The Deceitful Critics of Intelligent Design

Whoops!

"My God... it's full of starK, RAVING MADNESS!"
Okay, so I tweaked the quote a bit. I'm having a tough time reading this thing in one chunk, it seems to hop around from one nonsensical assertion to the next, punctuated not by periods and commas, but instead with invectives and smug ad hominem. In between all the disjointed puffery and the tired, old hat claims, what strikes me the most is the deep irony of the whole page. Including the author's profile. In my book, that's more of a plus than the nutty word salad of Time Cube.

I had a quick look at his (or rather the Frontline Science Institute's) webpage, and he links to an article of his where he advertises John Davison's theories!

I guess he got it, and then wrote it down.

Bob

You're missing the real Ujvarosy madness:

http://net.bio.net/hypermail/cellbiol/2002-May/014688.html

Excerpts:

So how can a human being transform himself into a closed-loop control system
for the proper regulation of his cell production? The answer is the feedback
of his body's genetic output. What is the genetic output of his body?
Answer: the reproductive cells.

1.. The Yellow Emperor of China (c. 2697-2598 B.C.) practiced the
feedback of his own reproductive cells for therapeutic purposes. (A.
Ishihara & H. S. Levy, The Tao of Sex, Harper & Row, New York, 1970.)
2.. Christ partook of his own semen to show that "we must so do, that we
may live." (Interrogationes Maiores Mariae, quoted by St. Epiphanius in his
Panarion, XXVI, cap. VIII.)
3.. A Gnostic sect celebrated the Eucharist (spiritual communion with
God) by eating "... 'their own sperm,' declaring it to be 'the body of
Christ.'" ("Gnosticism," Encyclopedia of Erotic Wisdom, R. C. Camphausen,
Inner Traditions International, Rochester, Vermont, 1991.)
4.. "Semen, or Bindu, is held to be the true elixir of life by Yoga and
Tantric schools alike." (J. Mumford, Sexual Occultism, Llewellyn, Saint
Paul, 1975.)
5.. "Human semen, as medicine, is used by many peoples, as by the
Australians, who believe it an infallible remedy for severe illness. It is
so used in European folk-custom " (E. Crawley, The Mystic Rose, Macmillan,
London, 1902.)
6.. Dutch missionaries in New Guinea observed that among many tribes
"the male's semen was regarded as a sacred substance" and was used in
healing and in fighting epidemics ("Sperm Magic," Encyclopedia of Erotic
Wisdom, R. C. Camphausen, Inner Traditions International, Rochester,
Vermont, 1991.)

This guy's wearing a full nut suit.

And the good people at Overwhelming Evidence know about it:

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/blog/quizzlestick/has_i_d_provided_peer_reviewed_testable_claims

Full Nut Suit

"Also we predict that universal common descent has its source in Jesus Christ."

that is interesting. Didn't jesus live only 200 years ago? if everthing descended from him, did the people who lived befor him also descend from him? is there some retro-active descend going on?

I ahve a hard time believing that someone who kanes such absurd statements can be chief of anything. doesn't really speak for the organisation he is heading, does it?

Will any of this be admissible in the next Dover trial?

Well, that sure makes science class a lot easier, and shorter. Saves money. Maybe we can put music classes back in school now.

Christ is the universal common ancestor

Those who believe that human intelligence is the product of the universe, when in fact the universe is the product of human intelligence, are no different from that proverbial maker of an idol who supposed that the idol which he had made actually made him.

Did he not get the memo?

I wonder if he became this delusional before or after he started eating his own holy emissions. . .

Are you sure Ujvarozy is 'affiliated' with the ID movement? I once read an article of his expecting it to be a parody of intelligent design, only to find he was totally serious. He's a joke. I know ID people love to shoot themselves in the foot, but they're not suicidal.

Are you sure Ujvarozy is 'affiliated' with the ID movement? I once read an article of his expecting it to be a parody of intelligent design, only to find he was totally serious. He's a joke. I know ID people love to shoot themselves in the foot, but they're not suicidal.

— pigwidgeon

Dave Hawkins? Oh dear, there was a student by that name here long ago. Oh dear, oh dear...

Hope its a different person.

And the good people at Overwhelming Evidence know about it: http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/blog/quiz... Full Nut Suit

After Matty posted the link to Over Whelming Evidence I went over there and made a few posts. I was certainly assertive but don't believe I was at any point rude. You can read my posts for yourself at the link below. I've just discovered I have been blocked!

Hm, was it the "Darwinists" or the ID crowd who suppress discussion? I can't recall.

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/blog/quizzlestick/has_i_d_provided_peer_reviewed_testable_claims?page=1

I just logged in to Overwhelming Evidence under a different user name and left a post where I identified myself and politely complained about being blocked. The post lasted about 5 minutes before being deleted and my new user name also blocked.

I've been wasting time that I should have used productively reading that site. It is both fascinating and disturbing.

Assuming it is not a parody, that site is quite possibly the single best reason why ID advocates should not be allowed to have any influence whatsoever over the public school science curriculum. Those kids minds have been poisoned. They believe in some of the most ridiculous, counter-factual nonsense imaginable. If anything, I have badly underestimated just serious the threat posed by ID obscurantism truly is.

The mission statement on their website says "This site is meant to encourage students to explore the facts, report the facts, and debate the facts." Yet they seem all to willing to bar people who try to debate them. You're right Steve, I have better things to be doing (real science ironically) than reasoning with people who can't/won't be reasoned with.

Second, ID critics allege that the theory fails to provide testable claims. Again, this criticism is demonstrably false: ID is eminently testable, has been tested, and is being tested constantly. As a matter of fact, ID needs no testing at all. The fact that design is the basic quality of intelligence is so self-evident that anyone who doubts it has to be exquisitely ignorant or entirely delusional. Third, critics of Intelligent Design eagerly promote the fabrication that the theory completely lacks predictive power. Of course, nothing can be further from the truth. Because we know that human intelligence in Christ's person is the seed, creator or designer of the universe, we are in the position to predict with unparalleled confidence that Christ is the universal common ancestor of all things created. Also we predict that universal common descent has its source in Jesus Christ.

Second, ID critics allege that the theory fails to provide testable claims. Again, this criticism is demonstrably false: ID is eminently testable, has been tested, and is being tested constantly. As a matter of fact, ID needs no testing at all. The fact that design is the basic quality of intelligence is so self-evident that anyone who doubts it has to be exquisitely ignorant or entirely delusional.

— An Idiot

The mission statement on their website says "This site is meant to encourage students to explore the facts, report the facts, and debate the facts." Yet they seem all to willing to bar people who try to debate them.

I should have learned from Libby's experience a week or two back.

The honesty of Ujvarosy is refreshing because it's exactly what most of the IDists believe.

The ID camp should look to this as an example and - my pet issue - drop the Easter Island and sky writing analogies whose legitimacy depends upon identifying one kind of designer vs. another.

Quizzlestick [OE poster]: ... these extracts from a recent peer-reviewed paper published at the American Chronicle show the depth and breadth of his important research: "Dark energy, that drives the expansion of the universe, is one of the deepest and most exciting puzzles in modern science. We posit that dark energy is the field manifestation of the parent seed of the universe, just as the cosmic vacuum's zero-point energy. They all originate from the cosmic seed's biophoton emissions, which blackbody radiation provides a holographic biofield for the generation of the physical universe. Based on the fact that the biophotonic radiation emitted by DNA is coherent, we predict that the cosmic seed's biophotonic field or "dark energy" is equally coherent." ...

No Peers Qualified to Review Kazmer | Fri, 2007-01-26 08:46 Kevin W. Parker (kevinwparker) is correct, American Chronicle is not a peer-reviewed publication, but neither is the Bible, nor most of the publications we have. So what? ...

Kazmer | Fri, 2007-01-26 20:40 ... I did not find a cure for cancer, I rediscovered what is called Panacea or Universal Medicine.

Intelligent Design and the Wacky Peer-review Demand ... Kazmer ... I'm in the process of writing an article with the above title.

[Kazmer again:] Let me add that in our days the Universal Medicine is called Human Genome, or rather the qualities of the Human Genome.

[quizzlestick:] ... I'm sick of Science being defined as what Richard Dawkins does not (or refuses to) understand.

"To be fair, there are a couple of people over there trying to make sense, but they'd achieve more by shouting down a well."

I should have spent the morning reading papers instead of trying to post there. At least I could have read papers at the same time as shouting down a well.

Okay...
I knew he was "nutty," but I didn't realize he advocated taking that description so "literally," as it were.
How much physics jargon can he possibly collude with biology to shove this travesty upon the public? It's like he picked up The God Particle one day and decided to chuck it into a blender with his library of New Age How-To's and a biology textbook, then write down whatever came out. I wonder if the resulting text passed Dembski's Explanatory Filter to see whether or not it was divinely inspireddesigned before being referred to on OE.
And this is supposed to be brilliant, testable insight! If Kazmer were still laboring under the shackles of sanity would any of this have been possible? Actually, one commentor noted that Kazmer's claims don't many any sense in a "strict materialist dogma," but then questioned whether or not that was the fault of Kazmer or the fault of materialism. It's that old dilemma ID faces: it tries to appeal to the authority of science to give it credibility, but it wants to change the rules for science in the process.
Personally I think it's pretty obvious that when your claims don't make sense, it's not the fault of "materialist dogma." I'd like to see somebody set up an actual system under which those claims make any kind of sense.

So Overwhelming Evidence is for high school students. This explains somewhat the quality of the average post. Before I read that part, I was thinking of signing up for an account to see if I could blog there for a bit, posing questions for the IDists and whatnot, but I can't find any privacy policy, Terms of Service, or any other informative page regarding A) how to conduct one's self, B) how one's account information (e-mail address etc.) could be used. In fact, I can't even find a Search function on the site. So besides being too old by a few years, I'm scared away by any unwritten rules and policies there might be. Who designs this site, and are they being devious, or just inexcusably sloppy?

Re "and are they being devious, or just inexcusably sloppy?"

Probably.

Hey, Wheels,

You could always set up a hotmail account just for OE, and see what happens.

Pierce:

Those excerpts remind me of an episode of L&O SVU where the less-than-brilliant suspect had all kinds of technical writing in his home but couldn't paraphrase a word of it.

Or Mary Baker Eddy's "Key to Scripture". I respect the work of the Christian Science Monitor et al, but that book is utter gibberish.

the universe is the product of human intelligence

— our current nutcase