Glen Davidson
Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
|
I beg to differ, I don't think he's being too hard on himself for admitting that he's nothing.
I love that he told the other "moderators" (how did they "moderate" anything, other than moderating (usually dispatching with) the truth?) that he intended to be the Howard Stern of creationism. How, then, was he canned for being the sleazeball he's always been? Yes, we know, it's the fundamentalism of it all (not that ID is religious, understand)--I think that we know now why it is that the Tard isn't YEC, since he really is the sort of person who denies anything that condemns his own scummy life.
So of course I'll miss him. He was the ongoing evidence that ID isn't the slightest bit moral, not even according to its own pseudo-standards. O'Leary will put on the kind of moral armor that plays to the rubes, and she seems not to hang onto blatantly false ideas (violation of entropy by minds, gravity is the strongest force) well past the point where no one smarter than Hovind would agree.
Journalists often make good-sounding arguments, however poorly based their conceptions are.
O'Leary's looks are a legitimate point in politics--and ID is nothing but politics. If it goes too far one might suspect a lack of good arguments in those pointing and laughing, though. More importantly, in the area of psychology we have reason to suppose that if she didn't look like a chain-smoking dyke, while apparently having a fundy background, she might be more open to scientific ideas. She's reacting against the more knowing/better looking/cooler than Dembski (yes, we exist) types.
Lord knows how many things are wrong with DaveTard (why do you suppose that such a vain braggart never shows us a picture of himself?). Besides his inability to get along with people, he's probably quite ugly, and he seems to evince no impressive intelligence in any area, including in internet activities.
But he was a perfect representative of Dembski (except that Dembski looks okay in a nerdy sort of way), both in his near-total ignorance of science, and in his incapacity to convince anybody this side of the fundies/loonies. Denyse, otoh, might actually complement Dembski in some areas, even if she can be expected to embarrass him as well. Not as much as DaveTard did, I'll wager.
Btw, Caledonian, we have reason to believe that more is going on than UD admits because DaveTard attacks Denyse so savagely and has stated his intention not to post at UD (maybe his wife will add that to her task of procuring SciAm, however). Also, it took at most a few hours between the Tard's statement that he doesn't want to moderate any more to the point where Denyse was going to be moderating. That she could be "persuaded" so quickly, and without anyone trying to get the Tard to stay on, suggests that at the least Dembski found the Tard's resignation to be untroubling, perhaps prompted by more than the Tard's slap-down over his anti-fundy commentary.
Could be Dembski taking the opportunity to rid himself of a pest? Sure, but it's at least that, and neither UD nor Dembski are to be trusted at face value.
Glen D
--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
|
