that IDEA club was at.

It is sickening that tabs even have to be kept on someone as useless as WD, and time wasted having his farcical-yet-unfunny idiocies challenged.

WD (and "Yeah-I-know-I'm-wrong-and-I'm-ashamed-of-myself-but-it's-a-living" M. Behe) isn't really crazy (today, anyway, though in a few more years, he'll complete his move into crazy cultism), he's just a totally dishonest, greedy, pompous shit.

Ed Brayton wrote: "Well Bill, we'd love to have a cut of your speaking fees, and of the fees you charged the Thomas More Law Center for your expert witness work on the Dover trial (over $100,000, if I recall correctly, while all of the experts on our side donated their time and took only expenses), and of all the books you write in the copious free time that you save by avoiding publishing your claims for a scientific audience, books for which you find a ready audience in the churches among people who, as a group, have little hope of understanding your ideas. For that matter, I'm sure the NCSE staff would sacrifice body parts..."

That's the best argument I've seen for being an ID advocate -- there's simply more money in it. If the NCSE staff would sacrifice body parts, then what about sacrificing a little integrity?

I'm starting work on my pro-ID book now!

Slaveador Cordova wrote:

"IDEA is targeted to teach them ID"

So what is it that the unrepentant liar-for-Jesus Casey Luskin and you are "teaching" Sal?

Lenny Flank and I and the world's honest scientists are really curious about what the scientific theory of "intelligent design."

To date, you have not answered this question and neither has Lyin' Luskin.

But you've been caught making up garbage and passing it off as truth. In fact, I remember you getting caught red-handed telling a bald-faced lie right here on this blog, Silly Sal!

Do you remember that happening, Sal?

Or did you and Luskin engage in your ritual brainwashing to remove that ugly episode from your version of history?

# How can you say that intelligent design is testable? Intelligent design has already demonstrated itself as an extremely testable and productive element of science. (Are you surprised?) Belief that the universe was intelligently designed spurred Kepler on to make sense of the previously very confusing astronomical observations. Likewise Newton did not believe that "mere mechanical causes" could give rise to the solar system but declared that "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." Time and space is not sufficient to name all those including Copernicus, Boyle, Faraday, Maxwell and Einstein who acknowledged a designer and were motivated to uncover that design. In general intelligent design expects that as our understanding of biology grows, information-rich and irreducibly complex structures will continue to be discovered, and predicts, for example, that there are purposes for "junk-DNA".

There's a much easier (and, I suspect, less painful) way to understand ID than going to one of these IDEA meetings.

For some reason, WAD doesn't like it.

The Christian organizations have rolled the red carpet out for IDEA on 3 of the Virginia campuses. In my view, this is wonderful to see the churches defending real science versus unscientific Darwinian dogma.

— Sal

For some reason, WAD doesn't like it.

I want every lurker who comes in here to see that you are nothing but an evasive dishonest coward.

Rest assured, Lenny, that this lurker got that message a looooooong time ago.

The Christian organizations have rolled the red carpet out for IDEA on 3 of the Virginia campuses. In my view, this is wonderful to see the churches defending real science versus unscientific Darwinian dogma.

Slightly off the topic and on a personal level, I find it very disheartening that two of my alma matters, James Madison University and George Mason University, have IDEA clubs.

For some reason, I've always sort of mentally combined those two institutions into James Mason University.

I don't know why. I just can't help it.

Many of the Christians and creationists are for the first time learning about ID's "science only" approach of IDists, versus the "scripture only" approach of the creationists.

Baylor's Mr. Dembski also has little interest in publicizing his research through traditional means. "I've just gotten kind of blasé...

Good old Sal! Right on time and right on cue.

I figured the drubbing that Count Dembski was taking at the hands of the Darwinian Pressure Group would elicit the protective instincts of Sal, the Renfield of "intelligent design", rushing in to gobble up the little spiders and roaches too slow to escape his grasp.

Thanks, Sal, for explaining in Comment #48621 how "intelligent design" is in no way, shape or form a religious concept. Most entertaining. Have another spider.

However if non Christians are elected to become officers, the club can continue under it's constitution, but it can no longer be a recognized as sanctioned chapter by the IDEA center in San Diego, but rather would have to delcare itself a renegade ID chapter.

Comment #48597 Posted by Mike Walker on September 17, 2005 12:39 PM (e) (s) I'm curious to know if there is a proper psychiatric term for this type of personality. He might make an interesting psychological study one of these days :-)

In my view, this is wonderful to see the churches defending real science versus unscientific Darwinian dogma.

I don't think Sal is really the Renfield of intelligent design. He's more like the Sancho Panza to Dembski's Don Quixote.

Lixivium wrote: "... [Sal is] more like the Sancho Panza to Dembski's Don Quixote."

An excellent example of analogical, or metaphorical, reasoning.

I suppose whacking that sack of Sal must still be entertaining, since so many bother to continue doing so. I just scroll on when I see the name: he is the sort of Xian from whom nothing can be learned, about others or oneself.
I do wish he could simply be challenged on his lies (and ANY "information" he cites proves to be some variety of obvious lie) and used, if someone finds it possible, as the springboard to elaborate on aspects of ToE, or the "debate" over ToE, that ARE interesting.

BTW, I see no need to tarnish Cervantes and his characters by linking them, with their simple, sincere humanity, with two such odious and ugly examples of living humans as WD and Sal.
Dracula and Renfield? Well, maybe, although one must respect aspects of the Count (WD, now that I have seen his performance, has sunk into the lower circles of Unrespect), and Renfield has aspects of playfulness and a turn of phrase Sal could never hope to achieve. Or understand.

BTW, I see no need to tarnish Cervantes and his characters by linking them, with their simple, sincere humanity, with two such odious and ugly examples of living humans as WD and Sal.

— darwinfinch

How about the Waylon Smithers to Dembski's Mr. Burns?

Smithers also shows many positive qualities, though misplaced. Burns also seems preferable to WD in both forthrightness and personal goals, since he simply wants the rest of humanity to cower before him.

Frankly, I cannot think of any fictional character whom I would wish to dirty by comparison with any member of the Creationist ("ID" included) "leadership." Even Iago and Bill Sikes are inventions which illuminate, rather than feed upon, aspects of every human being's nature.
It's like the more ordinary derogatory comparisons made with animals, penguins or whatever, or varieties of filth: they may be used to limited effect but weaken upon deeper examination. If I compare WD with a pile of useless gerbil droppings, or chide Sal with the fact that his mother was a hamster, and his father smelled of elderber...
Well, I've made my point.

Excellent discussion fellow Darwinian Pressure Groupies!

I picked Renfield to represent Sal because Renfield aspired so hard to be like his master, Count Dracula. The Count never grants Renfield the immortality he sought, although, and I don't remember exactly what happened, but I think Dracula simply kills Renfield when he is no longer of use.

I thought that Dembski as Count Dracula was particularly fitting as both feed off the living without contribution. Both Dembski and the Count are adept at casting illusion. Where Dembski and the Count are mirror images, pardon the pun, are with respect to legality and ethics. The Count killed people which is illegal, but acted ethically in that he did not pretend to be other than what he was or duck his crimes. Dembski, on the other hand, does nothing illegal but is both intellectually and ethically bankrupt. He pretends to be more than he is, ducks responsibility and consequently has been marginalized to a Bible college in Tennessee, all the while proclaiming, unethically, that ID is all about science and not religion.

Darwinfinch has it right. "Intelligent design" cannot withstand humor. So, in my best, or worst, French accent I say: Monsieur Dembski, I fhart een yhour zheneral di-rection!

Comment #48719 Posted by Lixivium on September 18, 2005 05:41 PM (e) (s) How about the Waylon Smithers to Dembski's Mr. Burns?

Many of the Christians and creationists are for the first time learning about ID's "science only" approach of IDists, versus the "scripture only" approach of the creationists.

Ummm, sorry, make that spotted lambs....

But while we're on the subject, Sal: Wouldn't you say that an "intelligent designer" could make Jacob's strategem work? Why doesn't it work now? Why shouldn't an "intelligent designer" make things work this way?

In fact, one of the requirements of evolution is that changes be inherited; that they persist -- this is what gives natural selection a chance to do its work. But why, if you're the "intelligent designer", bother with genetic inheritance when you can just keep things the way you "designed them", and then order up something new when some new inspiration strikes you (assuming that "new inspirations" are in fact logically possible for such an "intelligent designer")?

Cheers,

Comment #48706 Posted by Lixivium on September 18, 2005 01:40 PM (e) (s) I don't think Sal is really the Renfield of intelligent design. He's more like the Sancho Panza to Dembski's Don Quixote.

Since we're pointing out that Sancho was not delusional, we should also note that neither was King Canute. Though the legend of him having his throne set in the path of the incoming tide is often cited as proof of his vanity, in fact in the original story, it was the opposite. It was his hangers-on and sycophants (his "Sals", if you will) who tried to flatter him by telling him his power was so great as to stop natural forces. Canute did his little demo to prove he knew full well the limitations of his power - and that he recognized BS, however flattering, when he heard it.

"Evolution doesn't get you into med school, biology does."

One of the things I find fascinating about ID supporters is their fanatical devotion to Dembski (yes, that's a joke). Someone will claim that Dembski's Explanatory Filter has demonstrated design. I'll then point out that the Explanatory Filter is deeply flawed, and has never demonstrated design in any biological structure.

The response: "The EF works. Everyone just uses it incorrectly."

I then provide links to five different criticisms of Dembski's work, by mathemeticians, biologists, even a theist who believes that the universe was designed!

The response: "Dembski has rebutted his critics."

I point out that Dembski's rebuttals are no more persuasive (or comprehensible) than his original arguments, and that he still has not shown evidence that his Explanatory Filter actually works.

The response: "That's because they keep using it on snowflakes!"

I point out that Dembski claims the Explanatory Filter is infallible (i.e., it does not generate false positives), and yet it's been shown to fail even on simple, non-biological phenomena. Is Dembski's claim actually that the EF is infallible only with biological phenomena?

The response: "The EF works!"

At that point, I usually give up.

I point out that Dembski claims the Explanatory Filter is infallible

Perhaps Sal is Boris to Dembski's Fearless Leader? So who's Natasha? Come clean, Sal!

Smithers also shows many positive qualities, though misplaced. Burns also seems preferable to WD in both forthrightness and personal goals, since he simply wants the rest of humanity to cower before him.

Does that mean that Moose and Squirrel would be PZ and Wesley?

Well, now that you mention it, Bullwinkle and Rocky did hail from Frostbite Falls, Minnesota, which has to be pretty close to where PZ resides....

Our GMU constitution allows them to join and be even be elected. However if non Christians are elected to become officers, the club can continue under it's constitution, but it can no longer be a recognized as sanctioned chapter by the IDEA center in San Diego, but rather would have to delcare itself a renegade ID chapter. We would have to rename our club to something like "EA" instead of IDEA. :-) Or better yet, the renegade organization could be renamed the "The William Dembski fan Club". :-)

.. if for nothing else, it's good Public Relations.

Besides their lying about Einstein, most of the people on their list are dead, or at least haven't published much lately. Rumor has it that Copernicus also didn't believe in relativity or quantum mechanics.

— ivy privy

Maybe Sal as Beavis to Dembski as Butthead...

Bruce

In general intelligent design expects that as our understanding of biology grows, information-rich and irreducibly complex structures will continue to be discovered, and predicts, for example, that there are purposes for "junk-DNA".

Sal is the Beaver, and Dembski is a hybrid of Wally and Eddie Haskell.

"Posted by Tracy P. Hamilton

ivy privy wrote:

Besides their lying about Einstein, most of the people on their list are dead, or at least haven't published much lately. Rumor has it that Copernicus also didn't believe in relativity or quantum mechanics.

And Ptolemy! Hence everything revolves around the earth."

You're suggesting that Copernicus was a Ptolemyan? Close, but no cigar. Tycho Brahe was, though.

- JS

Cornell IDEA club quote "In general intelligent design expects that as our understanding of biology grows, information-rich and irreducibly complex structures will continue to be discovered, and predicts, for example, that there are purposes for 'junk-DNA'."

You're going to have to go into more detail than that and make much stronger and detailed predictions that answer why there would be a difference between evolution and design.

Does ID also have to claim there are no 'vestigial' organs?

Is the appendix and other parts of our bodies useless 'vestigial' organs, which our evolutionary ancestors needed but which we no longer do? What is the appendix for?

Junk DNA would be 'vestigial' DNA and when you mean it has a use or purpose, you can't mean that use is to make us more evolvable (giving us some code for old solutions to problems we no longer use).

Well, now that you mention it, Bullwinkle and Rocky did hail from Frostbite Falls, Minnesota, which has to be pretty close to where PZ resides....

how about Saruman and Grima?

Well, I saw on Dembski's site a competition. You can win from $100 to a $1,000 in his "Technological Evolution Prize Competition" here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/341

I posted an entry and it was deleted. I was quite nice about my post and Dembski has no reason to know who I am except from reading comments here.

What I entered was a web site with a book on it here:
http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/thurston/1878/index.html

A HISTORY OF THE GROWTH OF THE STEAM-ENGINE.
BY
ROBERT H. THURSTON, A. M., C. E.,
PROFESSOR OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING IN THE STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HOBOKEN, N. J.; MEMBER OF INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS AND SHIPBUILDERS OF SCOTLAND, ASSOCIATE BRITISH INSTITUTION OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS, ETC., ETC.

NEW YORK:
D. APPLETON AND COMPANY,
549 AND 551 BROADWAY.
1878.

The above book gives an account of the evolution of the steam engine from Ancient Greece to the Steam locomotives of the Northern Pacific.

Then I entered a personal web site with a summary I was taking notes on:
http://www.geocities.com/normdoer/EvoInvent1.htm

Now, why would Dembski delete that and leave the jokers on his site?

I wrote: "I posted an entry and it was deleted."

No, now it's back. I don't know if I was deleted or not now. I sware it wasn't there for awhile.

...an atheist and agnostic group, supported our JMU IDEA chapter.

— the clueless Sal

Frankly, I don't see it as any great disaster for a school to have an IDEA club. In fact, if can be helpful. If you are at a university that has an IDEA club, encourage biology and other science majors to attend.

Well, I saw on Dembski's site a competition. You can win from $100 to a $1,000 in his "Technological Evolution Prize Competition" ...

— Norman Doering

The first archeological information on toilets was the Roman toilet where running water ran below benches. Later in England the toilet was improved by adding a flushing mechanism to reduce the need for a large volume of constant running water.

— James Taylor

Aha! A missing link! When did they put a hole in the bench?

— JIm Wynne

I wrote: "I posted an entry and it was deleted." No, now it's back. I don't know if I was deleted or not now. I sware it wasn't there for awhile.

— Norman Doering

My second entry Norman...

The clock

The first archeological evidence for measuring time are sundials found dating back to Ancient Egypt.

A second more effective attempt to measure time orginated in the water clock developed in ancient Greece necessitated by the need to keep time at night.

Later entrepreneurs realized a need for less messy time keeping and so developed a mechanism which works fundamental the same as the water clock, but utilizes weights and counterweights instead.

Later again, enterprising technologists realized that the same potential energy required for the gravity clock exists in a wound spring so moved to the smaller compact mechanism found in mechanical clocks.

Still later, once physicists established that quartz resonates at a known frequency, the time keeping mechanism was altered to work off the oscillations of the crystal and the potential energy was supplied by a battery.

Now, more branches of the time keeping mechanism have taken root and now we have atomic, kinetic, spring driven, gravity driven, quartz, water clocks and the lowly sundial which are all used for specific purposes.

My third entry Norman...

The Gun

The first incarnation of the gun (a variant on the bow but to be simplistic assume gun is defined as gunpowder-powered) appeared in China around thousand years ago. It launched tiny arrows fitted with gunpowdered filled bamboo (yes technically missles, but once again gunpowder-powered).

European traders brought back the secret of gunpowder and immediately developed a crude gun featuring a muzzle and powder hole. These were very dangerous to the shooter due to the poor refining techniques of the time. They often exploded in the weilders hand, so were rarely employed unless the ruler had disposable manpower or was significantly desperate.

This crude weapon changed once refining and metal working techniques improved. It evolved into the arquebus and eventually the musket. However, without appreciable knowledge of ballistics, this incarnation lacked accuracy and was significantly slow to reload, but this did not outwiegh the intrinsic power and capability of the tool, so it became bow, sword (when with bayonette), and club and displaced all manner of weapons and tactics.

Immediately after the gun's capability was realized, heavy artillery was developed as a specialized version of the gun. Heavily artillery is just a big gun that has to be trucked around the battlefield.

At the dawn of the technological revolution, during the US civil war, the gun was further refined. This era displaced the muzzle-loading flint-lock smooth-bore rifle (this had undergone a significant evolution from arquebus to musket) with the semi-automatic cartidge-fed rifle and witnessed the specialization of artillery in the form of a mortar/howitzer and direct fire artillery guns.

Following the Civil War, artillery was further specialized due to the resurgence of anti-gun technology e.g. armor. Naval doctrine changed, so forced the development of large sea-bourne weapons capable of penetrating and sinking other heavily armored naval ships. Army doctrine changed and required lighter more mobile varieties of artillery, mortars and the now specialized howitzer to defeat land based armored systems. A significant study could be launched into the development of armor and fortifications at this point.

The machine gun was then invented which changed the nature of warfare forever. One of its first incarnations was a bulky towed unit called the Gatling Gun. It was treated conceptually as an artillery piece instead of the usage it eventually became but it was no less a machine gun than today's assault rifles. This gun design still exists for various specialized purposes and it is used on all military fighter aircraft as a defensive weapon because it fires super fast and the plane can handle the weight burden. I am specifically thinking of the A-10 Warthog, but it also is used on F-16s, F-14s, etc.

The machine gun diverged into small portable weapon systems e.g. the Maxim and Browning heavy machine guns during WW1 and the advent of a new gun system appeared called the tank. The tank is simply an armored gun married to another technology, the car. The tank now gave land forces a way to quickly move heavy guns around the battle field thus stimulating a whole new focus for the technological development of the gun as well as readoption of cavalry tactics and strategem.

After WW1 further refinement increased the efficiency of the concept and reduced the size and weight for small arms enabling the introduction of the sub-machine gun and the assault rifle. Both were used extensively in WW2 as they are today.

WW2 also witnessed the development of another useful technology to integrate into gun design, e.g. radar. Guns were more accurate and therefore more useful and desirable. Less waste of missed rounds and a higher effectiveness.

WW2 and the ensuing Cold War stimulated the development of rocket research which brings us back to the Chinese. A rocket is just a big bullet attached to a barrel that fires backward and carries propellant onboard. Now several new technologies are being incorporated into rockets and they will most likely supplant almost all of the existing guns in the world armory today.

So now here we are. People still use muskets for reenactments and hunting, the Gatling Gun is still in use as an aircraft weapon, the heavy machine-gun is at the core of modern squad tactics, every soldier is issued an assault rifle or sub-machine gun or some other more specialized gun, e.g. sniper rifle, AT-Rockets, the howitzer, mortar and direct-fire artillery are valuable tools to commanders, tanks rule the open battlefield, and naval ships still mount large guns but are being rapidly displaced by missle technology.

Pipes originated as a technology for moving water with little loss, as well as other things. Since then pipes have been adapted/evolved for such uses as:

Air flow systems
Cooling systems
Fire arms and artillery
Construction support material
Tent Poles
Smoking implements
Oil drilling and extraction
Distillation equipment
Wiring
Surgical instruments
Furniture
Temporary support systems (scaffolding)
Rockets
Tunnels
Transport systems
Nano Technology
Lab equipment
Pistons
Etcetera etcetera etcetera............

Pipes have also changed shape from basically round to include square and triangular pipes. Some pipes are very flexible, others are very rigid.

Of course, they are all still pipes!

I'd put this on Dembski's site, but why bother.... I trust him to pay out as much as I trust Hovind.

My fourth entry Norman...

The Auto

The first incarnation of a car was farm tractors that utilized bulky steam engines for a powerplant. These vehicles were powerful, but very dangerous because they suffered from all of the perils of steam power, e.g. prone to overpressure from irregular heating and subsequent explosion.

With the advent of the internal combustion engine, several enterprising technologists took the same tractor concept, but replaced the steam powerplant with the safer, more compact, lightweight internal combustion engine and started showing off their work by driving around town and scaring all the horse carriages with a few backfires. These were fairly dangerous vehicles in themselves because many lacked effective braking systems, wheels and suspensions and used a hand crank starter. Wheels were solid rims and there were no springs, so a rider felt every bump in the road.

The first truck emerged. The truck quickly became adopted for commerce because it reduced the dependance on quartering, forage and caring for draft animals. These trucks were very unsafe. They suffered from the same problems as the first automobiles but more accutely due to bad dirt and gravel roads and significantly harder work environments or tasks.

Henry Ford attempted to create the car market. His attempt was partially successful in introducing the "car" to the average population, but at the time it was very expensive and a luxury item to most. It was extremely uncomfortable, hard to start and potentially dangerous to start, and a handful to maintain in a reliable condition. This is partly due to the state of gasoline and oil refining at the time and partly due to the incomplete development of the technology package.

Better breaks were developed to reduce the number of accidents. The electric starter was introduced and drastically reduced the occurances of Chauffeur's Fracture. Rubber Tires were introduced and helped deal with traction and suspension. Suspension was improved to enhance the 'feel' of the ride thus reducing discomfort.

There it was, the car as we recognize it. All of this developement applied to the car was also applied to the truck so two seperate technological branches underwent the same refinements because of similar selective pressures, but the truck is a specialized tool and so has undergone significant specialization depending on application from flatbeds and tankers to tractors and all manner of construction equipment. Oh yes, and then there is the tank and all other specialized military equipement.

But they weren't done. Brake lights, headlights, automatic transmission, power steering, spedometers, tachometers, intermittant windshield wipers, radios, air conditioning, CB radio, fuel injection, on-board computers, gps, lcds, hydrogen powerplants, hybrid powerplants, jet turbines, nitrous injection, etc.

Really I could just keep this up all day. I wonder when Bill is going to take down the challenge or rewrite the rules.

The evolution of a motorcycle from a motor and a bicycle is not a good example in this regard because the motor and bicycle require extensive design-work to adapt them to each other.

— WmAD

Ved, I've been keeping the evolution within the framework of the concept(i.e. when a car evolved to a recognizable car). I fully realize that there were thousands of evolutions on the car concept before it became what it is today (we still use horsepower as a measurement so that ought to prove evolved concepts well enough), but I am trying to play by his rules and succeeding. I could have talked about arrows, catapults, ballista, trebuchets in the gun segment, but I don't think it would have played well. I could have laid out the foundations of the car as you did so well, but it would have been a waste. He wants the full organism with no adaptation, so I give him the first recognizable instance and move forward. It's a very rewarding exercise.

James Taylor wrote: "I don't see your post Norman on the competition page."

I do. I just checked the page and my entry is number 5. Is something funny going on or did you miss it?

Did you submit those clock, toilet and gun evolutions? I don't see them.

Try it and see what happens. Just copy and paste.

Awesome, he deleted my entries. Such a small man. Glad I documented it here as well.

As a result, my personal opinion of William A. Dembski is that he is a pompous, lying, unethical charlatan. Not that that's different than before; however, it is now a valid opinion drawn from personal interaction.

This guy (WAD) kills me. The comments are there this morning. Then their not, then they are. He can't decide which is more damaging, information or supression of free speech. I would think that I am crazy, except the comments still total 7 as they did last night after he removed the entries, but he subsequently has re-added them to the page and now the actual posts total up to 11. 11-7 = 4 which is the number of posts I submitted and he deleted. He has some nerve offering an open challenge, silencing entries, then reposting them like nothing has happened. So, what other smoke and mirrors do you have Bill?

James,
Are you checking from the same computer and internet connection each time, or sometimes checking from different systems or connections?

Henry

Yes, I am checking from multiple connections, and yes I already suspect he tunes what is displayed based upon the IP of the computer accessing the site. I will confirm this later today. Henry, do my four posts show up on your system?

James, I don't see your entries on that Technological Evolution Prize Competition page. I see 7 posts. If he can remove entries from the view of everyone except the objectionable poster that would be, well, pretty weasely.

James, I don't see your entries on that Technological Evolution Prize Competition page. I see 7 posts. If he can remove entries from the view of everyone except the objectionable poster that would be, well, pretty weasely.

— Ved Rocke

Good point James. If that's what he is doing, it's pretty darn insidious. That's the worst kind of censorship- where the censor is covering up the fact that he is even doing any censoring.

Speaking of things that can be done with computers. It would be fun to set up a program to watch the RSS feed from his site and log all of the new posts as they come in. It would make a good resource to compare to the actual site.

Speaking of things that can be done with computers. It would be fun to set up a program to watch the RSS feed from his site and log all of the new posts as they come in. It would make a good resource to compare to the actual site.

— Ved Rocke

This behavior is confirmed. The competition list is entirely different when viewed from my home computer. Bill is filtering posts via IP address. So, if you post to uncommon descent, what you see is not necessarily what the rest of the world sees. I would avoid the site at all costs, since they are filtering, censoring and obfuscating. Nothing on it can be trusted.

This behavior is confirmed. The competition list is entirely different when viewed from my home computer. Bill is filtering posts via IP address. So, if you post to uncommon descent, what you see is not necessarily what the rest of the world sees.
This makes no sense. Why would he restrict viewing by IP address, when all he has to do is delete the posts? Why fix it so only the poster won't see them, but everyone else can? What happens when you clear the browser's cache and then reload the site?

The competition list is entirely different when viewed from my home computer. Bill is filtering posts via IP address. So, if you post to uncommon descent, what you see is not necessarily what the rest of the world sees.

— James Taylor

Your home PC couldn't be displaying a cached version of his site could it? I see that there is now an 8th comment to that post. If you're seeing your 4 lost posts with now 8 others, that should eliminate any doubt as to what's going on.

Mythos, that's exactly what I understand James to be saying.

Just so I understand: Suppose I post an "objectionable" post on Bill's site. He could make it so I see my comment but no one else does?

— Mythos

Your home PC couldn't be displaying a cached version of his site could it? I see that there is now an 8th comment to that post. If you're seeing your 4 lost posts with now 8 others, that should eliminate any doubt as to what's going on.

— Ved Rocke

This behavior is confirmed. The competition list is entirely different when viewed from my home computer. Bill is filtering posts via IP address. So, if you post to uncommon descent, what you see is not necessarily what the rest of the world sees. I would avoid the site at all costs, since they are filtering, censoring and obfuscating. Nothing on it can be trusted.

Arden Chatfield wrote: "This should be a thread of its own."

Let's email the owners of this site.

Maybe panda's thumb should run a mirror of Dembski's contest -- get people to contribute money for the prize.

James:
You should be able to tell for sure by using an anonymizer (e.g. http://www.anonymizer.com/) to access Dembski's site. If your home computer shows one set of comments from a direct link, and a different one through an anonymizer, then the only explanation is that the site filters its content according to the reader's i.p. (of course, he could be using some sort of cookie instead, but I doubt it). Why Dembski would do that, however, beats me. He already gladly admits censoring comments the old-fashioned way. I doubt he is concerned about people's complaints.

Aha, Bill has now started to not censor the submissions. I now see Norman's and several others that were not visible as well. Guess now that the cat's out of the bag, Bill had to show a little honesty for fear of loss of credibility (too late). Welcome to the real world Bill. I will continue to oversee this competition so that Bill is forced to remain honest. I will also continue to submit entries to undermine his politcal agenda and expose his historical ignorance.

Norman, I want to thank and congratualate you on a successful lobby for free speech in the competition. I have no doubt that without your email challenging Bill's behavior, ethics and credibility, he would have never publicized submissions that support evolutionary concepts. He will find that this exercise will be extremely detrimental to his "evolution never happens" ignorance movement. Technological advance is applied evolution by the human mind. All he would need to do is read a historical analyisis or watch the History channel for two days to realize that this competition will completely undermine his philosophy.

Aha, Bill has now started to not censor the submissions. I now see Norman's and several others that were not visible as well. Guess now that the cat's out of the bag, Bill had to show a little honesty for fear of loss of credibility (too late). Welcome to the real world Bill. I will continue to oversee this competition so that Bill is forced to remain honest. I will also continue to submit entries to undermine his politcal agenda and expose his historical ignorance.

James Taylor wrote: "Aha, Bill has now started to not censor the submissions."

Well, at least he has combined our IP addresses into one filter.

Would others here please enter and read Bill's site looking for posts by me and James?

Norman, Im pretty sure he's opened it up for now. I have been able to view yours and other well argued submissions anonymously. I will be setting up an oversite website since he apparantly needs a nanny to keep him honest.

You guys ROCK!!

Ditto!

Pizzas on the house, boys!

(And when I say, "the house," I think it's only appropriate that we send the bill to Bill. He can always expense it on the tab of his BBQ joint. Or he could just send it in to the DI, and let Howard choke on it...heh, heh.)

Aha, you fuels!

You have just handed your dedicated foes, the Designer's Own Homeboys (the few, the proud, the DOHs!!) the detailed proof of the Atheist Materialist Naturalist Evile-utionist Cornspiracy (er, AMNEC, fer short):

The linkages to this conspiracy are now unVAIL*ed for ALL THE WORLD to see: AMNEC > PT > Lenny Flank, PT's "champion" > the "bag boy," Lenny's Pizza Guy > Italian food > Pastafarianism, aka Flying Spaghetti Monstrosity-IZM (which, in case ya din't NO, equals ATHEISM in SHIP's CLOTHES!!!).

Ya cain't fuel usn's, 'cause we's WAY 2 SMART fer y'all, y'hear!?! Yore bound ta lews, 'cause we can OUT-CAPITALIZE and unter-spell yew ANY DAY OF THE WEEK (and TWICET on Sunday: the DESIGNER'S day, for the thick-witted, which WE KNOW YEW ARE!!!).

_______

* HA! Betcha some of you elite edjicated monkey-lovers thawt I misspellt THAT, but AH'M rilly sayin' rite OUT LAWED what we at DOH have LONG SUSPECKTET: thet some of yew also SKEE on them thare "false positiff SNOWFLAKES! I woodn't DAWT it FOR A MINNIT!!!

Sarcasm is a low form of humour. And probably one of the most mean-spirited. I guess I hoped that those involved in a intellectual debate would strive to be above it. I guess I was wrong. [Cogzoid, you are out of here. ---WmAD]

— Cogzoid

A couple weeks ago, someone reported Dembski doing this. While my feeble memory can't dredge up the name of the poster or which thread he/she mentioned it in here on PT, the symptoms were identical. Said person even went so far as to clear out the cache just in case it was pulling up old data.

Three separate individuals experiencing the same symptoms seems pretty damning. Of course, if I were to get the treatment, I might never know, since I have a DHCP connection protocol.

Where are all the IDiots *now* who were just in here whining and bitching about how the big bad atheistic scientists are unfarily censoring the poor little ID scientists . . . . . . .

Any of you have anything to say about Dembski's dirty underhanded dishonest little trick?

Hey Bill, you wouldn't happen to have been in the employ of the Committee to Re-Elect the President circa 1972, would you? Ya know, CREEP?

I suggested that Dembski might be using an IP address trick to conceal censorship - back here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/what_else_could.html#comment-44057

"Can anyone remember Dembski ever admitting to making a mistake---and not laughing it off as inconsequential or irrelevant?

I can't."

neither can I, but I can't remember anyone on this board ever admitting making a signficant mistake either. Also, I can't remember Dawkins, Scott, or Ruse admitting a mistake. Dogma goes both ways.

I suspect Dembski is a megalomaniac. Literally a megalomaniac, I am not hyperboling, I think he's a megalomaniac!!!! Consider the symptoms

1- Inflated self opinion ( when was the last time you heard him resist being labelled "The Isaac Newton of Information Theory".)
2- Obsessive desire to propagate own ideas, and to destroy ideas one doesn't like.
3- Desire to mould a significant part of the world, i.e Biology, popular culture, to his whims
4- Extravagant and bizarre claims, i.e his claim that Biology is a pseudoscience ( He actually said that, not evolutionary biology, not Darwinian biology, but Biology!)
5- Desperate questing to prop up questionable self esteem ( how many degrees does he have again?)
6- Desire to be surrounded by sycophants (consider his blog.)

That itself doesn't tell us much though. Lot's of Geniuses were and are megalomaniacs, even chartlans at times (i.e Loui Pasteur.)

Would others here please enter and read Bill's site looking for posts by me and James?

— Norman

I found something similar happening to me a while ago. I thought this couldn't happen to me as I don't have a fixed IP address.

Alan wrote: "I can see your comments on the Tech.Evo. Prize thread."

Thanks for the report. That's what I see too.