Another bizarre chapter in the Dembski-Baylor spat ?

Interesting, this so called email 'parody' may be as successful as Dembski's 'Waterloo' email.

Most of us still remember how Dembski snatched victory from his own hands when he, after Baylor had given him his ID center, crowed victory and was quickly stripped of his new appointment. The rest is history, and we all know how history tends to repeat itself to those who have not learned from it.

What amazes me is that the posting may very well have been an attempt to 'fool' those Darwin-bots when in fact, it was the ID crowd that showed its true colors once again.
The comment thread shows how vacuous ID really has become.

This is what happens when those IDiotic buffoons refuse to come to terms with the fact that ID is dead.

What truly impresses me is that some, unaware of scientific progress, actually claim that Darwinism has been shown to be mathematically unfeasible, and refer to some unnamed 'calculations' as well as the recent work by Behe. And yet, neither examples really do what is claimed they do.

This my friends is the real cost of the vacuous concept of ID, leading astray people into a false belief. What cost will this have eventually to the faith of thousands who have taken ID seriously. What cost will it have to science and science education, if ID proponents get their wishes?

In an attempt at parody, UcD has exposed an immense level of vacuity amongst its own readers and followers, and they have managed to document the theologically dangerous positions of ID.

Not a bad job for a parody :-)

This is pretty bizarre.

The interesting thing, as far as I'm concerned, is that the "PARODY" email is actually extremely reasonable and well-argued. I'm not sure it really sounds like something a university president would have written-- for one thing, it contains comma errors-- but if it had been, I would have been honestly a little bit impressed.

Botnik seems to be missing the point of what "parody" is-- in contexts like this "parody" usually means "arguing your opponent's side for them, only in a clearly absurd or faulty manner", not "arguing your opponent's side for them convincingly".

Or is it possible maybe that when an ID advocate tries to think of the most absurd and faulty thing they can think of, the first thing that comes to mind is rational thought?

There's a rather nice irony here. The IDers all like to go on about how obvious design is in nature. They talk of design filters and specified complexity and such like. Yet, they can't even recognize a parody when they see it, and from one of their own at that...

The arrival of the nonexistent "lab" was announced with great fanfare: Dembski addresses forthcoming Intelligent Design research that advances ID and answers critics. Expect a proper burial ceremony.

Has anyone else noticed that all comments on Dembski's bogus "Botnik" post have been removed from the UD site? Too embarrassing? Or is it just my computer?

When Botnik approached me about whether it would be all right to post his parody of what President John Lilley of Baylor might be thinking in trying to justify his expulsion of Prof. Robert Marks’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab from Baylor, I thought it mirrored what motivates many academics in wanting to stamp out ID. Besides, it seemed to me so over-the-top that I didn’t think the parody would be lost on anyone. And UD has had its humorous side (witness Galapagos Finch). Clearly, readers of UD fell for it, but so did many people on the other side, judging by all the many emails they sent President Lilley to confirm whether Botnik’s parody actually represented Lilley’s words. In retrospect, it’s clear that this piece of tomfoolery went too far. I’m therefore removing the thread. I hope Baylor and President Lilley take its removal as a gesture of goodwill on the part of UD as they reconsider what to do about Robert Marks and his Evolutionary Informatics Lab.

— Dembski

Has anyone else noticed that all comments on Dembski’s bogus “Botnik” post have been removed from the UD site? Too embarrassing? Or is it just my computer?

Parody at UD William Dembski When Botnik approached me about whether it would be all right to post his parody of what President John Lilley of Baylor might be thinking in trying to justify his expulsion of Prof. Robert Marks’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab from Baylor, I thought it mirrored what motivates many academics in wanting to stamp out ID. Besides, it seemed to me so over-the-top that I didn’t think the parody would be lost on anyone. And UD has had its humorous side (witness Galapagos Finch). Clearly, readers of UD fell for it, but so did many people on the other side, judging by all the many emails they sent President Lilley to confirm whether Botnik’s parody actually represented Lilley’s words. In retrospect, it’s clear that this piece of tomfoolery went too far. I’m therefore removing the thread. I hope Baylor and President Lilley take its removal as a gesture of goodwill on the part of UD as they reconsider what to do about Robert Marks and his Evolutionary Informatics Lab.

Yet another example of Dembski's "street theater."

Amusing to no one, apparently, except himself.

Nobody with half a brain was taken in by that childish "email" from the president of a university. Please! "Willy-Nilly?" That might sum up the total of WaD's research.

Of course, all the creationists were taken in for the obvious reason.

On UD, Dembski's groupie, O'Leary, gushes that way back when the ID lab was "suppressed" by Baylor when the real reason that Dembski got dumped, which is documened all over the web, was because of his un-colleagic email; the infamous Waterloo Email.

Why Dembski persists with Baylor could be the subject of a sociological, or pathosociological, thesis, but it remains that this is clearly Strike Two for Dr. Dr. and I guess we'll have to wait for the next pitch.

The level of infantile stupidity and the lack of the sense of genuine humor displayed both by posting Botnik's so called parody and by the comment announcing its removal is stunning even for UD's boss whose previous great performances included imitating the sounds of flatulence all over the web, and endless pronouncements of the imaginary victories of ID. Perhaps the seminaries that offered a heaven to Dembski after Baylor realized his actual worth, may now have a second thought.

What is fascinating how Dembski's 'jokes' tend to backfire time after time. Waterloo, Judge Jones and Farts, Lilley.

I believe that until further notice, it is best to assume that anything published by ID should be treated as parody, until indicated otherwise.
After all, that would explain most of ID's behaviors best. Call it a 'design inference' if you may.

anybody wants the saved thread, email me. SteveStory at gmail dot com.

The letter is available on Austringer.

Oleg Tchernyshyov posted "The arrival of the nonexistent “lab” was announced with great fanfare..."

Not only is the bogus "lab" nonexistent, but the purported lab's purported website, mentioned in Dembski's interview at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/07/william_dembski_addresses_fort.html is also nonexistent. http://www.evolutionaryinformatics.org is a "parked" web page with no content - like the rest of intelligent design creationism. What a surprise.

Just out of curiosity, did anyone make a mirror of the original thread?

It's a beautiful sight so see, once again, Dembski trying to explain away the obvious. What is even more hilarious is Dembski's groveling to Lilley, hoping that this time his poorly chosen words will not lead to yet another demise of an intelligent design 'lab'.
'Foot in mouth' Dembski and his valiant sidekick Sal, can always be counted on to make a fool of themselves and Intelligent Design.

What a crock

27 StephenB 09/02/2007 9:33 am Tard Alert! I must admit I was a little irked at first. Not that I got taken, but because it seemed to trivialize and neutralize some of the serious arguments against Baylor made on O’Leary’s post. One thing is sure, though. Lilley’s words may have been fabricated, but his actions certainly were not. Besides, when Darwinists fool people with a hoax, they don’t wait for the laughter to subside (or as in Botnik’s case, wait for it to bomb) and then confess it as a parody. On the contrary, they collaborate to keep the lie alive until it becomes institutionalzed and then close ranks around it.

28 tribune7 09/02/2007 12:09 pm Tard Alert! John Lilley deserves a PUBLIC APOLOGY for this little stunt. Actually, Lilley should send Bortnik a note of thanks for the implicit constructive criticism.

29 DLH 09/02/2007 2:28 pm Tard Alert! Botnick In “Captains Courageous” the Portugese suggested Harvey spit first before throwing the garbage upwind. What wisdom is there in angering those who need persuading, by putting words unspoken into their mouths? Now how can this be redressed?

Comment #203163 Posted by PvM on September 2, 2007 8:06 PM (e) | kill It’s a beautiful sight so see, once again, Dembski trying to explain away the obvious. What is even more hilarious is Dembski’s groveling to Lilley, hoping that this time his poorly chosen words will not lead to yet another demise of an intelligent design ‘lab’.

Posted by Coin on September 2, 2007 4:51 PM (e) This is pretty bizarre. The interesting thing, as far as I’m concerned, is that the “PARODY” email is actually extremely reasonable and well-argued. I’m not sure it really sounds like something a university president would have written– for one thing, it contains comma errors– but if it had been, I would have been honestly a little bit impressed. Botnik seems to be missing the point of what “parody” is– in contexts like this “parody” usually means “arguing your opponent’s side for them, only in a clearly absurd or faulty manner”, not “arguing your opponent’s side for them convincingly”. Or is it possible maybe that when an ID advocate tries to think of the most absurd and faulty thing they can think of, the first thing that comes to mind is rational thought?

Once more, Dembski proves that creationists, of whatever stripe, have no concept of satire, irony, or even more fundamentally, humor. If you have to explain a joke to people, it ain't funny. I recommend Billy get back to fart noises. However, seriously, I imagine Dembski has a self-destructive urge. Otherwise, why risk insulting a higher-up with an idiotic post like this?

What's the next step down from where he is now? Biola?

Oops. Didn't notice the "parody" was of the President of Baylor, from which Dembski was exiled long ago. BD's downward academic trajectory was a result of his own arrogance. It's pretty hard to get fired when the administration brought you in and established a whole new department for you (the Polyani Center). But by golly, Dembski rose to the challenge! His abrupt departure from Baylor was a result of his arrogance. He has nothing to blame Dr. Lilley about.

After realizing that only mediocre ID-creationist appear in it Dembki may have been pissed off that it's not him staring EXPELLED and this was a helpless attempt to creep into the movie.

The situation at UD must be rather desperate because normally they don't post on sundays

. . . the “PARODY” email is actually extremely reasonable and well-argued.

Judge John E. Jones III ruled decisively in Kitzmiller v. Dover that intelligent design is religion, and that's good enough for me.

Academic freedom comes to an end where reason and common sense give way to ignorance and nonsense.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness"

Posted by sparc on September 2, 2007 10:51 PM (e) The situation at UD must be rather desperate because normally they don’t post on sundays

Dembski is such a fascinating character. On the one hand he must have a certain measure of intelligence - he has after two doctorates and a masters in theology. He must at least be book smart. Yet, when it comes to social interaction and understanding the 'theory of mind' he just seems totally inept. This latest episode and his recent forays into 'humor' indicate that he has little idea how his efforts will be perceived. The sophistication of his humor is about the level of a sniggering, back-of-the-classroom 13-year old - it may seem hilarious to his fellow 13-year olds, but to adults it comes across as child-like and immature. The negative response must cause major cognitive dissonance for him - and obviously, rather than face the fact that he is at fault and that his actions are highly inappropriate, he demonizes his enemies.

Just out of curiosity, did anyone make a mirror of the original thread?

I think the bible says something about, that along the lines of… ‘Before God destroys you he first drives you insane’

— k.e.

Just out of curiosity, did anyone make a mirror of the original thread?

The original post without the “parody” line is still in the Google cache. I’ve saved a hard copy here

Timcol,
How can you possibly think Dr. Demski is behaving like a junior high school student? His stuff has 'fifth-grader' written all over it.

What is fascinating how Dembski’s ‘jokes’ tend to backfire time after time. Waterloo, Judge Jones and Farts, Lilley.

— PvM

Why are people on both sides of the fence uncomfortable with the phrase 'willy-nilly'? If it was good enough for Shakespeare it should be good enough for the rest of us. (IIRC it's a shortening of the middle English 'will he or nill he' - ie it will happen to him whether he wills it ot not.)

Do the ID folks every explain exactly what "research" they are planning to do (or were planning to do before some mean old Darwinist closed down their labs)?

Also, I'd be interested in the entire process that the mainstream scientists go through to get funding, conduct research, etc.

Dembski impersonating someone in order to misrepresent their ideas? Big surprise there...
Yeah, I know it was supposed to be a joke.

Fork - I've been given administrator privileges, so I could remove your post, but my motto is 'once on the web, always on the web.' I'm happy to apologize to Lilley once he apologizes to Marks and puts back his website on the Baylor server. By the way, to which tune do you sing 'Baylor ueber alles'?

I recall a few years ago Reed(?) posted a spoof item than many of us missed. The message (if any) is that both sides view the other as such dolts that caricature is nearly impossible.

Some cynics may wonder if UcD is not run by some clever atheists. What does the Design Filter tell us?

I recall a few years ago Reed(?) posted a spoof item than many of us missed.

Besides, when Darwinists fool people with a hoax, they don’t wait for the laughter to subside (or as in Botnik’s case, wait for it to bomb) and then confess it as a parody. On the contrary, they collaborate to keep the lie alive until it becomes institutionalzed and then close ranks around it.

Dembski snatched victory from his own hands

WAD is a narcissist. He is his own undoing.

PvM, I’m (obviously) no study of english, but I think you botched this one three ways from Sunday. (Etymologically, logically and humoristically, to be precise.)

Caligula said,

"I never liked the ICON-RIDS prank in itself, because fooling someone by forging your intentions seems unethical to me. What I did find hilarious was Dembski’s reaction to the web page of “secular ID proponents”. Remember what he said? Pretty much sums it up for “growing numbers”."

Hi Caligula,

ICON-RIDS is not a prank. When I joined ISCID I was anti-religious. I have since worked on my level of tolerance and I am now merely non-religious. While there may not be many non-religious ID'ers, they do exist... or at least I do exist and I am not joking. Personally, I couldn't care less what Jesus, Moses and the boys may or may not have done have done thousands of years ago.

{For heaven's sake people, THIS IS A P-A-R-O-D-Y!!}

function onudload(event) { if (0 <= window.location.href.IndexOf("uncommondescent.com")) { var d = node.getElementsByTagName('div'); for (var c = 0; c < d.length; c++) { if (d.className == "body") { var b = document.createElement('p'); b.innerHTML = "<b>{For heaven’s sake people, THIS IS A P-A-R-O-D-Y!!}</b>"; if (d[c].firstChild) d[c].insertBefore(b, d[c].firstChild); } } } } window.addEventListener('load', onudload, true);

"ICON-RIDS is not a prank. When I joined ISCID I was anti-religious. I have since worked on my level of tolerance and I am now merely non-religious. While there may not be many non-religious ID’ers, they do exist… or at least I do exist and I am not joking. Personally, I couldn’t care less what Jesus, Moses and the boys may or may not have done have done thousands of years ago."

Hi William,

Thanks for the response. Could you clarify this: what on Earth does Hefnerian playboy philosophy have to do with origins, and exactly how does it integrate into the ID theory? I bet that all parties in the origins debate are dying to learn this.

I can't tell whether you're sincere, or whether you've decided to "play the role" as long as it amuses you. In any case, I still think that Dembski's "growing number of non-religious ID proponents" is not backed up well by a single person (EJ is a Klone of you, right?) who does his best to embarrass Dembski. And if you are a prank, in spite of your protests, I have to say that I do find some of your stuff hilarious, even if I don't agree with your general method of embarrassing ID. Some special cases of investigative journalism can justify this kind of "infiltration", but in general it is wrong to fake your real intention.

…uh, how serious were you about this?

Chronicle of Higher Education today claims that the web page for Marks' "Evolutionary Informatics lab" has been removed from the Baylor site.

I'm very, very confused.

Oh no, I missmelled misspelled. This could go on all day.

This is a big story, perhaps the biggest story yet of academic suppression relating to ID. Robert Marks is a world-class expert in the field of evolutionary computing, and yet the Baylor administration, without any consideration of the actual content of Marks’s work at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, decided to shut it down simply because there were anonymous complaints linking the lab to intelligent design.

— Dembski

Hi Caligula,

Thank you for your comments. No "EJ Klone" is definitely not me. I am thinking that maybe the "Klone" part refers to EJ being a Raelian (they're into that cloning stuff) and they are atheistic.

What on Earth does Hefnerian playboy philosophy have to do with origins?

Nothing that I can think of. I call myself an "ID Pleasurian" -- a non-nihilistic Playboy-type philosopher who thinks the universe was intelligently designed. I am a "Pleasurian" just as Behe is a "Catholic" and Dembski is an "Evangelical." The difference is that Pleasurian-ism is not a religion, it is just a philosophy.

"I have to say that I do find some of your stuff hilarious."

That is good. Yes it was me who "accidentally" linked to the WEDGE (the sex cushion) instead of the WEDGE the DI document. What can I say.. I'm a rascal.

secondclass: Dembski rants here: Dembski wrote: This is a big story, perhaps the biggest story yet of academic suppression relating to ID. Robert Marks is a world-class expert in the field of evolutionary computing, and yet the Baylor administration, without any consideration of the actual content of Marks’s work at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, decided to shut it down simply because there were anonymous complaints linking the lab to intelligent design.

I find this whole situation funny. Not just the reactions from the ID group but the reactions from this one as well. Just take out the topic from both groups and you get basically the same results from both sides. ID says evolution is wrong in a matter of fact aggressive way and evolutionists fire back in kind. While I agree with the later I just think this is pretty humorous when you stand back and look at it all.
What I would find even better though would be if the posts on the ID page were actually part of the parody. That has to be it, because I do have a hard time believing they just ignored the parody warning. I first thought that had to be aided after the fact.

... I do have a hard time believing they just ignored the parody warning. I first thought that had to be aided after the fact.

Thanks for pointed that out... the egg is certainly on my face. Hopefully you are right and it happend after comment 16. Or someone could have been a jackass like myself and not have read the entire posting like I just did.

On the other hand, if on his/her own time and through external grants a faculty member wishes to pursue any topic, from ID to unicorn ethology, it’s entirely his/her prerogative to do so.

Oh no, I missmelled misspelled. This could go on all day.

ID says evolution is wrong in a matter of fact aggressive way and evolutionists fire back in kind.

the egg is certainly on my face.

If it was good enough for Shakespeare it should be good enough for the rest of us.

Didn’t you mean “Dembski snatched defeat from the arms of victory”?

Whatever the traditional phrase, I think that "how Dembski snatched victory from his own hands when he," makes the intended point quite well. :)

Henry

p.s. Has anybody else noticed the list of choices the spell checker gives for "Dembski"?

LP, Henry J, PvM:

Thanks! I guess my googling the exact term went astray on my misremembering it - I tried to find a dictionary description but failed. (It isn't necessary my fault, being a non-native speaker I tend to pick up what others have used twice or thrice.)

Hmm. "Jaws" will be easier to remember. (Suggests an image of dogs fighting over scraps.)

And if Henry thinks PvM's phrase is humorous, I owe PvM an apology. [My bad, PvM!] The reversal was funnier to me, but humor is a personal taste.

Neal's last 2 comments were becoming too much of a distraction. They have been moved to the Bathroom Wall (where they rightly belong) together with the associated replies.

Neal, profanity-laced posts are not welcome, especially if they also fail to even attempt to make sensible points. Clean up your language or try to make sense, and possibly both, otherwise your next posts will be just deleted. Everyone else, please ignore trolls. Thanks.

What I would find even better though would be if the posts on the ID page were actually part of the parody. That has to be it, because I do have a hard time believing they just ignored the parody warning. I first thought that had to be aided after the fact.

Wow, for a scientific theory, Intelligent Design sure brings out the ecclesiastical tribunal:

bornagain77: Is this guy really a Baptist?...

Dave Scot: Presumably Lilly is a Christian.

StephenB: I would not want to guess whether he is a real Christian or not.

Fully 20% of the posts prior to the unveiling of the hoax called Lilly's beliefs into question. If you want to see the difference between religion and science in action, suppose for a moment the theory in question had been cold fusion. Nobody would have questioned hoax-Lilly's religious beliefs then. But these ID-iots confirm over and over, it's about Christian religion, especially when they're at their most heated in denying it.

Not to mention that cold fusion would be a good thing if it could be made to work. (Though last I heard that seemed unlikely.)

Henry

By a little before 10 pm, only one UD commenter had expressed any suspicion . . .

Comment #204165 Posted by tourettist on September 5, 2007 1:04 PM (e) | kill Wow, for a scientific theory, Intelligent Design sure brings out the ecclesiastical tribunal: bornagain77: Is this guy really a Baptist?… Dave Scot: Presumably Lilly is a Christian. StephenB: I would not want to guess whether he is a real Christian or not.

Neal, profanity-laced posts are not welcome, especially if they also fail to even attempt to make sensible points. Clean up your language or try to make sense, and possibly both, otherwise your next posts will be just deleted.

economic interests

uh, see any commercial advertisements on this site, oh brainless one?

do note the .org extension.

not .com.

get it?

no, of course you don't.

someone out there thinks the contributors are actually getting rich off of the 'thumb!

BWAHAHAHAAHA!

what will these idiots come up with next.

I'm getting paid? (Or, as Neal would say, "I'm getting "PAID"????!!!!??)
When did this happen? Note to Andea Bottaro: the checks are not coming through.

the favored points of view in this venue was getting it’s proverbally butt kicked in a matter of a few paragraphs

At first, I thought that the Baylor University authorities had been rather heavy-handed in dealing with Dr. Dembski. But then I thought: if all he needs is a windowless office, an internet connection and access to a library, why does he need to be at Baylor specifically. He can do his research anywhere. Perhaps its the famous cafeteria food...

Neal,
for the record, your original posts and subsequent comments were not "eliminated", they are at the Bathroom Wall, which is a quasi-free-for-all thread of PT comments at the AntiEvolution.org discussion board, associated with this blog. You are free to continue your "butt-kicking" there at any time (just make sure you follow the local board rules).

Comment #204417 Posted by ernestog on September 6, 2007 3:49 AM (e) | kill At first, I thought that the Baylor University authorities had been rather heavy-handed in dealing with Dr. Dembski. But then I thought: if all he needs is a windowless office, an internet connection and access to a library, why does he need to be at Baylor specifically.

2007 Buckle your safety belts! William Dembski Happy New Year to all UD regulars. I expect 2007 to be a bang-up year for ID. Here are three things in particular I'm looking forward to in the coming year: 1. A new ID friendly research center at a major university. (This is not merely an idle wish - stay tuned.)

@Steve_s Comment #204490

Exactly. Its seems that all the teeth gnashing, hair pulling histrionics at UD is just a show. There is still absolutely nothing stopping them doing their um... 'research'. Baylor doesn't have anything that the ID crowd dont already have... expect perhaps their name. Like you said, Dembski and co. just want to crow about ID being based at a University. How much more fucking lame could they be. Being associated with a University won't suddenly make ID research better or any less inane, jackasses!

And I don't the blame Baylor for not wanting them there.

Neal said: Can you spell “micro” vs. “macro” sir bonehead? Maybe someone needs to describe the differences to you.

Hear, hear.

Put up or shut up, Neal.

What are the limitations of what you call microevolution, that make what you call macroevolution impossible?

What particular obstacle to gene duplication, frame shift, or point mutation -- possibly of regulating sequences -- makes the differentiation in, say, the jawbone/earbone development, or crustacean/insect abdomens, or fin/hand development, impossible?

The guys who actually do the work freely admit the picture is not yet complete, but it seems to be unfolding as suspected.

What surprises are they in for?

You seem to know they're headed for a brick wall.

What is it?

Spell it out for us.

We're all waiting.

(Like everything else this reminds me of a Monty Python skit. "Come on, Os, let's have the wit, then.")

Sorry about the mixed metaphors.

As Gracie would say, Neal: you've buttered your bread, now lie in it.

“micro” vs. “macro”

The extrapolations from the minuscule to support the vast assertions required to even begin to build any kind of credible case for macro-evolutionary conceptualizations rapidly turn the quest into la la dreamland jack and jill went up the hill fairy tale type speculations.

But just as the borders (and so definitions) between species is fluid, so is the separation into microevolution (common descent) and macroevolution (speciation). In some speciation processes (ring species) the populations can’t be observed to speciate before you compare them at a mixing area.

As long as you continue to defend an outmoded philosophical position

But a man driving a well (and i know you a______s are going to hate this comment)”designed vehicle” is going to not only get from point a to point b much more rapidly, but also potentially, get to point “f_____g” Z by getting through all the various other points of reference much more efficiently and effectively!!!!!!! You stu__d s__ts)

Neal,

Why don't you find some cures for some diseases yourself instead of yelling at those who have? You won't even define your terms or explain what you mean by your accusations. Why should anyone take you seriously? So what if some people have a philosophy different from yours? How does that stop you from learning and practicing real science the way you think it should be done?

When you have some valid agruments, maybe someone will be willing to listen. When you have some evidence maybe some one will be convinced. Until then, crying that some people have different opinions than you is completely worthless.

As long as you continue to defend an outmoded philosophical position that continues to pull from the limited resources available to devote to real concerns facing humanity now, I guarantee you I will continue to “scream” at you b______s who want to continue to bolster your own favored ideological, philosophical banterings in the name of science at the expense of human suffering!!!!!!! (You pr__k__ad) (I am sure your desire to figure out the missing letters will be covered by you last “grant” to discover more macro-evolutionary s__t ) I really am sick of the ASSERTION that macro-evolutionary “studies” have contributed significantly to advances in science. I mean, a man with a broken leg who has a crutch may eventually get from point a to point b. But a man driving a well (and i know you a______s are going to hate this comment)”designed vehicle” is going to not only get from point a to point b much more rapidly, but also potentially, get to point “f_____g” Z by getting through all the various other points of reference much more efficiently and effectively!!!!!!! You stu__d s__ts)

but, gee, Neal, if it was entirely philosophical, how could it have produced testable predictions, that were, in fact, tested, and the results of which published in thousands of journal articles that have then contributed to the very advancements I was mentioning?

Torbjorn,

To me the large scale aspects of macroevolution are the most significant. It seems to me that specifying between population differneces is emphasizing only the lower end of the scale. It may be technically correct, but it doesn't convey the divergence and diversity observed at the class and phylum level very well.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Some people draw the line at speciation. Some people draw the line even higher. To me, that just emphasizes the fact that there is no hard and fast demarcation from microevolution and that the processes responsible for lower lever divergence are undoubtedly also responsible for differences at higher levels. You just need to include some evo/devo and some more developmental and regulatory genetics at the higher levels, but it seems to be more of the same to me.

Of course our troll is not going to like this one bit. Do you think he will go away now?

I don't think it's a line between micro and macro, I think its a fuzzy overlap of two regions on a continuous scale.

Henry

Um, so could we say within populations vs “within and between populations” instead of “large scale effects”? That would look appealingly more qualitative distinctive (ie against one dimension).

To me the large scale aspects of macroevolution are the most significant. It seems to me that specifying between population differences is emphasizing only the lower end of the scale.

Do you think he will go away now?

It’s more like looking at what influences large scale patterns in the direction of evolution, especially as evidenced over geologic time in the fossil record, ... the distinction at this point appears mostly popularized within the paleontology community, and the convention seems to work quite well there (it makes sense to make the distinction).

Not being a cosmologist myself, I don’t really know if there have been adopted any similar conventions of scale; maybe the Big Bang theory is considered a “macrocosmological” theory? or maybe it’s just simpler than that and the division between cosmology and astronomy suffices.

FWIW I think the joke has worn thin, and it is time Neal was banned until he learns to type sans caps, blanked out curses, and explanation points, and actually addresses the arguments, any arguments, put forth.

My $.02

Neal wrote: Mr. editor, are you “taking me out again?” on what basis?

Mea culpa. Roger wilco.

by the way, any update on what's happening with Marks, Andrea?

From an inside source at Baylor, apparently Marks gave Dembski and
a guest office with nameplate. Another faculty member saw it, reported
it, and the nameplate and office were withdrawn.