Which one of you little rascals Sokaled AiG?

I confess, I confess. I wrote it, you know, wrote it all. Yeah,,, you know, the part about the tangible and the intagible being in reality, Yeah. And that other paragraph, yeah, you know,, where I said,,, yeah, you know. It was cool wasn't it. Yeah

Somebody should not only Sokal AIG, but also publicize all over the blogosphere the fact that they are going to do it before they do it. Hilarity ensues...

About a year ago the movie What the Bleep Do We Know? was making the rounds, especially in West LA and the Hollywood area.

Now we see AiG using similar ideas and coming up with a “new” take on fundamentalist religion?

Quantum entanglement with the devil; woo, woo!

This doesn't look like a Sokal style job to me. I fully expect such a stunt to be pulled, but I'd expect the perpetrators to wait a bit before sending it in. Besides which this is too much of an insane mess, I expect the hoax to actually sound much more coherent and logical, but based on clear fallacies that can be brought up later to reveal the total lack of peer review.

On this, though, I'm disappointed. Frankly I've come to expect AiG to at least do better than this. It's as if they know that no one gives a damn about the journal so they might as well throw any old rubbish up onto it. The rubes that support them wouldn't be caught dead reading a scientific journal, or even a pretend journal, so they're not a concern. The actual scientific community's conclusion is already a given, so there's no point in trying to impress them either.

Is that what this faux journal has become? A prop, filled with words that nobody is expected to read, to be referred to but never cited?

Alright everybody; check out the first line (after the Abstract):

"For more than 40 years I..."

Who cares?

...have been contemplating this issue of ontology"

Now seriously. Let's do the whole "real science, AiG science" gig again. When's the last time your hear an article in a cell bio journal say, "Y'know? I've been thinking a lot about evolution."

That's the first "peer reviewed" journal I've seen that is written in the first person, letting us know what the author is "contemplating."

oh my...and I haven't even gotten past that first sentence...I think I'll quit now

Wow. That's all I can say. I thought this was funny... then I went and tried to "read" the "journal" article. Wow.

Poe's Law, anyone?

Wow. That's all I can say. I thought this was funny... then I went and tried to "read" the "journal" article. Wow.

Poe's Law, anyone?

You can't P-A-R-O-D-Y that, they do such a near perfect a job of that all by themselves.

School yard projection by someone 25 going on 75. A great gnashing of teeth indeed, if he keeps it up he'll eat out his rectum.

Oh no!! There's more. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1

And, just who is Desmond P. Allen? What university or lab?

That’s the first “peer reviewed” journal I’ve seen that is written in the first person, letting us know what the author is “contemplating.”

— David Buller

It looks like the authors of the ARJ nonsense seem keen on telling us what they think. For example, this incredible sentence appears in the ARJ "paper" on "Microbes and the Days of Creation",
"I once believed that all microbes were simply created on Day Three—with all the plants (and seed-bearing life). "

Those of us who are reality-obsessed are reading this drivel more attentively than the YECs. In a year's time nobody will be reading it since it's going to get tedious and lose its humorous appeal pretty quickly. I expected the scientific content to be nil; instead it managed to achieve a substantial negative score.

A prediction: The only person who will ever cite Desmond P. Allen's "paper", is Desmond P. Allen when he next decides to engage in some more of this masturbatory writing.

You can’t P-A-R-O-D-Y that, they do such a near perfect a job of that all by themselves.

Foreign words and phrases should be italicized only if they are uncommon to our readers:
Lebensraum (italicized)
angst, canard (nonitalicized)

Nigel D: I have read peer-reviewed scienctific journals that were mostly written in the first person - although, admittedly, this was mostly in the plural, (i.e. "we") or, occasionally, "one of us".

Well, technically it is a peer reviewed journal - it just doesn't say that their peers are a bunch of goofy religiously-biased nutjobs that don't understand science. It is most certainly not a peer reviewed scientific journal but whatcha going to do when your peers are a bunch of religious nuts?

When I saw it first posted, I was stunned at just how bizarre and illogical it was. But the only purpose of a paper like this is to hold up in front of uneducated audiences as a PR tool to say that creationists do "peer reviewed" research, that "real" research confirms creationism, and that it is being repressed by the mainstream community. The fact that it is complete crap is irrelevant. The "more eruditer" and denser it sounds, the better. The rest of us can laugh all we want, but they couldn't care less.

Laugh it up now.
But I guarantee this drivel will show up as evidence of a peer reviewed scientific basis for ID as soon as they can find safer venue for another Kitzmiller-esq trial.

Of course ID will have to have a new name then.
My vote goes to "knowledgeable scheme" by simple substitution of synonyms.
Look for edits that result in "creatable me" in some future edition of Pandas.

Off-topic, but a heads-up for a major purpose of Panda's Thumb.

This link:

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/02/creationism-stealth-campaign-in-tx.html

regarding a creationist stealth campaign to obtain a majority on The Texas State Board of Education.

From reading it I just get the mental image of an upside-down pyramid. Way to much attempted depth in philosophy is based upon such a shallow idea.

And they think it's standing just fine...

If they think god is a guy and they have a loving relationship with him are they not homosexual?

Suffer the little children.

John Sykes notes that this spoof got him more fame than his original research, which he attributes to the popularity of Chandrasekhar.

That became the Alpher, Bethe, Gamow paper.

So now they really can't claim they aren't intrerested in whether goddit or not. This paper rather firmly, if illogically, adds god to the equation.

Summary of the ID movement in his own words

"... Even before I understood the model of evolution, I already knew it was illogical. Frankly, I was offended that my teachers expected me to believe it. And I was extremely disappointed in them for apparently believing it themselves. In time I learned that logic can never convince passion. Irrespective of one’s education, without a purposed conscious intervention, one’s passion transcends one’s logic and reason."

Tailspin: So now they really can't claim they aren't intrerested in whether goddit or not. This paper rather firmly, if illogically, adds god to the equation.

Mike Elzinga: Then there was that paper (not a spoof) by George Gamow who added the names Ralph Alpher and Hans Bethe ahead of his own to the list of authors even though he was the sole author. That became the Alpher, Bethe, Gamow paper.

Actually Gamow’s grad student Alpher contributed significantly to the paper.

Mike Elzinga:

John Sykes notes that this spoof got him more fame than his original research, which he attributes to the popularity of Chandrasekhar.

Then there was that paper (not a spoof) by George Gamow who added the names Ralph Alpher and Hans Bethe ahead of his own to the list of authors even though he was the sole author. That became the Alpher, Bethe, Gamow paper.

That’s the first “peer reviewed” journal I’ve seen that is written in the first person, letting us know what the author is “contemplating.”

Carl: A prediction: The only person who will ever cite Desmond P. Allen's "paper", is Desmond P. Allen when he next decides to engage in some more of this masturbatory writing.

Actually Gamow’s grad student Alpher contributed significantly to the paper.

Gamow couldn’t get Delter to agree to be listed….

Gamow also urged Herman to change his name to Delter to match delta, the next letter in the Greek alphabet. Despite Herman’s [R.C. Herman, who worked with Alpher on the computer calculations -- PG] refusal, in a paper in a major scientific journal Gamow referred to “the neutron-capture theory...developed by Alpher, Bethe, Gamow and Delter.”

Popper's Ghost:

Gamow couldn’t get Delter to agree to be listed….

Uh, there was no Delter ... but that didn't keep Gamow from trying:

Gamow also urged Herman to change his name to Delter to match delta, the next letter in the Greek alphabet. Despite Herman’s [R.C. Herman, who worked with Alpher on the computer calculations -- PG] refusal, in a paper in a major scientific journal Gamow referred to “the neutron-capture theory...developed by Alpher, Bethe, Gamow and Delter.”

there is much humor to be found

agnostic - Agnostic flies do not learn odors in certain temperatures. Agnostic people have also problems in making up their mind.

drop dead - Brains of mutants deteriorate rapidly. They start walking in uncoordinated manner and soon die.

ether a go-go - Mutants shake their legs under ether anesthesia.

In fact, I am sponsoring a contest for the first person to pull a hoax on AiG.

http://hjhop.blogspot.com/2008/01/happy-fatwah-on-answers-in-genesis.html

Enter. Do it now....

HJ

There is a contest to hoax AiG at my website. The link is prominent, so click it.

HJ

There is an another paper on Pasteur. I think it might also be a hoax. Pasteur was not a creationists though they lie that. Pasteur by his experiments disproving abiogenesis made creationism false. How can a man pop out from dust when even bacterias cannot pop out from dust like that.

Pasteur was not a creationists though they lie that.

I have a strong urge to strangle people who misspell "Gandhi" as "Ghandi".

:-)