<i>Darwin's Doubt</i> to be on <i>Times</i> bestseller list

Religious tripe often does well.*

Glen Davidson

*Note that I'm not saying all religious books are tripe, rather that it's the religious tripe that sells.

Well, for what's it's worth, the number one bestseller is about "faith, family, and ducks."

Sigh. The first and twelfth books on the paperback nonfiction list seem to be about people who had near-death experiences, hallucinated, and thought they had seen God. The Times ran a fairly credulous feature on Heaven Is for Real but never got around to asking whether this "memoir," based on the testimony of a four-year-old, made any sense.

I'm about one quarter of the way through. It's not bad.

The publication of Meyer's book marks the moment when the theory of intelligent design -- love it or hate it -- has solidly joined the mainstream discussion about biological origins.

This phenomenon appears to be analogous to Gresham’s Law.

Junk science is portrayed to be of equal value to real science; but junk science has “sweeteners” added that makes it more addictive.

Robert Byers said: Evolutionist error will not, I think, last another 15 years.

larry fluty said: I'm about one quarter of the way through. It's not bad.

ksplawn said:

Robert Byers said: Evolutionist error will not, I think, last another 15 years.

Shall we add Byers's illustrious name to the list of those predicting the overthrow of established science "real soon now, for real this time" with all the others? It's like some kind of Creationist version of Millerism, predicting The End of ___________ Any Day Now. Then shuffling their feet as the deadline passes by uneventfully.

It will soon fade from the list and people recognize it for what it's real lack of science, unless the dishonesty institute buys them in bulk, then bilks their donors for $$$ for them.

DavidK said: It will soon fade from the list and people recognize it for what it's real lack of science, unless the dishonesty institute buys them in bulk, then bilks their donors for $$$ for them.

New Yorker pans Darwin's Doubt, referring to Matzke's excellent review.

Probably the closest it gets to any praise is that it is a "masterwork of pseudoscience," and is especially harsh on the simplistic resort to the "supernatural" when something isn't known.

Glen Davidson

Confession: I bought it (kindle edition).

I presume that my local public library will have to buy a copy, so I will have access that way.

That will allow me to check for myself whether the book presents any alternative.

One question remaining open for all of the arguments against evolutionary biology is this: What if everything that you say is true?

What if standard evolutionary biology cannot account for the Cambrian Explosion? What does account for it? Is there something about "intelligent design", for example, that tells us why designer(s) would decide to intervene in a special way half-a-billion years ago, in a way that they haven't done ever since? That they were more interested in the unique design of trilobites than in the minor variation on the tetrapod/mammalian/primate plan for the human body?

I don't find this fact terribly depressing.

The bestseller list is far less meaningful than it was during America's literary era, which ended, oddly, quite a long time before the internet era began. The bestseller list once reflected mainstream reading habits. It does not anymore. People really read "Valley of the Dolls" and "The Godfather", shortly after they were published (no quality assessment of either example intended here). Do you know anyone who who has recently bought a book around the time that the book was on the bestseller list? I don't, and haven't for years. I buy far more books than anyone I know, except my brother, which is not all that many in today's world, and a habit I am breaking, I read the NY Times pretty often - online - and I never have any idea what's on the bestseller list, nor do any books I buy ever reflect it.

(Note that I'm presenting anecdotat evidence here, but as I've noted before, GOOD anecdotal evidence - that is, an individual but objetive amd credible observation, which can potentially be replicated - can lead to the development of a testable hypothesis. We shouldn't confuse good anecdotal evidence, which despite its limitations can have value as a spur to future study, with unverifiable, non-credible individual stories, of the type creationists like to use. The latter are best referred to as "rumors" at best, and often deserve less complimentary terms.)

I strongly suspect that certain types of institutional purchases drive the list. At any rate, what does get on is highly enriched in political, "management", and "spirituality".

Furthermore, I have no problem with ID/creationist crap being widely exposed. I remember the pre-Dover period quite well, when Dembski was routinely on television and Behe was on the bestseller lists. Propaganda does potentally work. However, everyone has the righht to promote any propaganda they want. ID books aren't very good propaganda. "Spiritual" books sell, but people want real spirtuality. Unlike nonsensical but basically harmless books about, say, astrology, ID both has to be more hostile to science (which, remember, is ALSO very popular), and to disguise its religious message in a type of dissembling language that doesn't come across well.

I'm going to make an optimistic and testable prediction here. I conjecture that since ID arguments are dissembling and weasel-worded failed legal strategies, they aren't very useful at convincing others. Pushing them hard may actually have the net effect of driving more young people out of the movement. It amounts to drawing attention to the weak part of a the ideology. "We are superior, we should rule, we go to heaven, God loves us" - messages that keep young people in. "Science that seems highly credible must be denied to be a member of our movement, and not only that, but we publicly deny it in a weasel-worded, dissembling way that casts doubt on our underlying consistency" - that's a weak point. By emphasizing that part of the ideology, they may be accelerating attrition.

Remember, ID isn't designed to convince. It's designed to FORCE. It was designed as a legalistic ruse. The hope was that sectarian science denial could be jammed into public schools, and then when it was challenged, sympathetic judges could wink at the defense and use the dissembling language of ID as the grounds for an insincere argument that the first amendment wasn't violated.

Elizabeth Liddle said: Confession: I bought it (kindle edition).

Great review in the New Yorker. Gareth Cook does a great job of highlighting the main creationist themes of Doubt and their origins at the Disco Tute. Best general review I've read. And, kudos to Matzke for getting a shout out in the NY!

Lizzie, I'm not going to register at UD to discuss a possible slight error, but IIRC from long ago the major entropy increase due to entropy decrease on Earth is in the Universe at large, rather than the Sun, and is accomplished by thermal radiation from the unlit side of the Earth.

Ah, here it is: Evidence, scroll to Gordon Davisson's comment on 6/24.

Zoe Althrop!

How can Darwin's Doubt be on the Times "bestseller list" already when the book has just come out? What is the time interval over which they calculate the "best seller"? Is the "bestseller" anywhere in the top 100 titles sold? Or 1000? In some category? Does anyone know what that designation really means?

If the time interval is short enough, then every book could spend one femto-second on the bestseller list the instant after a single person buys a single copy.

Carl Drews said: How can Darwin's Doubt be on the Times "bestseller list" already when the book has just come out? What is the time interval over which they calculate the "best seller"? Is the "bestseller" anywhere in the top 100 titles sold? Or 1000? In some category? Does anyone know what that designation really means? If the time interval is short enough, then every book could spend one femto-second on the bestseller list the instant after a single person buys a single copy.

1. The time interval for sampling is one week. So if you want to manipulate this particular system, you have to get all your friends to buy copies during the same week.
2. Sales are reported by book vendors.
3. There is a time lag of two weeks between final data collection for a week and publication of those results.
4. There are various book categories tracked: "Among the categories not actively tracked at this time are: perennial sellers, required classroom reading, textbooks, reference and test preparation guides, journals, workbooks, calorie counters, shopping guides, comics, crossword puzzles and self-published books."
5. It is not clear to me how e-books count: "The universe of e-book publishers and vendors is rapidly emerging, and until the industry is settled sales of e-books will not be [statistically] weighted."
6. The NYT web page shows 1-16, with 17-25 "also selling."

Of course one way to make the list would be to have churches preorder in bulk, then hold the books for later sale at church events. And it wouldn't matter if that didn't get anyone outside the church to buy the books, it would still increase sales at the church events. You could even set up a booth on the sidewalk of a major university and then claim that the book was sold there, even if you didn't sell a single copy at that location.

Here is a link to the New Yorker article. Seemed to me a very fair, if dispassionate, review.

TomS said: One question remaining open for all of the arguments against evolutionary biology is this: What if everything that you say is true?

I think in general books with a strong conservative slant tend to sell well. Conservatives seem to be more anxious to confirm their opinions. That would explain why Fox News has over three times as many viewers as MSNBC, despite the fact that there are certainly not three times as many conservatives in the US.

It is disgusting that the Dishonesty Institute is getting away with their full court press shilling for "Darwin's Doubt." If you go to Google News, almost all the entries for the first few pages are from the Discovery Institute (and one from "World" magazine, that gave Meyer their "Man of the Year" award a few years ago). At least now the lead item is the New Yorker article.

It is disgusting that the Dishonesty Institute is getting away with their full court press shilling for "Darwin's Doubt." If you go to Google News, almost all the entries on the first few pages are from the Discovery Institute (and one from "World" magazine, that gave Meyer their "Man of the Year" award a few years ago). At least now the lead item is the New Yorker article.

Whoops - I don't know how I did that!

The list I'd like would tell us which new books are most read. I'm guessing such a list would send pop novels to the top of the charts but deep six the ideological potboilers that many people buy out of loyalty to a cause.

Paul Burnett said: Whoops - I don't know how I did that!

It was worth saying twice, Paul!

It turns out that many of the major gaps that Meyer identifies are the result of his misleading rearrangement of the tree. Nick Matzke, a scientist who blogs at Panda’s Thumb, makes a convincing case that Meyer does not understand the field’s key statistical techniques (among other things). For example, Meyer presents a chart on page thirty-five of “Darwin’s Doubt” that appears to show the sudden appearance of large numbers of major animal groups in the Cambrian: the smoking gun. But if one looks at a family tree based on current science, it looks nothing like Meyer’s, and precisely like what Darwinian theory would predict. “All of this is pretty good evidence for the basic idea that the Cambrian ‘Explosion’ is really the radiation of simple bilaterian worms into more complex worms…[which] occurred in many stages, instead of all at once,” Matzke writes.

Paul Braterman wrote this on the SC site (18-June-2013) in regards to the book ratings. I hope he doesn't mind my using it here.

You say Darwin’s Doubt isn’t an example of “creationists and others who pay for press releases to promote vanity-published books about their imaginary discoveries and pseudo-science ravings.” WRONG.

This from the publicity material that the Discos have been sending out to their supporters:

Tell your friends and family about the book and encourage them to pre-order a copy.

Donate to support the many ways we will be bringing attention to the book:

$35 will send the book to an opinion maker.

$100 will purchase an online advertising spot.

$150 will pay to set-up one radio interview for Stephen Meyer.

$400 will pay for the production of a podcast.

$2,000 will pay for the production of a promotional video short.

Thanks to a generous donor, every $2 we raise through this campaign will be matched by another $1. And, because of the donations already made and several offline donations, we now only need to raise about $27,500 to make our goal by the end of this month.

Please consider helping to pave the way for the release of Darwin’s Doubt by DONATING NOW. With your help, this book will change the course of the origins debate for generations to come.

Thanks to a generous donor, every $2 we raise through this campaign will be matched by another $1. And, because of the donations already made and several offline donations, we now only need to raise about $27,500 to make our goal by the end of this month.

Karen S. said:

Thanks to a generous donor, every $2 we raise through this campaign will be matched by another $1. And, because of the donations already made and several offline donations, we now only need to raise about $27,500 to make our goal by the end of this month.

Do you think they could raise a few bucks for ID-based research?

I revisited my note and got to wondering about this sentence:

"And, because of the donations already made and several offline donations, we now only need to raise about $27,500 to make our goal by the end of this month."

They only need to raise $27,500 for what? There is absolutely no mention as to what this money is to be used for. And there is no accounting for how much is raised.

Well, they've perhaps revised their donation begging message:

https://secure3.convio.net/disco/site/Donation2?df_id=1900&1900.donation=form1&JServSessionIdr004=3whjr02jx5.app331b

So now the dishonesty institute has moved the goalpost out to $31,300 and they've raised a whopping $4345, or 14% towards their goal. And if they don't reach their goal, what is the money going to support, perhaps booze for their summer bash? What is interesting as well is that they say if the money is specifically intended for the Darwin's Doubt promotion campaign the money is tax deductible! How so?

DavidK said: What is interesting as well is that they say if the money is specifically intended for the Darwin's Doubt promotion campaign the money is tax deductible! How so?

DavidK said: What is interesting as well is that they say if the money is specifically intended for the Darwin's Doubt promotion campaign the money is tax deductible! How so?

As a private research and education institute, Discovery Institute is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization.

We think Dr. Meyer’s book can be a “game changer,” but only if we have sufficient resources to promote it. You can help us reach our ambitious goal of making Darwin’s Doubt a critical success.

eric said:

TomS said: One question remaining open for all of the arguments against evolutionary biology is this: What if everything that you say is true?

Then the TOE goes the way of Newtonian Mechanics. Which is to say it still gets taught and used because it gives accurate answers to a range of problems humans think are important to solve.

A best seller? Didn't Hubbard's followers buy his "fiction" books just to get them on the best seller's list. I tried to read one and it wasn't very good at all.

TomS said: What I am getting at is even if there is something wrong with the account that evolutionary biology gives for the variety of life on Earth half-a-billion years ago - "intelligent design" does not offer an alternative of what happened and when.

Elizabeth Liddle said: Confession: I bought it (kindle edition).

In brief, ID goes wrong in so many ways.

So now the dishonesty institute has moved the goalpost out to $31,300 and they’ve raised a whopping $4345, or 14% towards their goal. And if they don’t reach their goal, what is the money going to support, perhaps booze for their summer bash? What is interesting as well is that they say if the money is specifically intended for the Darwin’s Doubt promotion campaign the money is tax deductible! How so?

I just followed the link in the main article to the NYT Bestseller list which is now showing the list to be published on 7/14 and it looks like Meyer's book has already fallen off. I don't hyave any insight as to how these things work but it would seem likely that the DI pushed people to make a lot of pre-orders that I assume all hit at once to push it onto the list but without sustained interest it turns into a one-week flash.

Ron Okimoto said: A best seller? Didn't Hubbard's followers buy his "fiction" books just to get them on the best seller's list. I tried to read one and it wasn't very good at all.

My apologies, my link to Wikipedia's Project Chanology page was pooched due to the backslash or something. Here's a good link. Project Chanology

Also, there is only one "o" in Applied Scholastics.

$150 will pay to set-up one radio interview for Stephen Meyer.

It is sad that the NYT puts a big pile of an intellectual masterpiece bollocks on their "best-sellers" list.

corbsj said:

Elizabeth Liddle said: Confession: I bought it (kindle edition).

But Elizabeth, if you buy it on Kindle, how will UD be able to accuse you of burning it?

Karen S. said:

So now the dishonesty institute has moved the goalpost out to $31,300 and they’ve raised a whopping $4345, or 14% towards their goal. And if they don’t reach their goal, what is the money going to support, perhaps booze for their summer bash? What is interesting as well is that they say if the money is specifically intended for the Darwin’s Doubt promotion campaign the money is tax deductible! How so?

I remember at the Great Debate Dembski was questioned as to why the ID movement had made no progress. He whined that they didn't have any money.

kitchen = "fabled laboratory"

diogeneslamp0 said:

$150 will pay to set-up one radio interview for Stephen Meyer.

Michael Medved charges $150 per interview? Whore.

harold said: Anyone associated with the DI who wishes to clarify where the number actually came from is invited to enlighten me.

I'm waiting for some video evidence of evolution because after all just about everybody has a cam on their cell phones.
If no video evidence of evolution goes viral on YouTube then we all know that evolution is just a falsehood.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/FdlvUf96wvjy7P5_Ur5jGKe7MCpqaDlC#8a64d said: I'm waiting for some video evidence of evolution because after all just about everybody has a cam on their cell phones. If no video evidence of evolution goes viral on YouTube then we all know that evolution is just a falsehood.

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said:

Ron Okimoto said: A best seller? Didn't Hubbard's followers buy his "fiction" books just to get them on the best seller's list. I tried to read one and it wasn't very good at all.

Yes, many of the "orgs" and members would be encouraged to bulk purchase books for later resale. I'm imagining that the case is similar here involving mega churches with book stores, "think tanks", etc. It's a great way to inflate a book's standing in "Best Sellers" as has been already noted here. One of the fingerprints of this activity is a super high ranking during the initial release that then quickly drops off to reflect the real sales figures as time goes on. In bringing up Hubbard, you remind me of a hypothesis I've had for years now since educating myself about Scientology after being exposed to their tactics on Usenet many years ago and again during Project Chanology. I have no evidence for it but I've suspected that Johnson et al got the idea for making Creationism "court proof", ala ID, from L. Ron Hubbard's Study Tech. Study Tech is a "teaching method" that is little more than Scientology concepts, teaching methods, and educational materials that have been mostly, if not entirely, stripped of Scientology terminology and references. Of Pandas and People and Cdesign Proponentsists anyone ? The company Applied Schoolastics is a front for this activity though they vehemently deny it. The Dishonesty Institute is, in my mind, the same con and shilling for the Christian Creationism version. Study Tech has made some headway into public schools, most notably in Florida, IIRC. More information on Study Tech and it's encroachment here. I believe others will note the same parallels that I have.

When I first saw the listing for the cost of an interview...my thinking was that DI was paying
for the "interview" similar to an info-commercial.

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said:

Ron Okimoto said: A best seller? Didn't Hubbard's followers buy his "fiction" books just to get them on the best seller's list. I tried to read one and it wasn't very good at all.

Yes, many of the "orgs" and members would be encouraged to bulk purchase books for later resale. I'm imagining that the case is similar here involving mega churches with book stores, "think tanks", etc. It's a great way to inflate a book's standing in "Best Sellers" as has been already noted here. One of the fingerprints of this activity is a super high ranking during the initial release that then quickly drops off to reflect the real sales figures as time goes on. In bringing up Hubbard, you remind me of a hypothesis I've had for years now since educating myself about Scientology after being exposed to their tactics on Usenet many years ago and again during Project Chanology. I have no evidence for it but I've suspected that Johnson et al got the idea for making Creationism "court proof", ala ID, from L. Ron Hubbard's Study Tech. Study Tech is a "teaching method" that is little more than Scientology concepts, teaching methods, and educational materials that have been mostly, if not entirely, stripped of Scientology terminology and references. Of Pandas and People and Cdesign Proponentsists anyone ? The company Applied Schoolastics is a front for this activity though they vehemently deny it. The Dishonesty Institute is, in my mind, the same con and shilling for the Christian Creationism version. Study Tech has made some headway into public schools, most notably in Florida, IIRC. More information on Study Tech and it's encroachment here. I believe others will note the same parallels that I have.

corbsj said:

Elizabeth Liddle said: Confession: I bought it (kindle edition).

But Elizabeth, if you buy it on Kindle, how will UD be able to accuse you of burning it?

corbsj said:

Elizabeth Liddle said: Confession: I bought it (kindle edition).

But Elizabeth, if you buy it on Kindle, how will UD be able to accuse you of burning it?

This week's NY Times bestseller hardcover nonfiction list is out. Darwin's Doubt is gone from the list, not in the top published 25.

Meyer's ID-Creationist turd went down faster than Linda Lovelace on the Titanic.

But it's the best science book ever written! People will be reading it for hundreds of years!

That prediction of George Gilder's was as accurate as his stock market advice.

diogeneslamp0 said: But it's the best science book ever written! People will be reading it for hundreds of years! That prediction of George Gilder's was as accurate as his stock market advice.

ksplawn said: Someone vastly more motivated than myself might try comparing Darwin's Doubt to On The Origin of Species in terms of actual scientific content, number of meaningful arguments made (not just "Evolution can't explain X therefore DESIGN!" w/o a mechanism), and number of revolutionary ideas supported by careful examination of the evidence and explanations of how ID works to explain that evidence, including what we would see if Design were NOT at work.

Just as a heads up, apparently the DI was dissatisfied with the Attack Mouse, so they've sent David Berlinski to be oleaginous and pompous at Nick's review.

Nullifidian said: Just as a heads up, apparently the DI was dissatisfied with the Attack Mouse, so they've sent David Berlinski to be oleaginous and pompous at Nick's review.

"Why would an agnostic stay with a scam outfit like the Discovery Institute? Berlinski even claimed that he had never bought into the ID scam junk.
"

Because they pay attention to him.

I just began looking at The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity by Douglas Erwin and James Valentine, and it looks pretty good. I have to mention that the price is reasonable compared to a lot of books - about $57. It is a real bargain compared to Darwin's Doubt, no matter what they're asking for that.

Nullifidian said: Just as a heads up, apparently the DI was dissatisfied with the Attack Mouse, so they've sent David Berlinski to be oleaginous and pompous at Nick's review.

Good old Berlinski! Next to Paul Nelson he's my favorite Tooter mainly because he's a lily of the valley, a dilettante, self-styled pompous ass affecting "intellectual" airs. If you ever get a chance to watch Berlinski debate Hitchens it's priceless. Hitchens hammers point after documented point and Berlinski just waffles. It finally gets so bad that the moderator asks Berlinski for a response and Berlinski gives a deer-in-the-headlights look and says, weakly, "No." Berlinski thinks he has intellectual chops but he doesn't. He's all puff and air which is why nobody takes him seriously even on the question of whether or not he supports ID. Who cares, Berli!

So, to have the Tooters court jester, Berlinski, pass judgement on Matzke is just too rich!

DavidK said: I revisited my note from (July 3, 2013 8:59 PM): "And, because of the donations already made and several offline donations, we now only need to raise about $27,500 to make our goal by the end of this month." They only need to raise $27,500 for what? There is absolutely no mention as to what this money is to be used for. And there is no accounting for how much is raised. Well, they've perhaps revised their donation begging message: https://secure3.convio.net/disco/site/Donation2?df_id=1900&1900.donation=form1&JServSessionIdr004=3whjr02jx5.app331b So now the dishonesty institute has moved the goalpost out to $31,300 and they've raised a whopping $4345, or 14% towards their goal.

Sorry, but I seem to recall also that they stated such donations would be tax deductible if given towards the book fund. This seems to be missing from this current donation statement.

DavidK said: Sorry, but I seem to recall also that they stated such donations would be tax deductible if given towards the book fund. This seems to be missing from this current donation statement.

Nick Matzke said:

Why would an agnostic stay with a scam outfit like the Discovery Institute? Berlinski even claimed that he had never bought into the ID scam junk.

Because they pay attention to him.

Ron Okimoto said:

Nullifidian said: Just as a heads up, apparently the DI was dissatisfied with the Attack Mouse, so they've sent David Berlinski to be oleaginous and pompous at Nick's review.

Why would an agnostic stay with a scam outfit like the Discovery Institute?

Part of it is on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7gZhksK9Sw&list=PL7B1AF2557B7DA813

Doc Bill said: Good old Berlinski! Next to Paul Nelson he's my favorite Tooter mainly because he's a lily of the valley, a dilettante, self-styled pompous ass affecting "intellectual" airs. If you ever get a chance to watch Berlinski debate Hitchens it's priceless. Hitchens hammers point after documented point and Berlinski just waffles. It finally gets so bad that the moderator asks Berlinski for a response and Berlinski gives a deer-in-the-headlights look and says, weakly, "No." Berlinski thinks he has intellectual chops but he doesn't. He's all puff and air which is why nobody takes him seriously even on the question of whether or not he supports ID. Who cares, Berli! So, to have the Tooters court jester, Berlinski, pass judgement on Matzke is just too rich!

Richard,

You have original posting privilege at PT, so I felt that there should be an original post highlighting Scott Buchanan's "Stan 4" refutation of John Sanford's creationist book "Genetic Entropy", as I suggested already in this comment. I'm not the only one who feels it deserves more widespread discussion. We have many refutations of Dembski, Behe, Wells, etc. but not full-length refutations of Sanford that I know of. Buchanan's Stan 3 is also a good summary of evidence for rates of beneficial mutations, mutations that confer antibiotic resistance WITHOUT reducing fitness in an antibiotic-free environment, etc.

There's also Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.

And Another look at "Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome" by Dr. J.C. Sanford.

Ron Okimoto said: Asking for $30 to send the book to some "opinion maker." Sounds about what I was thinking of. I haven't heard much out of the Discovery Institute for the last couple of years. The bogus bait and switch ID scam is pretty much a badge of shame for them. Does this book bother to mention the ID scam or is it just about the switch scam? Not the hype, but the actual text of the book.

harold said: It's hard to know whether it's a case of outright imitation, unconscious influence, or similar minds coming up with similar ideas.

Of course, there are some differences. Scientology is more about imitating, competing with, and in some cases successfully misusing the techniques of, clinical psychology. Hence its focus on "stress testing", therapy-like sessions, and so on, and its intense focus on demonizing "psychiatry" (because it competes for the same niche). Brand name scientologists tend to be fairly intelligent but uneducated and emotionally insecure celebrities. Hubbard's books are largely, in my subjective opinion, a con artist's imitation of psychology, with some space alien stuff thrown in for good measure. ID/creationism is essentially part of a post-modern right wing backlash against women's rights, the civil rights movement, etc. It's no coincidence that political "creation science" become highly visible in the late sixties. Overall, that movement has succeeded massively in their economic goals, and that has done a great deal to sabotage the type of progress they oppose. On the other hand, the movement has almost totally failed in its efforts against women and gays. In the most right areas, women openly work and use contraception, and almost every state has enclaves that are non-homophobic. Hence, ID/creationism types really, really despise "rival" more liberal Christians, and to a lesser degree despise law-abiding ordinary secular people. Their methods are similar, but Scientology is more about ripping off people with money who could use a good therapist, whereas ID/creationism is the religious arm of the Fox/Limbaugh/Tea Party movement.

Starbuck said: Part of it is on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7gZhksK9Sw&list=PL7B1AF2557B7DA813

Doc Bill said:

Starbuck said: Part of it is on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7gZhksK9Sw&list=PL7B1AF2557B7DA813

EVERYBODY should watch this debate! The arguments presented by the creationists in 1997 are exactly the same ones used today. I particularly enjoyed Berlinski who spoke only fog; he's never, ever (in my recollection) said anything of substance. Being from the Future as we are it's totally sweet to watch Ken Miller and Behe spar, Kitzmiller being eight years away! Behe would use the same arguments, science would have moved on eight years and Miller would bring all that to bear. Finally, Genie Scott was so restrained when she would have been justified in cold clocking Berliski!

diogeneslamp0 said:

Doc Bill said:

Starbuck said: Part of it is on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7gZhksK9Sw&list=PL7B1AF2557B7DA813

EVERYBODY should watch this debate! The arguments presented by the creationists in 1997 are exactly the same ones used today. I particularly enjoyed Berlinski who spoke only fog; he's never, ever (in my recollection) said anything of substance. Being from the Future as we are it's totally sweet to watch Ken Miller and Behe spar, Kitzmiller being eight years away! Behe would use the same arguments, science would have moved on eight years and Miller would bring all that to bear. Finally, Genie Scott was so restrained when she would have been justified in cold clocking Berliski!

Behe? I think you mean Phillip Johnson? IIRC it's Ken Miller and Eugenie Scott against creationists Berlinski and Phillip Johnson, with the old racist William F. Buckley siding of course with he creationists in the end.

Here's Behe and Miller around the 8 minute mark. For your added enjoyment please admire the ponderous Berlinski lumber around the nimble Scott. The frustration of the scientists in dealing with a Berlinski is palpable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFPeQW5XLcc&feature=share&list=PL7B1AF2557B7DA813

Berlinski demonstrates a total lack of self-awareness as he is smacked down first by Genie Scott then by the debate moderator. Best three minutes you'll spend today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVthBu6zCY0&feature=share&list=PL7B1AF2557B7DA813

Richard B. Hoppe said: Got a link to to that debate?

Doc Bill said: Good old Berlinski! Next to Paul Nelson he's my favorite Tooter mainly because he's a lily of the valley, a dilettante, self-styled pompous ass affecting "intellectual" airs. If you ever get a chance to watch Berlinski debate Hitchens it's priceless. Hitchens hammers point after documented point and Berlinski just waffles. It finally gets so bad that the moderator asks Berlinski for a response and Berlinski gives a deer-in-the-headlights look and says, weakly, "No." Berlinski thinks he has intellectual chops but he doesn't. He's all puff and air which is why nobody takes him seriously even on the question of whether or not he supports ID. Who cares, Berli! So, to have the Tooters court jester, Berlinski, pass judgement on Matzke is just too rich!

Doc Bill said: This link is a highlights reel of the Hitchens/Berlinski "debate" during which Hitchens expounded eloquently and Berlinski sang to a chorus of crickets. There is a longer version out there that's an hour or so long, but this four-minute clip summarizes the outcome nicely. http://youtu.be/0bdTnCLiYi4

David Berlinski actually said: What am I to make of the claim that science and Christianity are in opposition to one another. I would need to hear the claim reticulated properly. [http://youtu.be/0bdTnCLiYi4, time 4:36]

David Berlinski actually wrote: "IN ITS most familiar, textbook form, Darwin's theory subordinates itself to a haunting and fantastic image, one in which life on earth is represented as a tree. So graphic has this image become that some biologists have persuaded themselves they can see the flowering tree standing on a dusty plain, the mammalian twig obliterating itself by anastomosis into a reptilian branch and so backward to the amphibia and then the fish... This is nonsense, of course. That densely reticulated tree, with its lavish foliage, is an intellectual construct, one expressing the hypothesis of descent with modification. Evolution is a process, one stretching over four billion years. It has not been observed." [David Berlinski, "The Deniable Darwin", Commentary magazine, June 1996]

diogeneslamp0 said:

Doc Bill said: This link is a highlights reel of the Hitchens/Berlinski "debate" during which Hitchens expounded eloquently and Berlinski sang to a chorus of crickets. There is a longer version out there that's an hour or so long, but this four-minute clip summarizes the outcome nicely. http://youtu.be/0bdTnCLiYi4

Oy Doc, you are my crack dealer. I needs da crack... da crack... For me, crack is hearing Berlinski say the following. Pay close attention, people:

David Berlinski actually said: What am I to make of the claim that science and Christianity are in opposition to one another. I would need to hear the claim reticulated properly. [http://youtu.be/0bdTnCLiYi4, time 4:36]

Yes, Berlinski said "reticulated" where anyone else would say "articulated." I know people make slips of the tongue, but why is Berlinski's slip of the tongue the use of jargon from graph theory? And it's not the first time Berlinski has used the word "reticulated" incorrectly, or been called on it. Here's an egregious example of him misusing the same damn word.

David Berlinski actually wrote: "IN ITS most familiar, textbook form, Darwin's theory subordinates itself to a haunting and fantastic image, one in which life on earth is represented as a tree. So graphic has this image become that some biologists have persuaded themselves they can see the flowering tree standing on a dusty plain, the mammalian twig obliterating itself by anastomosis into a reptilian branch and so backward to the amphibia and then the fish... This is nonsense, of course. That densely reticulated tree, with its lavish foliage, is an intellectual construct, one expressing the hypothesis of descent with modification. Evolution is a process, one stretching over four billion years. It has not been observed." [David Berlinski, "The Deniable Darwin", Commentary magazine, June 1996]

Nonsense indeed: above Berlinski uses "reticulated" to describe the Tree of Life-- the defining characteristic of which is its LACK of reticulation! Reticulation, as you know, means net-like or intertwined, like the structure of a banyan tree. (The reticulated python is so named because of its net-like color pattern.) (He also uses the word "anastomosis" incorrectly: it's the re-joining of two branches that previously separated, so this would NOT be a feature of a classical tree, either forward nor backward in time.) Berlinski's "Deniable Darwin" was smacked down by dozens of scholars in 1996 who picked it apart, the letters being printed in Commentary. Back in 1996 Arthur M. Shapiro dinged Berlinski for (among other things) not knowing what "reticulated" or "anastomosis" mean. That was 14 years before he did it again vs. Hitchens...

Actually, in the video of that debate, he said whales evolved from a dog-like animal.

In the later interview you spoke of-- "The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski" IIRC-- he asks how could you make a whale by teaching a COW how to swim. He doesn't talk about evolving populations or even an individual morphing, but teaching a cow to swim.

I have never heard an IDiot describe how evolutionary theory predicts whales evolved from artiodactyls. Say artiodactyl, motherhumper. Say it.

Ron Okimoto said: Why would an agnostic stay with a scam outfit like the Discovery Institute? Berlinski even claimed that he had never bought into the ID scam junk.

Nick Matzke said: Because they pay attention to him.

apokryltaros said: And pay him money, too.

It might be a bit more depressing that it's the #1 Bestseller in Amazon's list in the category of "palaeontology".