The Dembski Alert

Indeed, followers of Dembski's antics may try holding his feet to the fire here. Remember he can't crawl very far away, having obligingly and willingly shackled that quite heavy Coulterian anchor to his own ankle.

— James Downard

If Ann's chapters on evolution are so riven with difficulties, let him elaborate them, point out the errors, and then hold me up to ridicule for the errors for which I take responsibility.

— William Dembski

It really is fascinating how much of the response to Downard's emails to Dembski seem to revolve around people actually taking offense at the presence of scientific terminology in an e-mail about science. Apparently if you can't discuss something over a beer, it isn't true. Why do these Bourgeoisie scientists persist in their elitism? They think that just because they know what "homeobox genes" and "endosymbiosis" are, they know more about biology than we do!

Anyway, this said, Uncommon Descent has updated, and apparently Dembski really does take responsibility for all of the errors in the scientific portions of Godless, and your offer to not hold him responsible for discussion of those subjects he did not specifically discuss with Coulter has been spurned. Mr. Downard, it would appear you are now free to blame Dembski entirely for the errors in "Godless". All of them.

He also seems rather upset that you did not immediately understand that this was what he was trying to communicate by refusing to reply to your questions and instead posting your e-mails on his blog.

I look forward with great interest to part 3 of your series, Mr. Downard :)

Funny, this whole thing about sincerity and scientists quoted by D O'Leary from E Sisson in Uncommon Dissent.

But in science the rule is different. Scientists are supposed to be actually sincere. They are supposed to develop genuine, individual opinions about the data and then express those opinions.

---snip... now from W Dembski on UD...

In April I announced on this blog Ann Coulter's then forthcoming book GODLESS (go here). There I remarked, "I'm happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism --- indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters." Jim Downard, rather than simply taking me at my word, instead wants me to elaborate on my correspondence with Ann (go here); and for my refusal to elaborate, charges me with not really taking responsibility for errors in the chapters in question. But such elaboration is not my responsibility.

Yep, sincerity is WD's strong point. Just like ID isn't about religion.

Dumbski

In April I announced on this blog Ann Coulter's then forthcoming book GODLESS (go here). There I remarked, "I'm happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism --- indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters." Jim Downard, rather than simply taking me at my word, instead wants me to elaborate on my correspondence with Ann (go here); and for my refusal to elaborate, charges me with not really taking responsibility for errors in the chapters in question. But such elaboration is not my responsibility.

It's those "pathetic details" again. Why do we bother the man?

In fact, no ID promoters will elaborate when it comes to actually showing how Dembski's baloney can actually be applied to a real protein.

See Cornell's reprehensible Evolution & Design blog here for a fresh, steaming example of creationist idiocy and laziness:

http://evolutionanddesign.blogsome.com/2006/07/24/specified-complexity/

I think it is also telling that Dembski's new sidekick on UD is not a bona-fide scientist but some obscure religious journalist. Although she does seem a little more amenable to allowing dissenting comments, after trying a dozen times I stil have not been able to get a comment posted on UD. Stil at least hopefully she can get Dembski to grow up a little and dispense with the juvenile 'humorous' posts.

Why do we bother the man?

I agree. Which errors?

Comment #114506 Posted by timco on July 24, 2006 07:11 PM (e) | kill I think it is also telling that Dembski's new sidekick on UD is not a bona-fide scientist but some obscure religious journalist.

Although she does seem a little more amenable to allowing dissenting comments, after trying a dozen times I stil have not been able to get a comment posted on UD.

Dr. Dembski's name is spelled as "Demsbki" in the article title.

Maybe he can invite Ms. Coulter to respond instead. I'm sure she'd be happy to, given that she has probably made a fortune with his assistance. Hey, she owes him that much.

some obscure religious journalist

July 24, 2006 What is a "pseudo-journalist"? Wesley Elsberry, in blogging about Denyse O'Leary's recent coming on board here at UD, refers to her as a "pseudo-journalist" (go here)? What a curious designation. Does Wesley's use of the prefix "pseudo" simply indicate his disapproval of O'Leary and, in particular, her failure to accept his brand of evolution? Or does the prefix indicate something substantive (Denyse, did you come on board here under false pretenses? Are you really a journalist at all? What exactly have you published in recognized media outlets?) If Denyse is in fact a real journalist, does that make Elsberry a "pseudo-blogger"? Filed under: Intelligent Design, Just For Fun --- William Dembski @ 10:47 pm Comments (0)

here's a link to a previous post on Denyse O'Leary. Should provide some clarificatiom.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/10/denyse_oleary_o.html

DOL has published various pieces in popular media. So has Dembski. Dembski may even have a more extensive list of such publications than DOL. But Dembski hasn't tried to lay claim to "journalist" as a title. There's more to being a journalist than getting stuff published in daily, weekly, or monthly media.

Dumbski has been pwned.

So when Jim Downard asks Dembski to comment on scientific concepts that IDists don't understand, he is an elitist with all that hi-falutin scientific jargon. But when Dembski uses impenetrable mathematics out of context that IDists don't understand, it is because he is a genius. Got it.

Why do we bother the man?

He appears to have enough time to ban TANSTAAFL for urging him to engage Downard directly:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1351#comments

my stars what a fisking. if i was Wild Bill I wouldn't respond either. it's like being stuck between a steaming pile of scat and a cold pool of poop. which way do we go which way do we go george which way do we go

the presumption of integrity on behalf of the feeble opposition is perhaps an overestimation but hey that's an old point. three cheers for Jim Downard! i laughed my hindquarters off.

i've about quit lurking over there at uncommon. it's like going to see the circus three nights in a row, same ol show. it's beyond me why people take these boot licking clowns seriously. what flavor of kool aid are they a drinkin on?

I have been a research Scientist for nearly 30 years. I believe that Intelligent Design as a whole has more to offer than any other theorum known to mankind. I have found throughout my studies, many anthropologists and the eye doctor community as a whole who disagree with the Evolutionary standpoint. I say this after first being an Evolutionist for the first 18 years of my career. I believe that the Intelligent Design theorum is one of the best laid out theorums known to mankind. The impact it is already having across the world is amazing, and not many Americans are open to this idea. It is primarily the Biologist community and not the Scientific community as a whole that disagree with irreducible complexity as a Science. The rapid growth of the ID move is certainly very realistic. As such, I believe it important for our people to realize that ID is and will be the Science that overtakes the Evolutionary viewpoint (and yes Glenn Morton is very and deadly wrong on this issue to I might add).

Dr. Bill Quincy
Cellular Biologist, GSD

I have been a research Scientist for nearly 30 years.

The rapid growth of the ID move is certainly very realistic.

You probably have some other Steve in mind, but I don't have anything to say about that guy. It's just babble.

I have been a research Scientist for nearly 30 years. I believe that Intelligent Design as a whole has more to offer than any other theorum known to mankind.

— Bill Quincy

He appears to have enough time to ban TANSTAAFL for urging him to engage Downard directly

Dr. Bill Quincy, writes like an eighth grader, so I have a few questions for the good "doctor":
What did you say your degree was in "Doctor"? What university issued it to you? When did you graduate? Where do you currently practice?

Anxiously awaiting your designed answer.

There is a post similar to that of Dr. Bill Quincy on Jason Rosenhouse's blog. On Jason's blog, it is written by a "Dr. Morgan Greenwood". Interestingly, both posts misspell theorem the same way.

"Dr" Bill seems to have some strange similarities to "Dr" Morgan who posted at EvolutionBlog:

http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2006/07/the_state_of_id_research.php

How bizarre -- neither of them can spell theorem correctly!!

Even stranger -- I googled "Dr" Bill and despite the fact that he has been a research scientists for 30 years, apparently he has left zero trace on the Internet.

You think this might be Larry again?

Scratch that; Larry was already posting on Jason's blog. Can't be him.

I have been a research Scientist for nearly 30 years. I believe that Intelligent Design as a whole has more to offer than any other theorum known to mankind. I have found throughout my studies, many anthropologists and the eye doctor community as a whole who disagree with the Evolutionary standpoint. I say this after first being an Evolutionist for the first 18 years of my career. I believe that the Intelligent Design theorum is one of the best laid out theorums known to mankind. The impact it is already having across the world is amazing, and not many Americans are open to this idea. It is primarily the Biologist community and not the Scientific community as a whole that disagree with irreducible complexity as a Science. The rapid growth of the ID move is certainly very realistic. As such, I believe it important for our people to realize that ID is and will be the Science that overtakes the Evolutionary viewpoint (and yes Glenn Morton is very and deadly wrong on this issue to I might add). Dr. Bill Quincy Cellular Biologist, GSD

The rapid growth of the ID move is certainly very realistic.

Dr. Bill Quincy is pulling your legs, guys. It is called satire, not very good satire, but satire nonetheless. I call Poe's Law.

I have no problem with ID if we call it a scientific theorum. Dembski then is an ID theorust.

We shouldn't let on that we know about this guy. We need him to continue to spell "theorum" so that we can identify him later on.

Anonymous - I wouldn't worry about it. It doesn't matter if the troll calls itself "Dr. Quincy" or "Dr. Greenwood"... it will always betray itself by writing with it's 8th grade education and thoughts. Unless it actually reads a book (not by Coulter or Wells) and gets educated. Of course, once it's really educated, it wouldn't be a troll!

I wonder if Dr. QuincyMorgan is the same jester who posted such a slick parody a couple months ago, the one who had everyone convinced he was genuine... until the link to timecube. What was his name again....

I remember that one (just not the name!). I don't think he was a real troll, while I reckon "Dr" Morgan here is.

I have no problem with ID if we call it a scientific theorum. Dembski then is an ID theorust.

— GuyeFaux

I thought the name TANSTAAFL looked familiar, I know somebody who uses that name in another venue. A quit private message confirmed that they were indeed the same person.
The internet gets smaller every day!

And by "quit," of course, I mean "quick."
I'm not very quit-witted at this time of day.

Wheels: Sorry. I had the notion that the good "Doctor" Quincy was you yanking our collective chain. Again. :-)

I have been a research Scientist for nearly 30 years. I believe that Intelligent Design

I would never lower myself to using sock accounts.
I always post my parody in the open!

It appears that another UD poster is trying to prod Dembski to respond to the particulars of my criticisms. We'll see how far that gets. I sent an email of my own to UD some days ago, summarizing the dozen criticisms I'd made in Parts I & 2, but it hasyet to be posted.

As the dust continues to settle, I will post periodic updates on the "progress" of Dembski's aptitude to turn his acceptance of responsibility into a concrete connection to facts.

Well guys, I have to tell you, being a former Evolutionist myself, I don't believe you quite have a firm understanding of the Intelligent Design Theorem. Lets begin by actually defining what it is. ID is as referred to on ideacenter.org, "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution." Again, no attempt is manifested to explain who or what the Intelligent Cause is. We have several criticisms to actual Evolutionary standards: . Common Criticisms of evolution:

1. The "Origin of Life"(not exactly the "evolution of life," but the chemical starting point of life)

This illustration shows a portion of an Escherichia coli cell, one of the "simplest" known bacteria. Many necessary parts are shown including the cell wall, flagellum, ribosomes, tRNA, mRNA, enzymes, and nucleus with DNA and its machinery. From http://www.scripps.edu/pub/goodsell/illustration/public for your viewing pleasure.

Life has never been created in a laboratory, contrary to popular belief.
If life is ever created in the lab, how would we know it could or would happen that way in the natural world? In regards to irreducible complexity: There are many biological parts which function like "machines." These machines only work if all the parts are present (for an example, see the Bacterial Flagellum). If one part is removed, the entire machine "breaks down." The word "irreducible" means: "Impossible to reduce to a desired, simpler, or smaller form." Such machines are "irreducibly complex," because if they had any fewer parts, they would not work properly. Evolution cannot build irreducibly complex organs because evolution requires that all things arise in small steps, each of which are functional. For irreducibly complex organs, small steps are impossible because the organ is only functional if all parts are present. In this "all or nothing" game, "intermediate stages" of evolution are impossible because they would not function. Irreducibly complex biological features thus cannot be built in a "step-by-step" evolutionary manner. As evolutionist Robert Carroll asks, "How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?"
To categorize an Intelligent Design as a hypothesis is incorrect. It is Scientifically testable! I am greatly disappointed with this site, simply because it misleads its audience into believing that Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience. Indeed, this is a direct attack and a rather dishonest one.

Casey Luskin

Wow! Casey Luskin, is it really you?! I have so many questions, where to start?

How do you explain the fact that the immune system, which had been described by IDers as irreducibly complex, now has a multipart, evolutionary pathway? Where does this fit into the "theory"?

Well guys, I have to tell you, being a former Evolutionist myself,

— Casey Luskin

I don't believe you quite have a firm understanding of the Intelligent Design Theorem.

— Casey Luskin

Lets begin by actually defining what it is. ID is as referred to on ideacenter.org, "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution."

— Casey Luskin

Common Criticisms of evolution... the chemical starting point of life

— Casey Luskin

Life has never been created in a laboratory, contrary to popular belief.

— Casey Luskin

Evolution cannot build irreducibly complex organs

— Casey Luskin

To categorize an Intelligent Design as a hypothesis is incorrect.

— Casey Luskin

It [ID] is Scientifically testable!

— Casey Luskin

Casey Luskin

— Casey Luskin

Wow! Casey Luskin, is it really you?!

— Creeky Belly

Yeah, and here's a question for Casey (real or phony, I doubt it'll make much intellectual difference) from this pinhead:

Hey, Casey baby-lawyer Luskin, what "legal" expertise did you think you had built up--after your massive eight months' experience as a California lawyer (and that's now, not when you wrote it--that suggested to you that you had the props to plausibly critique Judge Jones' superbly-reasoned and written Kitzmiller decision?

Just curious--because to the reality-based community it looked (and read!) a lot like a wittle bittie kittie taking a swipe at a junkyard dog--not a pretty sight!

I hope the Disco Institute "research facilities" is better equipped with bandages, absorbent pads, and other first-aid material than it seems to be with, uh, laboratory equipment.

That's the crazy part. It's totally impossible to tell the difference between Casey Luskin and some guy parodying Casey Luskin. We just don't know.That's known as Russell's Law. It is impossible to tell a creationist from a spoof of a creationist.

Casey Luskin(?) wrote:

"How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?"

Keyword being ALMOST. I'm curious as to why the intelligent designer made birds that can't fly.

To categorize an Intelligent Design as a hypothesis is incorrect. It is Scientifically testable!

As evolutionist Robert Carroll asks, "How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?"

As evolutionist Robert Carroll asks, "How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?"

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution."

Re "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,"

What IS that explanation, already? For some reason they never seem to get around to telling anybody what their explanation is...

Henry

What IS that explanation, already? For some reason they never seem to get around to telling anybody what their explanation is...

A funny detail: The email address given by Casey Luskin (comment 115431) is exactly the same as given before by "Dr. Griffin" (JesusMarine2005@yahoo.com). In its turn, both "Dr. Griffin" and "Dr. Quincy" posted from the same computer. It looks like either both monikers (Griffin and Quincy) were used by Luskin, or the troll using those two "names," being banned from PT, signs now as "Luskin" and uses one more computer in order to continue clogging PT with his drivel. Whichever guess is correct, in any case this is a case of an impudent and despicable troll.

Well guys, I have to tell you, being a former Evolutionist myself, I don't believe you quite have a firm understanding of the Intelligent Design Theorem. Lets begin by actually defining what it is. ID is as referred to on ideacenter.org, "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution."

A funny detail: The email address given by Casey Luskin (comment 115431) is exactly the same as given before by "Dr. Griffin" (JesusMarine2005@yahoo.com). In its turn, both "Dr. Griffin" and "Dr. Quincy" posted from the same computer. It looks like either both monikers (Griffin and Quincy) were used by Luskin, or the troll using those two "names," being banned from PT, signs now as "Luskin" and uses one more computer in order to continue clogging PT with his drivel. Whichever guess is correct, in any case this is a case of an impudent and despicable troll.

Re "Oh no, they said it, it's just that you missed it because 'Goddidit' goes by awfully quick."

Well yeah, maybe, but 'Goddidit' doesn't necessarily contradict the basics of evolution theory anyway. So if that's all it was, what're they fussing about?

Henry

Well yeah, maybe, but 'Goddidit' doesn't necessarily contradict the basics of evolution theory anyway. So if that's all it was, what're they fussing about?

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution." Again, no attempt is manifested to explain who or what the Intelligent Cause is.