Three Million and Counting

More power to ya!

simple as that.

I tip a virtual beer in your direction.

You know, the Kitzmiller trial was what got me here. Now I hardly ever post here anymore.

It's a great site but it's like I cared a lot for a little bit. I was injured so I made an attempt at a funny blog poking at creos in my oodles of spare time and spent time poking around here to see what people were saying.

Creos have lost every non-military fight they've ever gotten into so I wasn't too worried about them before and actually, I think PT gave them more of a voice than they've had since before John Locke. Every now and then someone pops out of a church and turns up in some public office or public place and starts blabbing "God this and God that and pass the plate" and the community has to get off of our slothfull lustful covetous asses and go whack another mole. Then go back to whichever commandment we were breaking.

The science is fun and relevant to students and researchers but honestly, 20 years out of grad school and science news keeps me pretty well covered. I deal with a lot of science but it's really damn practical. Not exciting at all. We end up with statistics that fit pre-designed data sets and ho hum about our days waiting for the environment to become inhospitable to life. That's another reason I don't feel bad about most misbehavior- only got so long to do it, right? Wait, what was I talking about? Um. Oh well.

I think you would discover user arcs if you tracked usage. They would settle on a number of visits per month/year whatever but the initial visits would be higher for a period. If you were selling advertising, you could use this metric to determine the optimal number of new visitors to maintain a certain traffic level... Ooooh. The bourbon's getting to me. Nighty night.

Never think the war was won in Dover. For them, the war isn't about science, or education, or the law. The war is about God and the kind of society He wants His chosen people to live in. They lost the battle in Dover but they darn sure believe they'll win the war. I'm not sure they're wrong.

I noted this international effort that released a statement from 67 national science academies. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5098608.stm

Congrats to Panda's Posters and a hearty "Thank You!" for all Posters and contributors. It's been a long time since my undergrad Anthro days, but this site keeps me in touch on important issues. I may not be able to do science anymore, but darn it, at least I can still learn about it!

Hey, Wes, I thought ID was collapsing in the wake of KvD. What's the need to further consciousness raising?

Bill, it's good to see that you still read PT. Please feel free to respond to the many issues that are brought up here. Unlike UD, we welcome rebuttals.

Posted by Bill Dembski on June 22, 2006 10:24 AM (e) Hey, Wes, I thought ID was collapsing in the wake of KvD. What's the need to further consciousness raising?

Hey, Wes, I thought ID was collapsing in the wake of KvD. What's the need to further consciousness raising?

Hey, Wes, I thought ID was collapsing in the wake of KvD. What's the need to further consciousness raising?

We need to keep in mind that the anti-science threat has not been rendered impotent by the outcome of the KvD trial.

William Dembski is in a bad position. "Intelligent design" was never anything more than a label for a subset of the argumentation that had been called "creation science" just previously. Dembski's chosen role was to gild the label, which he did with gusto, layering it with filigrees of propositional logic and finials of pseudomathematics. But labels are evanescent. The Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture was already signalling the end-of-life for the "intelligent design" branding by 2002 in Ohio, where they offered a "compromise" of calling the arguments "critical analysis" instead. Throughout the following history of conflict in Ohio, the one constant was that the antievolution advocates continually claimed that there was no "intelligent design" in the standards or the "critical analysis" lesson plan, essentially ceding "intelligent design" as something to be regarded as beyond the pale of consideration for K-12 instruction. Dembski's career, though, is not based on anything broader than "intelligent design". Dembski does not have a clear path to do anything else in the DI CSC's current program. If all that is being contemplated is the subset of arguments that are purely about the capacity of evolutionary biology to result in life's history and diversity, Dembski has no expertise in the relevant biology, a fact that has not escaped previous attention, emphasized by the previously web-published chapters of a forthcoming textbook. Dembski, like certain character actors, finds himself tied to his former popular role. "Intelligent design" has been all but discarded by his erstwhile colleagues at the DI, and certainly is not the label of choice for the antievolution efforts in the wake of the Kitzmiller decision. Dembski has to continue to advocate for the legitmacy of "intelligent design" even though the leadership of the antievolution movement has clearly signalled their intent to de-emphasize or abandon "intelligent design" as a sort of strategic sacrifice. We can expect that Dembski will long be ringed by a cadre of followers who didn't get the memo, though. (Source)

Hey, Wes, I thought ID was collapsing in the wake of KvD. What's the need to further consciousness raising?

— Bill Dembski

Hey, Wes, I thought ID was collapsing in the wake of KvD.

Following the Scopes trial in 1925, popular belief held that the antievolutionists had suffered a defeat and were in retrenchment. This was not so. ... We need to keep in mind that the anti-science threat has not been rendered impotent by the outcome of the KvD trial.

Congratulations PT. Does the 3 millionth hitter get a prize? Say free science education for life? Oh....wait....
I like this site because the debate here is relatively civilised, unlike, unfortunately, talk origins which is full of pointless vitriol and rather scary to post on.
The problem we have, of course, is that these religious/political extremists are utterly immune to free thought and any kind of experience-based knowledge. We cannot hope to defeat them, but only, perhaps, to wait until what passes as their ideas becomes again out of date and once more confined to a cultural and social backwater.
Keep up the good work!

William Dembski is in a bad position. "Intelligent design" was never anything more than a label for a subset of the argumentation that had been called "creation science" just previously. Dembski's chosen role was to gild the label, which he did with gusto, layering it with filigrees of propositional logic and finials of pseudomathematics.

— Wesley

But labels are evanescent. The Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture was already signalling the end-of-life for the "intelligent design" branding by 2002 in Ohio, where they offered a "compromise" of calling the arguments "critical analysis" instead. Throughout the following history of conflict in Ohio, the one constant was that the antievolution advocates continually claimed that there was no "intelligent design" in the standards or the "critical analysis" lesson plan, essentially ceding "intelligent design" as something to be regarded as beyond the pale of consideration for K-12 instruction.

Dembski's career, though, is not based on anything broader than "intelligent design". Dembski does not have a clear path to do anything else in the DI CSC's current program. If all that is being contemplated is the subset of arguments that are purely about the capacity of evolutionary biology to result in life's history and diversity, Dembski has no expertise in the relevant biology, a fact that has not escaped previous attention, emphasized by the previously web-published chapters of a forthcoming textbook. Dembski, like certain character actors, finds himself tied to his former popular role. "Intelligent design" has been all but discarded by his erstwhile colleagues at the DI, and certainly is not the label of choice for the antievolution efforts in the wake of the Kitzmiller decision. Dembski has to continue to advocate for the legitmacy of "intelligent design" even though the leadership of the antievolution movement has clearly signalled their intent to de-emphasize or abandon "intelligent design" as a sort of strategic sacrifice. We can expect that Dembski will long be ringed by a cadre of followers who didn't get the memo, though.

Nick Matzke pointed out to me that the number of states adopting laws like the Butler Act may be less than I stated. I was going on memory of Larson's "Trial and Error" as a source, and the number I recalled may be that for those states whose legislatures proposed such legislation. Once I get "Trial and Error" in hand, I will let you know which way it goes.

I also agree with the point that ID itself may be severely undermined by Kitzmiller, but that is no reason to think the next incarnation of scientific creationism won't require a substantial fight.

Personally I've learned a lot from rightwing tactics. They practice a strategy I call "sore-winnerism": no matter how successful you are, never, ever let yourself imagine that the bloody pulp you just pummelled has truly been defeated. There is always some new menace that can arise from it. Keep pummelling.

I don't think this attitude is good for one's mental health, but it avoids the worst mistakes made by foolishly optimistic liberals.

Posted by Bill Dembski on June 22, 2006 10:24 AM (e) | kill Hey, Wes, I thought ID was collapsing in the wake of KvD. What's the need to further consciousness raising?

Looks like Nick already beat me to it, but I don't want to be considered a welcher. Larry Fafarman pointed out that according to the Epperson decision, around twenty states had introduced anti-evolution bills, but that most were never passed. Wikipedia also supports this, citing 41 bills introduced, often multiple bills in a single state.

My personal take when I read this yesterday was that it seemed a rather high number. Proposed legislation is much more in line with my "feel" for the history than passed legislation. But that was not based on any sources. I'd like to see what the book "Trial and Error" has to say.

Wesley, if "Trial and Error" enumerates which states passed/proposed anti-evolution bills, could you pass on that info as well? Thanks.

Hey, Wes, I thought ID was collapsing in the wake of KvD. What's the need to further consciousness raising?

There are two instances noted on my page about Antievolution and the Law. If that's all there were, then I was off by an order of magnitude. Sigh.

Re "We can expect that Dembski will long be ringed by a cadre of followers who didn't get the memo, though."

Well, can't somebody get hold of a copy of that memo and forward it to those people? ;)

Since folks have been arguing back and forth over the significance of Google Trends, I thought I'd throw out this entirely unscientific and possibly unrepresentative bit of information.

Subscribers to Bloglines for the following blogs:

Panda's Thumb - 322
Scienceblogs (combined feed) - 239
Dispatches from the Culture Wars - 124
Good Math, Bad Math - 72
Red State Rabble - 72
Pharyngula - 54
Uncommon Descent - 21

Presumably, the proportion of advocates:trolls is comparable from blog to blog.

Larson does not enumerate all the states that considered Butler Act-like legislation, but review of "Trial and Error" does show that the number I was recalling was the number of proposed bills in legislatures. The number of such bills passed was two.

I've modified the post with strikeouts to show where my error lay while fixing the statements for accuracy.

Don't forget, Texas passed a resolution not to mention evolution.

Re "Don't forget, Texas passed a resolution not to mention evolution."

So can we mention descent with change, instead? ;)

Hey Bill, I thought ID was already rejected by IDers in favor of "teach the controversy about evolution".

Or are those just one and the same thing? A trojan horse for the trojan horse?

Bill has returned to his true love: apologetics.

["Returned"? When did he ever do anything ELSE?]

When he was, uh, ejaculating over the 'rise of ID in Denmark'.

"The controversy", if the YECs and IDers were honest, properly belongs in a philosophy class. Part of the problem lies in the fact that hardly any high schools offer such courses. Another problem lies with the confusion of "faith" and "fact" so that many people feel the need to "prove" their faith, as if it's some kind of theorem. The trouble is, it's called "faith" for a reason.

Larson does not enumerate all the states that considered Butler Act-like legislation, but review of "Trial and Error" does show that the number I was recalling was the number of proposed bills in legislatures. The number of such bills passed was two. I've modified the post with strikeouts to show where my error lay while fixing the statements for accuracy.

I'm a long time lurker, both here and at Uncommon Descent. I discovered PT (and through PT, UD) during the Dover trial, read both daily during and in the aftermath of the decision. Since then, I've been only stopping by PT on a weekly basis, catching myself up on stuff I may have missed.

However UD I still visit daily, sometimes several times a day. Why? I think it's hilarious. It's like a favorite webcomic that's only updated sporadically - you're constantly looking for the next update. Not to mention, the comments are usually the best part, giving one more incentive to check back on the hilarity that usually ensues (although I have to say, it's just not the same since JAD was booted).

So my question is: How much of UD readership is made of people like me - scientists that discovered the wonderful insanity of UD during Dover and haven't been able to stay away?

Final aside: Anyone done a Google news search for Intelligent Design lately? Not only has there been no news the past 3-4 months, but most of the "articles" have been Discovery Institute press releases. Hilarious.

So my question is: How much of UD readership is made of people like me - scientists that discovered the wonderful insanity of UD during Dover and haven't been able to stay away?

now here's and accurate comment
"from that I'd say a large percentage is a there for the comedic circus value"

whenever I'm down and need a good laugh I pop on down to Bill's site so I am one of the 1.2 million there, I am also one of the 3 million at PT.

find the thread on UD over on ATBC, scroll back a few weeks to the discussion about referrals. you'll see a significant percentage of referral links to UD actually come from PT and antievolution.org (where ATBC is hosted). from that I'd say a large percentage is a there for the comedic circus value.

Output from Webalizer run on the PT logs for May:

Monthly Statistics for May 2006
Total Hits 2732641
Total Files 1841763
Total Pages 889237
Total Visits 382168
Total KBytes 32293453

Webalizer appears to be the package that the UD guys used on their stats.

DaveScot was kind enough to publish some referral statistics when I asked for them in April.
Congratulations to Uncommon Descent Bloggers!. Perhaps he will indulge me again with a daily listing for the month of May 2006. I predict a sudden increase on or around the 12th and/or the 16th. May 11th saw Dembski falsely accusing Kevin Padian of racism (posts removed), and the 15th saw a rather grudging retraction. He got a lot of attention for all the wrong reasons over those.

I've been playing around on alexa.com.

both sites use cookies, so alexa is able to track penetration, general stats, and long term behavior of both sites over time.

you can see some of the results here:

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?compare_sites=uncommondescent.com&range=6m&size=medium&y=r&url=www.pandasthumb.org

That's pretty funny. What's the big spike on the Panda's Thumb graph at the beginning of April?

Consideration should be given that the majority of former contributers now have their own sites sponsored by seed magazine.

Their posts to PT are negligable teases for PT readers to go to their cash-in sites (hence "former contributers").

Gary - aren't you a former contributer?

not meant as a joke; didn't you used to contribute to PT until the Mirecki incident?

That's pretty funny. What's the big spike on the Panda's Thumb graph at the beginning of April?

I see.

Gary - aren't you a former contributer? not meant as a joke; didn't you used to contribute to PT until the Mirecki incident?

So, a valid comparison with UncommonDescent should include PT and the former contributer's new sites, plus Wesley's website as well.

The point I was making above is that the teaser posts are naturally drawing readers away from PT, and by hosting comments only at their cash paying sites, they further draw readers away.