Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: The Design Of Life started by J-Dog


Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 07 2007,13:00

For those of us that REALLY, REALLY  can't wait, and REALLY, REALLY want to see what all the fun and excitement is all about with Dembski's new Opus:

Q For The Class:  Does this now qualify us to go over Amazon and review?

For extra credit, compare and contrast excerpts of book with huge piles of stinking excrement.

< http://www.thedesignoflife.net/excerpts.asp >

"Most of origin-of-life research is as relevant to the real problem of life's origin as rubber-band powered propeller model planes are to the military's most sophisticated stealth aircraft." (Ch.8)
"The origin of information is not a problem of chemistry. Chemistry can be a carrier of information, but it cannot be its source." (Ch.8)

"Chemists typically do not concern themselves with the problem of the origin of information because their work presupposes a smart chemist ready to provide it!" (Ch.8)

"The claim that natural laws are sufficient to account for the origin of life is far-fetched. Natural laws work against the origin of life. Natural laws describe material processes that consume the raw materials of life, turning them into tars, melanoids, and other nonbiological substances that thereafter are completely useless to life." (Ch.8)

"For Clarence Darrow, evolution justified a biological determinism that turned humans into puppets of their evolutionary past." (Ch.9)

"How does evolutionary ethics make sense of people who transcend their selfish genes? Genuine human goodness, which looks to the welfare of others even at one's own (and one's genes') expense, is an unresolvable problem for evolutionary ethics. Its proponents have only one way of dealing with goodness, namely, to explain it away. Mother Teresa is a prime target in this regard. If Mother Teresa's acts of goodness on behalf of the poor and sick can be explained away in evolutionary terms, then surely so can all acts of human goodness." (Ch.1)

"Gould admits that anything Dawkins really cares about regarding biological structures – their origin, function, complexity, adaptive significance – is the product of natural selection. Gould was as much a Darwinist as Dawkins." (Ch.3)

"Vestigial structures are entirely consistent with intelligent design, suggesting structures that were initially designed but then lost their function through accident or disuse. Nevertheless, vestigial structures also provide evidence for a limited form of evolution. From both a design-theoretic and an evolutionary perspective, a vestigial structure is one that started out functional but then lost its function. Yet, in the case of evolution, vestigiality explains only the loss of function and not its origination. Vestigiality at best documents a degenerative form of evolution in which preexisting functional structures change and lose their function." (Ch.5)

"When Eugenie Scott calls for a technician to stand over a monkey's shoulder and correct its mistakes, she commits the fallacy of begging the question or arguing in a circle. In other words, Scott presupposes the very thing she needs to establish as the conclusion of a sound scientific argument. Indeed, scientific rigor demands that we ask who in turn is standing over the technician's shoulder and instructing the technician what is and is not a mistake in the typing of Shakespeare. If the technician's assistance to the monkey is to mirror natural selection, then the technician needs to help the monkey without knowing or giving away the answer. And yet that's exactly what the technician is doing here." (Ch.7)

"Darwinists have traditionally hidden behind the complexities of biological systems to shelter their theory from critical scrutiny. Choose a biological system that is too complex, and one can't even begin to calculate the probabilities associated with its evolution. Consider the eye. A widely held myth in the biological community is that Darwin's theory has explained the evolution of the vertebrate eye. In fact, the theory hasn't done anything of the sort." (Ch.7)

added in edit:  I think we need a new thread just for this.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Dec. 07 2007,13:21

A total dumbass wrote



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Darwinists have traditionally hidden behind the complexities of biological systems to shelter their theory from critical scrutiny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hey you sciencey types here (you know who you are), I want to know how do you hide a theory from critical scrutiny.  Do you simply not tell anyone about the theory (like the IDC camp)?  Do you have secret labs where you discuss your theory and not tell anyone about your conversations?

Please tell me where and how you hide your theories, I swear I won't tell a soul!

Bonus question - how do you keep others from scrutinizing your theory, the one you keep hidden.  Please tell me your secret.  I want to know how to keep people from scrutinizing my own theories.  

Thanks

Chris!
Posted by: BWE on Dec. 07 2007,14:14

I work in the same building with a secret lab! But I can't tell you what they're working on.
Posted by: Assassinator on Dec. 07 2007,14:22

I still find it very odd that they keep screaming out those obvious cliché things. It keeps going on and on and on and on. Irritating.
Posted by: argystokes on Dec. 07 2007,14:26

Quote (BWE @ Dec. 07 2007,12:14)
I work in the same building with a secret lab! But I can't tell you what they're working on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I coach kids' basketball less than a mile from the Biologic Secret Lab. I might have to go check it out.
Posted by: BWE on Dec. 07 2007,14:36

Better wear a disguise. They'll come looking for you.
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 07 2007,15:09

Who says ID can't predict?  

It looks like Dr. Dr. gives a Big Shout Out to some  posters here in Chapter 9!

"... evolution justified a biological determinism that turned humans into (sock) puppets of their evolutionary past." (Ch.9) *

* edited and quote-mined to fit.

** I really like that edit key!
Posted by: Annyday on Dec. 07 2007,15:14

Oh noes! Gould was a Darwinist!

The horror! Darwinist paleontology!

... honestly, I just don't know why the fuck so many creationists think Gould's work supports their position. Gould seems to have been similarly completely confused by their enthusiasm for punctuated equilibria. Do they just like it because he comes off as rebellious, witty and anti-orthodoxy?

And as usual, Dembski's approach to information theory is retarded. The idea that you "can't gain information" is just a repackaging of the second law of thermodynamics, and suffers from the same stupid problems.

THERE IS INFORMATION EVERYWHERE. AND ENERGY, TOO. THEY'RE FREE FOR THE TAKING BY WHATEVER PROCESS IS CAPABLE OF EXPLOITING THEM. WE ARE NOT IN A VACUUM.

... ahem. Excuse me! I like how he's still flogging the eye, however.

Edited because I can.
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 07 2007,15:16

Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 07 2007,14:26)
Quote (BWE @ Dec. 07 2007,12:14)
I work in the same building with a secret lab! But I can't tell you what they're working on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I coach kids' basketball less than a mile from the Biologic Secret Lab. I might have to go check it out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!  If they have any kids playing in your league, they must really hate it when some one blocks a shot and the crowd cheers "Rejected!"
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Dec. 12 2007,20:47

Just thought I would mention my take on one chapter of The Design of Life
< The Design of Life: Cleaning Evolution Out of the Augean Stables >
Posted by: ERV on Dec. 12 2007,21:18

Yay!  Thanks Afarensis!

I just have one thing to say to all the AtBC posters.

One thing, cause you all will get the joke:

Go to a bookstore.
Find a copy of 'Design of Life'.
Look at pages 208-209.


I havent laughed that hard in a long time.
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 12 2007,21:28

Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 12 2007,20:47)
Just thought I would mention my take on one chapter of The Design of Life
< The Design of Life: Cleaning Evolution Out of the Augean Stables >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice Post!  It loks like you are one of the first to get a look at Pandas,  Part Deux.  

NB:  Don't forget to wash your hands after handling it, and be thankful your not a Creo, or you'd have to pluck your eye out after reading it, so you wouldn't sin again by reading it again.
Posted by: ERV on Dec. 17 2007,10:57

My review of one page in 'Design of Life'

< http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007....fe.html >
Posted by: hooligans on Dec. 17 2007,11:17

ERv,

Ouchh! Full on backbreaker
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 17 2007,11:42

Quote (hooligans @ Dec. 17 2007,11:17)
ERv,

Ouchh! Full on backbreaker
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Z-lxAyCZI >
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 17 2007,12:45

Quote (ERV @ Dec. 17 2007,10:57)
My review of one page in 'Design of Life'

< http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007....fe.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!  Excellent!  I think that you should claim that your relentless fisking of Dr. Dr. Dembski led to his latest melt-down.  His latest claim that The Designer = The Christian God pretty much takes him out of any futher the designer is not god discussion.

I'm also thinking that Dembski just guaranteed that he will never get the opportunity to debate us from the witness stand.  

Do you think Dembski is working on the next sequal to Pandas, The Design Of Stupidity?

Edited for spelling and just for fun
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Dec. 17 2007,15:17

Since Dipski believes irreducible complexity is the evidence of an intelligent designer, and he believes the intelligent designer is the "christian god", can we conclude he believes malaria is the christian god's gift to mankind?
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 18 2007,10:06

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 17 2007,15:17)
Since Dipski believes irreducible complexity is the evidence of an intelligent designer, and he believes the intelligent designer is the "christian god", can we conclude he believes malaria is the christian god's gift to mankind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I am sure you are correct.  So if you are a True Christian™, you just have to grin and bear it and chant on: "Thank You Lord, may I have another?"

Scarry stuff.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Dec. 18 2007,10:37

Question - What scientific method did Dipski use to determine the intelligent designer was the christian god and some pagan god, or any other god?  How did he rule out all the others deities?

Was it the 'splanitory filter or?
Posted by: MrsPeng on Dec. 18 2007,12:16

Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 18 2007,10:06)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 17 2007,15:17)
Since Dipski believes irreducible complexity is the evidence of an intelligent designer, and he believes the intelligent designer is the "christian god", can we conclude he believes malaria is the christian god's gift to mankind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I am sure you are correct.  So if you are a True Christian™, you just have to grin and bear it and chant on: "Thank You Lord, may I have another?"

Scarry stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, I know the answer to this one!
There wasn't any malaria until after "Adam's Fall." 'Twas SIN wot done it!
Can I join the death cult now?
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 18 2007,13:56

Quote (MrsPeng @ Dec. 18 2007,12:16)
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 18 2007,10:06)
 
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 17 2007,15:17)
Since Dipski believes irreducible complexity is the evidence of an intelligent designer, and he believes the intelligent designer is the "christian god", can we conclude he believes malaria is the christian god's gift to mankind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I am sure you are correct.  So if you are a True Christian™, you just have to grin and bear it and chant on: "Thank You Lord, may I have another?"

Scarry stuff.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, I know the answer to this one!
There wasn't any malaria until after "Adam's Fall." 'Twas SIN wot done it!
Can I join the death cult now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome Mrs. Peng, and yes, there is plenty of room on the road to hell.  :)
Posted by: carlsonjok on Dec. 19 2007,21:58

The Design of Life is a fabulous success!< Send more money >!!11!!11!one!!11!!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please know, though, that the early success of the book does not mean we are without significant challenges in the weeks and months ahead. There will be intense opposition to our attempts to market the book widely. The Design of Life is a thousand times more threatening to the opposition than Pandas, the book they tried to censure. Success will come with a big price tag. The marketing and PR expenses required, if we set our sites on tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or more, in sales, are likely to be quite large.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: MrsPeng on Dec. 19 2007,23:18

OK, I just read the drivel at the fte site. I've looked at some of the reviews at Amazon for this sciencey book. I've lurked here, and at Pharyngula and The Loom etc for over a year now. I've read Dr Forrest's (on whom I have a very very bad crush indeed) Trojan Horse, Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale and Climbing Mt Improbable,, wossname's Endless Forms Most Beautiful, the other wossname's Why Intelligent Design Fails, Eugenie Scott's Creationism Vs Evolution,  every issue of Natural History for the last 18 months, plus as much creationist claptrap I can stomach at UD, and as far as I can tell, ID has contributed exactly NOTHING NEWER than Paley's Watchmaker argument. Nothing. Not even doodly squat. The best they can manage is a bunch of carping about things that haven't been figured out yet.

I've seen some of the most amazing Tard evar from lurking here, but it always just seems to boil down to the "design inference," or some obfuscated way of rephrasing it.

So when do you guys who do the actual work of figuring things out, you know, the actual science, get to tell the cdesign proponentists to have a big warm glass of shut the hell up? How many more times do they get to be completely wrong before they have to depart a lot and let the real scientists get back to work?

I read some of the excerpts available for The Design of Life and I found that I knew where to look on Talk Origins to refute the load of horsehockey Dr Dr D was spewing. His "arguments" are so bad that a guy like me, who only reads these things because the Tard Takedowns are so priceless, can remember where to look in the index of claims to refute the swill being offered as "Groundbreaking" in a "Brand New" book! Gah! Feh! Poot!

It's warmed over worm poop. When will it stop? Please, make it stop. I'm begging you.

Oh, and sorry about the Mrs Peng, for some reason I wrote Mrs when I mean Mr. I'm not a Mrs, although I play one on TV. No, not really. I'm a Mr, but I don't play a Mrs on TV. Although I would. I've got the legs for it, When they are shaved that is. Not that I shave em. much. er, OK I'm going back to lurking now.
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 20 2007,09:27

"Mrs" Peng, or whatever you are.... You should get along quite well with Louis, who is currently unavailable, being on Holiday in the Sub Continent, India.  

Louis is the Brit with the riding crop and kepi, beating off the natives.  So to speak.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 20 2007,10:53

The design of life "< give us more money >" page quotes some of the Amazon reviews.
A review quoted by FTE says
               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In short, Dembski and Wells have written a comprehensive text of absolutely sparkling perspicacity. 'One long argument' of a quality that Darwin could only have dreamt has been given, and a bright new research paradigm has found its way into the sunlight. This book will be praised and it will be vilified, but most importantly it will be read because it is eminently worthy of being read — and the young minds who read it will have their eyes opened to a new and better and more accurate and vastly healthier scientific understanding of the world.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now the FTE names him as "B. L. FROM REDMOND, WA"

His Amazon < profile > notes that his name is in fact "Bruce Gordon".

And of course ten seconds later it's obvious Bruce is really Bruce Gordon, research director for Discovery's Center for Science & Culture who writes articles like

Intelligent Design Theory is NOT < Creationism >

I know that people have pointed out that the positive reviews are mostly, if not all written by comrades of Behe and Dembski, but I thought If I picked a name from the reviews they themselves quoted it would not lead back to the Disco institute.

Amazingly they then say on the FTE page after posting these "reviews"
               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, not all of the reviews posted in the first month have been as exuberant as those above; some are venomous. We are receiving numerous requests for review copies from people we know intend to try to destroy it. (We do not intentionally send complimentary review copies to these people.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Their intent is to deceive.

Amusingly "B. L. FROM REDMOND, WA" also reviewed "Shattered Tablets: Why We Ignore the Ten Commandments at Our Peril" where he < says >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The result is a powerful critique of secularization that strongly motivates Klinghoffer's prophetic call for a return to America's Judeo-Christian heritage. I am not at all optimistic that this call will be heeded, but the uncompromising clarity with which the need for it is explained and illustrated makes this book a very important one indeed
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, FTK, no return to America's Judeo-Christian heritage planned by the Discovery Institute at all then?

Snapshot of the page as of today

Posted by: MrsPeng on Dec. 20 2007,10:55

Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 20 2007,09:27)
"Mrs" Peng, or whatever you are.... You should get along quite well with Louis, who is currently unavailable, being on Holiday in the Sub Continent, India.  

Louis is the Brit with the riding crop and kepi, beating off the natives.  So to speak.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I hope our friend Louis isn't beating off the small native  dogs in India and at least allows them to boldly leap where they may.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 20 2007,11:06

In addition to my comment above, I'd like to point out the irony of a organisation called Foundation for Thought and Ethics thinking this is an ethical way to drum up positive publicity for a book.
The FTE mission is


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The purpose of FTE is to restore the freedom to know to young people, especially in matters of worldview, morality, and conscience, and to return the right of informed consent to families in the education of their children.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Morality eh? Hmm.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Dec. 20 2007,12:36

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 20 2007,11:06)
The FTE mission is
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The purpose of FTE is to restore the freedom to know to young people, especially in matters of worldview, morality, and conscience, and to return the right of informed consent to families in the education of their children.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, it is difficult to match the high moral values in that sentence with others from the same page.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We are receiving numerous requests for review copies from people we know intend to try to destroy it. (We do not intentionally send complimentary review copies to these people.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A book of this quality, eliciting such powerful reviews immediately upon publication, deserves the strongest possible backing. I hope you'll continue to pray and also write the largest check you can, and send it in with the information requested on the enclosed card.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It isn't too hard to get positive and "powerful" reviews when you only give review copies to DI fellows.

Teach the controversy, guys. Send those books to legitimate reviewers. If your arguments are that "powerful", they should be able to stand a little heat.

Oh, I forgot. This isn't about data and arguments. It's about gaming the Amazon review system and getting money from rubes. Ethics, indeed.
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 20 2007,17:40

I just signed up at Amazon to buy a used copy of The Design Of Life.  I offered $1.00 US dollar... did I overpay for the book?  Please discuss.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Dec. 20 2007,21:17

Yes! :D

I did an Amazon review...
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 20 2007,21:24

Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 20 2007,22:17)
Yes! :D

I did an Amazon review...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


C'mon.  I'm half-lit and lazy.  Linky please, so I don't have to wade through a ton of tard.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 20 2007,21:29

< Never mind. >

ETA:

Quote (afarensis @ December 20, 2007)

As I say, I have not finished the book, but based on the four chapters I have read, their unfamiliarity with, and flat out distortions of, those scientific fields that I am familiar with indicate that this book is little more than a sophisticated, gussied up version of creationism. Or, more accurately, the book is a Jack Chick tract without the pictures.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Shazam.


Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 20 2007,21:55

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 20 2007,22:24)
C'mon.  I'm half-lit and lazy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


People don't know that when you become AtBC moderator, you're given a magical amulet.

(It's a fifth of vodka duck-taped to a universal remote)

:p
Posted by: someotherguy on Dec. 20 2007,22:01

Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 20 2007,21:17)
Yes! :D

I did an Amazon review...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's more, it doesn't suck!  

Not that I expected it to, by any means. :D
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 20 2007,22:02

afarensis's blog is quite good.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Dec. 20 2007,23:18

Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 20 2007,22:01)
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 20 2007,21:17)
Yes! :D

I did an Amazon review...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's more, it doesn't suck!  

Not that I expected it to, by any means. :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I may have to use that in my signature  ;)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Dec. 21 2007,06:42

Given Dr. Dr. D's past embarrassments with fake names and book reviews on Amazon, < Gil's suggestion >seems a bit risky.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amazon needs to implement a policy of requiring all reviewers to use their real names and provide proof of having personally purchased the book, otherwise, Amazon book reviews will lose all credibility in the future.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And DaveTard chimes in as well  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wrote a review on Amazon which should appear within the next 48 hours. It’ll be easy to spot. It’s the ONLY review that is neither 1 star or 5 star. I’ll leave y’all in suspense about what I wrote. You can read it when it gets posted there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 21 2007,06:54

s/past/continuing/;
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 21 2007,07:06

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 21 2007,07:54)
s/past/continuing/;
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You may need to provide an exegesis of that.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 21 2007,07:10

In Perl,

$_ = "Given Dr. Dr. D's past embarrassments";
s/past/continuing/;
print $_;

Output: "Given Dr. Dr. D's continuing embarrassments"
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 21 2007,07:31

Thanks.  I never got into Perl, but I may find that particular snark rather useful.  It's a bit lot like the strikethrough technique.

ETA:

Only geekier.

:p


Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Dec. 21 2007,08:35

More unwitting embarrassments from the Dembskiists. On UD, < Larry Fromanotherplanet > comments  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because I thought that the book “Monkey Girl” was well written and well researched, my Amazon.com review of the book gave it four stars even though I disagreed with the book’s conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But did Larry read that book?  No! Last February, on < FtKs blog, > Larry admitted he only read the epilogue and the last chapter, and his < review on Amazon > reiterates that.

With friends like that, Dembski needs no more enemies.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Dec. 21 2007,08:54

In the discussions of the book, there's one that stands out
< No middle ground here >

Including this little titbit:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 Mona Albano says:
Yes, it's sort of the reaction that one would get for a book called, "I was abudcted by little green men" when the commenters were the Abduction Survivors Group on the one hand and the Psychiatrists' Association on the other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 21 2007,09:08

DaveScot's "< review >" is up
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Except for mine there are no reviews that are not 5 star or 1 star. Everyone evidently thinks the book is pure genius or utter trash. How unlikely. Also note there is a veritable flood of 1 star reviews that were posted on 20 December, 2007. What's up with that? Did George W. Bush declare December 20th as a national "Read Dembski and Review It On Amazon Day" or something? Again, a blatant indication of Amazon ratings being gamed.

I'll say this much about the book itself - any book with such a high sales rank at Amazon (currently around 2,000) that causes this much polarization in the reviews must be worth reading just to see for yourself what's in it that's causing so much controversy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Odd how he fails to mention their own attempt to "game the system" by asking readers to vote up accurate reviews (nudge nudge).
So
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Except for mine there are no reviews that are not 5 star or 1 star.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Round of applause for DS! There's a good boy, good boy!
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Everyone evidently thinks the book is pure genius or utter trash.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, the vast majority of people who have expressed an opinion have said utter trash. The vast majority of the people who expressed a positive opinion are  < shills >, or are otherwise affiliated with the publisher or the group behind the book.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How unlikely.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that "unlikely" in the CSI requires 500 information bits, lifetime of the universe yada yada blah sense? Or "unlikely" as in the "we tried it and it backfired, so we're going to pretend that never happened and concentrate on PZ instead"?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also note there is a veritable flood of 1 star reviews that were posted on 20 December, 2007.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why don't you just come out and say it you coward. People reading that review will either know what you are alluding to or not. If not, how will they know what you are talking about DS? That's your target audience right there! Missing a trick DS.
Also, DS, note the veritable flood of 5 star reviews before it was possible that many people even had the book. Odd how all who had it early liked it so very much.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What's up with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps another "just so story", like about how ID explains whale evolution in detail.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did George W. Bush declare December 20th as a national "Read Dembski and Review It On Amazon Day" or something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps he did. Or perhaps there was a reaction to your original attempt to game the system and unluckily for you it appears ID proponents are outnumbered many thousands to one.  
1,385 of 1,569 people found this negative review useful.
So next time think about how badly you are outnumbered DS. Think about why that is.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, a blatant indication of Amazon ratings being gamed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it's a blatant indication of your dishonestly. If the ratings had been going the way you wanted originally, as requested by O'Leary
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 < O'Leary >: But if you think that the information service that Bill Dembski has provided you here for years - out of his own resources - is worthwhile, go to Amazon and vote up the reviews that sound like the person has actually READ the book. Vote the others down.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Then would you be still complaining like the 10 year old you really are? I doubt it. It would have been a victory of the ordinary person over the darwinist scientists in their ivory towers. Except it didn't quite work out like that eh DS?
Lastly
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll say this much about the book itself - any book with such a high sales rank at Amazon (currently around 2,000) that causes this much polarization in the reviews must be worth reading just to see for yourself what's in it that's causing so much controversy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So we finally get to the money shot. Literally. Buy my mates book or he won't let me bully people round on his blog any more. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book. Buy my book.
Posted by: Annyday on Dec. 21 2007,09:29

Brian Clevinger's books had about five times as many sales, going by his sales rank. I say this because he's only an internet (semi?)-celebrity anyway, and because he's the only other person whose Amazon sales rank I know of.

2000 is not THAT good a sales rank ... you might manage a second edition if you stay there a good long while, maybe.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 21 2007,11:04

John Kwok responds directly to DS' "review"


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for your assertion that this is a book of "pure genius", then I have a bridge spanning Brooklyn and Manhattan that I wish to sell to you. I submit that that bridge is substantially more a work of "pure genius" than this worthless example of mendacious intellectual pornography.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read the rest < here >
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Dec. 21 2007,11:06

I have NOT read the book, but I did manage to get a friend of mine snuck into one of Dembski's IDC bible classes at Southwester Bible Skool.

He snuck in a camera and managed to get these pictures for me:




Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 21 2007,12:56

Praise Jesus!  The snakes bit Dembski, yet they still live!
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 21 2007,12:58

At FTK's church they do that with pirahnas.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Dec. 23 2007,00:48

Holy crap! No wonder DaveScot gave DOL such a good review, here is footnote 45 in Chapter Five:




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
45 How is it possible for different DNA sequences that map onto the same amino acid sequence to induce
different proteins? Computer engineer David Springer conjectures that "ribosomes process codons at different
rates when the codons differ only by a redundant nucleotide replacement." He offers the following
analogy for the effect this has on protein folding: "Think of the ribosome like a caulk gun producing a
bead consisting of amino acid polymers that fold as they come out of the gun. If the rate at which the
bead comes out changes, then the shape it folds into changes as well." He also considers the possibility
that "RNA molecules dependent on specific gene sequences alter the way the protein is processed after
the ribosome finishes producing it." See David Springer, "The Sound of the Neutral Theory Exploding,"
Uncommon Descent (December 23, 2006): published online at < http://www.uncommondescent.com >
/archives/1901 (last accessed January 11, 2007).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

:O
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Dec. 23 2007,06:24

Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 23 2007,00:48)
Holy crap! No wonder DaveScot gave DOL such a good review, here is footnote 45 in Chapter Five:


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
45 How is it possible for different DNA sequences that map onto the same amino acid sequence to induce
different proteins? Computer engineer David Springer conjectures that "ribosomes process codons at different
rates when the codons differ only by a redundant nucleotide replacement." He offers the following
analogy for the effect this has on protein folding: "Think of the ribosome like a caulk gun producing a
bead consisting of amino acid polymers that fold as they come out of the gun. If the rate at which the
bead comes out changes, then the shape it folds into changes as well." He also considers the possibility
that "RNA molecules dependent on specific gene sequences alter the way the protein is processed after
the ribosome finishes producing it." See David Springer, "The Sound of the Neutral Theory Exploding,"
Uncommon Descent (December 23, 2006): published online at < http://www.uncommondescent.com >
/archives/1901 (last accessed January 11, 2007).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

:O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, this book is as "extensively researched" as < Explore Evolution, > where toxicologist and DI fellow Paul Chien is quoted as an expert on some fossils which apparently reside in his basement...

Hopefully DT can expound on his caulk gun model of protein synthesis in a peer-reviewed paper soon. Maybe the reason he is being so quiet at UD is because he is hard at work in the super-duper double-secret DI molecular biology labs, with BA77 as his research assistant...
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 23 2007,07:40

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 21 2007,12:06)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You and your materialistic preconceptions. As you can plainly see, Dembski's serpents are using intelligence to wind themselves into a pair of double helices. That just doesn't happen.

On a good day he gets to demonstrate the irreducible complexity evident in the production of venom. Many parts are involved, the removal of any one of which would render the system non-functional: venom gland, compressor muscle, primary venom duct, accessory gland, secondary venom duct, and fang (with venom canal), not to mention the exquisite, lightning fast motor coordination required for a strike and the deadly bioactive specificity of the venom.



You could've seen the whole God-ordained sequence: a pair of puncture marks, redness and swelling, severe pain, nausea and vomiting, labored breathing, disturbed vision, increased salivation and sweating, and ultimately the cessation of respiration. The Design of Life AND Death! Cool!
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 23 2007,08:04

Over on the UD thread,
Quote (dhogaza @ Dec. 23 2007,04:42)
If you haven't read < this review at Amazon >, you should.  It sums up the ID vs. science "controversy" beautifully.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's worth posting in its entirety:

Quote (Dr. Eigenvalue @ December 15, 2007)
another roadside attraction,

The Mystery Spot is a tourist attraction located in Santa Cruz, California. It's considered Mysterious because it seems not to comply with the laws of gravity: One can stand upright on the wall or roll a ball uphill. The proprietors claim that the anti-gravity effects are due to an alien spaceship that is buried beneath the Spot.

The phenomena observed at the Mystery Spot are so completely unexpected that one has to consider the possibility that the Theory of Gravitation is incorrect. Indeed there is a great deal that is still not understood about gravitation, and fans of the Spot are quick to point out that scientists generally refuse to consider the influence of underground spaceships when formulating their theories. In response to this criticism, Newtonists point to the fact that The Theory of Gravitation has been tested successfully thousands of times, and that it routinely makes predictions that are verified.

The controversy between the Newtonists and the Underground Spaceship Theorists continues to simmer. The spaceship people have calculated that, even by generous estimates, the probability that all of the Mystery Spot phenomena could occur in 68 years (the Spot opened for business in 1939) is ludicrously small. So small that one could wait trillions of years and still not expect to observe a ball rolling up a hill without the influence of an Underground Spaceship. They suggest that Gravitation works well within certain limits beyond which buried spaceships need to be taken into account.

The Newtonists clearly feel threatened. Seeing their Theory under attack, they have been openly dismissive of the Underground Spaceship Theorists. Because they control the scientific journals and the schools, they have thus far been successful in preventing Spaceship Theory from entering the scientific mainstream. Recently a group of Newtonists actually travelled to the Mystery Spot, made some measurements, and determined that there actually was no gravitational anomaly! They claim that the area is simply positioned on an incline, which leads to a variety of optical illusions that render the Spaceship Theorists' calculations meaningless. Supporters of the Spaceship Theory have pointed out that the existence of the incline does not rule out the possibility that a spaceship is buried beneath the Spot.

Meanwhile the Mystery Spot continues to do brisk business. Neither the owners nor their customers are particularly interested in The Theory of Gravitation. For most people, underground spaceships are much more fun to think about, and the fact of the matter is that the ball really, really does look like it's rolling uphill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It is indeed beautiful.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 23 2007,09:20

RB and if you don't have a victim, you can't have a deadly bite.  Absolutely Eerie-doucheable.

I call Design Inference!!!

Can you smell the science?
Posted by: Art on Dec. 23 2007,10:03

Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 23 2007,00:48)
Holy crap! No wonder DaveScot gave DOL such a good review, here is footnote 45 in Chapter Five:


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
45 How is it possible for different DNA sequences that map onto the same amino acid sequence to induce
different proteins? Computer engineer David Springer conjectures that "ribosomes process codons at different
rates when the codons differ only by a redundant nucleotide replacement." He offers the following
analogy for the effect this has on protein folding: "Think of the ribosome like a caulk gun producing a
bead consisting of amino acid polymers that fold as they come out of the gun. If the rate at which the
bead comes out changes, then the shape it folds into changes as well." He also considers the possibility
that "RNA molecules dependent on specific gene sequences alter the way the protein is processed after
the ribosome finishes producing it." See David Springer, "The Sound of the Neutral Theory Exploding,"
Uncommon Descent (December 23, 2006): published online at < http://www.uncommondescent.com >
/archives/1901 (last accessed January 11, 2007).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

:O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wouldn't it be neat if DaveScot and Telic Thinker joy got together and whipped up a quantum caulk theory of everything?
Posted by: Annyday on Dec. 23 2007,10:42

Quote (Art @ Dec. 23 2007,10:03)
Wouldn't it be neat if DaveScot and Telic Thinker joy got together and whipped up a quantum caulk theory of everything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can it even be considered caulk or even caulk-like when it's so small it's been dubbed "quantum"?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Dec. 23 2007,11:10

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 23 2007,06:24)
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 23 2007,00:48)
Holy crap! No wonder DaveScot gave DOL such a good review, here is footnote 45 in Chapter Five:


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
45 How is it possible for different DNA sequences that map onto the same amino acid sequence to induce
different proteins? Computer engineer David Springer conjectures that "ribosomes process codons at different
rates when the codons differ only by a redundant nucleotide replacement." He offers the following
analogy for the effect this has on protein folding: "Think of the ribosome like a caulk gun producing a
bead consisting of amino acid polymers that fold as they come out of the gun. If the rate at which the
bead comes out changes, then the shape it folds into changes as well." He also considers the possibility
that "RNA molecules dependent on specific gene sequences alter the way the protein is processed after
the ribosome finishes producing it." See David Springer, "The Sound of the Neutral Theory Exploding,"
Uncommon Descent (December 23, 2006): published online at < http://www.uncommondescent.com >
/archives/1901 (last accessed January 11, 2007).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

:O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, this book is as "extensively researched" as < Explore Evolution, > where toxicologist and DI fellow Paul Chien is quoted as an expert on some fossils which apparently reside in his basement...

Hopefully DT can expound on his caulk gun model of protein synthesis in a peer-reviewed paper soon. Maybe the reason he is being so quiet at UD is because he is hard at work in the super-duper double-secret DI molecular biology labs, with BA77 as his research assistant...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm surprised Dembski didn't cite the DaveScot thread with the infamous haploid error...
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 23 2007,13:06

Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 23 2007,12:10)
I'm surprised Dembski didn't cite the DaveScot thread with the infamous haploid error...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...or the "Praying Marines Design Inference".
Posted by: Steverino on Dec. 24 2007,08:19

This was up this moring on Amazon:

The most helpful favorable review

2nd Best Book Ever, December 23, 2007
By  The Spinozanator

I must reluctantly admit, I was teetering on the brink of being seduced by Satan's evil theory of evolution. Then I read Dembski's and Wells's inspired book, which ranks right up there with astrology in exposing science and its ridiculous reliance on evidence and the outdated fuddy duddy scientific method; instead of the Bible and other privileged sources.

None of my friends down at the Church of the Divine Sepulchre of Spiritual Holiness believe in that stupid ape story either. Among the high spots in this fine book was the sensitive support given in the bibliography to Santa Claus, Mother Goose, and the Stork. Those 100% of Nobel prize winners and 99% of other scientists who believe evolution's hogwash are most certainly going straight to Hell. Top Notch!


Ok....which one of you is this????  This was great!!!
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 24 2007,08:42

Quote (Steverino @ Dec. 24 2007,08:19)
This was up this moring on Amazon:

The most helpful favorable review

2nd Best Book Ever, December 23, 2007
By  The Spinozanator

I must reluctantly admit, I was teetering on the brink of being seduced by Satan's evil theory of evolution. Then I read Dembski's and Wells's inspired book, which ranks right up there with astrology in exposing science and its ridiculous reliance on evidence and the outdated fuddy duddy scientific method; instead of the Bible and other privileged sources.

None of my friends down at the Church of the Divine Sepulchre of Spiritual Holiness believe in that stupid ape story either. Among the high spots in this fine book was the sensitive support given in the bibliography to Santa Claus, Mother Goose, and the Stork. Those 100% of Nobel prize winners and 99% of other scientists who believe evolution's hogwash are most certainly going straight to Hell. Top Notch!


Ok....which one of you is this????  This was great!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ha!  I was just going to post this exact same post, and you beat me to it!  Either this proves that Great Minds Think Alike, or it's another Freakin' Christmas Miracle and all credulous readers should send their life savings to us.  

I'm in killing time in the office, then OUT!, so the best to all, and to all a good night.

What a great review@!
Posted by: guthrie on Dec. 24 2007,10:15

Quote (MrsPeng @ Dec. 19 2007,23:18)
So when do you guys who do the actual work of figuring things out, you know, the actual science, get to tell the cdesign proponentists to have a big warm glass of shut the hell up? How many more times do they get to be completely wrong before they have to depart a lot and let the real scientists get back to work?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At the current rate of progress, I estimate another 200 years.
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 24 2007,18:26

Quote (MrsPeng @ Dec. 20 2007,00:18)
So when do you guys who do the actual work of figuring things out, you know, the actual science, get to tell the cdesign proponentists to have a big warm glass of shut the hell up? How many more times do they get to be completely wrong before they have to depart a lot and let the real scientists get back to work?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Real scientists never stopped working. ID consists of a few morons echoing each other on websites, selling each other POS books, and making noise at the occasional school board meeting.  They don't do any science or interfere much with scientists who do. They sit around and complain about the powers that be, and dream of the revolution, but the revolution never comes.
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Dec. 26 2007,14:55

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 24 2007,18:26)
Quote (MrsPeng @ Dec. 20 2007,00:18)
So when do you guys who do the actual work of figuring things out, you know, the actual science, get to tell the cdesign proponentists to have a big warm glass of shut the hell up? How many more times do they get to be completely wrong before they have to depart a lot and let the real scientists get back to work?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Real scientists never stopped working. ID consists of a few morons echoing each other on websites, selling each other POS books, making noise at the occasional school board meeting, and making farty videos.  They don't do any science or interfere much with scientists who do. They sit around and complain about the powers that be, and dream of the revolution, but the revolution never comes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Post fixed.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 01 2008,06:23

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #10,261
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 05 2008,06:18

Comments have been open for a while now
< http://www.thedesignoflife.net/blog/ >
and there are 0 comments!

Nice way to go O'Leary!
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 05 2008,06:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #15,446 in Books
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 05 2008,07:04

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 05 2008,06:55)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #15,446 in Books
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder what that represents in terms of sales? A couple a week?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Jan. 11 2008,13:02

I think I understand why there aren't any comments over at The Design of Life blog. I am looking at the < blog FAQ >.  I found this of interest (emphasis added).


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Q3. How can I add comments to a post?

A3. To add comments to a post, you must be registered on the site. If you are already a member, please log in to your account. Otherwise, click here to register. Click on the ‘Add Comment’ link for the post. You will be prompted to log in to the site, if you are not already logged in.
Note: By default, on registration, a user becomes a One Time Commenter. In this role, a user may comment ONE TIME on a post that already has AT LEAST one comment. In other words, a ‘One Time Commenter’ does not have permission to start a thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, basically, they have set up their comment policy so that no one can comment unless DO'L puts in the first comment on her own post.  How can we expect these guys to reliably detect design when they are completely incapable of designing anything themselves?
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 11 2008,13:16

Mebbe they designed it that way on porpoise?  :p
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 11 2008,13:19

Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 11 2008,13:02)
I think I understand why there aren't any comments over at The Design of Life blog. I am looking at the < blog FAQ >.  I found this of interest (emphasis added).
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Q3. How can I add comments to a post?

A3. To add comments to a post, you must be registered on the site. If you are already a member, please log in to your account. Otherwise, click here to register. Click on the ‘Add Comment’ link for the post. You will be prompted to log in to the site, if you are not already logged in.
Note: By default, on registration, a user becomes a One Time Commenter. In this role, a user may comment ONE TIME on a post that already has AT LEAST one comment. In other words, a ‘One Time Commenter’ does not have permission to start a thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, basically, they have set up their comment policy so that no one can comment unless DO'L puts in the first comment on her own post.  How can we expect these guys to reliably detect design when they are completely incapable of designing anything themselves?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha!  That's beautiful!  I remember reading that, shaking my head cuz it didn't make sense, but just put it all on Denyse's usual inimitable writing "style" .  I  feel so ashamed that I didn't give it the pathetic level of detail that it deserved.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 30 2008,03:09

Henrietta Lacks lives again!
< http://www.thedesignoflife.net/blog....lt.aspx >
She's commenting on the design of life blog.
That means that anybody can comment on the threads that have comments already (what a dumb system)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I notice that you printed a taxonomy of cow-like kinds in a nested heirarchy, which implies that you accept the darwinist dogma of common descent. I'm not sure if this was intended to communicate what you think or merely an illustration of what some scientists thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some scientists thing? :) :p
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Jan. 30 2008,04:05

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 24 2007,18:26)
They don't do any science or interfere much with scientists who do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno, I think some of those farty noise videos might have just managed to get to me!
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 30 2008,10:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I notice that you printed a taxonomy of cow-like kinds in a nested heirarchy,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Where's the beef? :p



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I dunno, I think some of those farty noise videos might have just managed to get to me!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



America needs the gas!

:O
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Jan. 30 2008,11:21

Has anyone else noticed that no one seems to be paying attention to this newer version of Pandas and People?  No reviews anywhere except in the IDiot world.

Could it be no one gives a shit about dembski anymore?  This must be having a drastic effect on his persecution complex.  How can he drive book sales unless he can play the persecution card?
Posted by: Annyday on Jan. 30 2008,11:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think you need to be clear about what point you are trying to make; Is it that darwinists predict that species can never hybridize (if so you should show references) or that the fact that species can hybridize means that the darwinists have an incorrect notion of what constitutes a species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



heheheheh. Creationists using references. That's a good one.
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 30 2008,11:27

Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 30 2008,11:22)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think you need to be clear about what point you are trying to make; Is it that darwinists predict that species can never hybridize (if so you should show references) or that the fact that species can hybridize means that the darwinists have an incorrect notion of what constitutes a species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



heheheheh. Creationists using references. That's a good one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey!  They use references all the time!  Like, from Genesis, Leviticus, etc...
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 30 2008,12:07

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 30 2008,12:21)
Has anyone else noticed that no one seems to be paying attention to this newer version of Pandas and People?  No reviews anywhere except in the IDiot world.

Could it be no one gives a shit about dembski anymore?  This must be having a drastic effect on his persecution complex.  How can he drive book sales unless he can play the persecution card?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the design of life:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #13,774 in Books
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nobody goes to Young Cosmos, nobody goes to ISCID Brainstorms, nobody picks up the phone at ISCID, the Discovery Institute's page of peer reviewed publications lists nothing - not even fake papers - from 2007, PCID hasn't been published since 2005...

That old song on He-Haw said "If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all..." Something like that applies to ID, with 'attention' subbed for 'luck'.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 30 2008,12:25

Where, Oh where, are you tonight
Why did you leave me here all alone
I've searched the world over and thought I found true love
But you found another and [insert Dembski skills here] I was gone.

by the way Sternbergius it's HEEHAW

kinda like YEEHAW
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Feb. 20 2008,05:50

O'Dreary gets defensive about the number of hits on the DOL site.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Total 13,343
Average Per Day 221
Average Visit Length 2:55
Last Hour 35
Today 762
This Week 1,550
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Wow. >

She also reminds us how well the book is doing


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#1 in Books > Science > Biological Sciences > Biology > Developmental Biology
#1 in Books > Professional & Technical > Professional Science > Biological Sciences > Biology > Developmental Biology
#3 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Theology > Creationism
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



2:55 average site visit duration? I think a decimal place has been moved...

And Creationism? Somebody re-read the memo to O'Dreary.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 20 2008,06:30

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 20 2008,06:50)
O'Dreary gets defensive about the number of hits on the DOL site.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Total 13,343
Average Per Day 221
Average Visit Length 2:55
Last Hour 35
Today 762
This Week 1,550
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Wow. >

She also reminds us how well the book is doing
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#1 in Books > Science > Biological Sciences > Biology > Developmental Biology
#1 in Books > Professional & Technical > Professional Science > Biological Sciences > Biology > Developmental Biology
#3 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Theology > Creationism
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



2:55 average site visit duration? I think a decimal place has been moved...

And Creationism? Somebody re-read the memo to O'Dreary.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The D'oL:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #12,574 in Books
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The Age of American Unreason,Susan Jacoby



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #10 in Books(See Bestsellers in Books)

Popular in these categories: (What's this?)
#1 in Books > History > United States
#1 in Books > Nonfiction > Social Sciences > Communication > Media And Society
#1 in Books > Entertainment > Pop Culture > Popular Culture
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Publisher's Weekly Review of Ms. Jacoby's book addresses the relevance here:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Jacoby passionately argues that the nation's current cult of unreason has deadly and destructive consequences (the war in Iraq, for one) and traces the seeds of current anti-intellectualism (and its partner in crime, antirationalism) back to post-WWII society. Unafraid of pointing fingers, she singles out mass media and the resurgence of fundamentalist religion as the primary vectors of anti-intellectualism, while also having harsh words for pseudoscientists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body, by Neil Shubin



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #66 in Books(See Bestsellers in Books)

Popular in these categories: (What's this?)
#1 in Books > Science > Evolution
#1 in Books > Science > Biological Sciences > Paleontology
#1 in Books > Professional & Technical > Professional Science > Evolution
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #136 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Popular in these categories: (What's this?)
#1 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Spirituality > Atheism
#2 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Theology > Philosophy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Letter to a Christian Nation (Vintage) (Paperback),by Sam Harris (a reprint, no less)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #767 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Popular in these categories: (What's this?)
#1 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Spirituality > Agnosticism
#3 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Sociology
#4 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Church & State
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



On the upside for D'oL:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#2 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Theology > Creationism
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's climbed a place in the Creationism Intelligent Design market.

ETA: Hey D'oL, maybe D'oL would sell better if you put little Jack Chick cartoons inside.

If you put the "PYGMIES + DWARVES" one in there, I might even buy it.


Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Feb. 20 2008,09:33

Nice work Lou.  Since all of science seems to be ignoring the latest Pandas and People - Demsbki/Wells love child it's good to know the creationists are still paying attention to them.

I bet Dembski cries at night because no one is reviewing his latest book.  He needs negative reviews from the legit science world so he can drive more sales by portraying himself as a victim of darwinism and "big science".

I love it so!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 11 2008,08:36

< DaveScot >          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I reviewed the reviews and gave a neutral number of stars so that my review would stand out. Evidently it worked the way I wanted it to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< O'Leary >        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, a distribution where the vast majority of suddenly appearing reviews are either one star or five stars suggests a campaign in progress.

Where that appears to be the case, I would agree with Mohrhoff in ignoring all reviews that fall in those distributions because only a few will be normal reviews.

Trying to figure out which few are normal reviews is not a worthwhile use of one’s time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My emphasis.
Seems to me O'Leary, like, wants to ignore all reviews at either end of the spectrum and also the ones that fall in the middle? Or, something, like?

O'Leary continues
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That, by the way, is the reason that the campaign against The Design of Life failed. The campaigners assumed that the whole world agrees with them and with their campaign. That doesn’t happen to be true. And it shouldn’t be.
There needs to be a serious discussion about the limits of Darwinism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the "campaign" against DOL failed? What campaign? And as far as a discussion about the limits of "Darwinism" goes, er, well, like, I thought Behe just published a book and we're in fact talking about a book here also? The "design of life" remember O'Leary? Or perhaps does O'Leary mean the sort of discussion that scientists have between themselves, you could say between peers? Something like that O'Leary? And in any case with O'Leary having 20 or 30 separate websites and blogs you'd think that any discussion about the limits of "Darwinism" would be happening right now, there's plenty of venues! It's not like, like, there is a lack of opportunity!

O'Leary and FTK have a lot in common I think. Just look at the "added value content" that O'Leary brings to science news:
< >
< Link >
Notice the fantastic punctuation. I mean, I'm quite bad at it myself but...
Interesting that O'Leary fails to inform us how this new "mind reading" feat fits into her conception of the mind and brain. It's a pity that O'Leary leaves us guessing! Or not, like. Or perhaps "But you won;’t know what the person thinks of it is her considered refutation?
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 11 2008,13:56

[quote=oldmanintheskydidntdoit,Mar. 11 2008,08:36]O'Leary continues
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That, by the way, is the reason that the campaign against The Design of Life failed. The ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AH HA!  I have decoded Denyse!  

Under her NEW contract, she gets paid by the number of times she can use the word "campaign" in a single paragraph!

My evidence - from your link:  

"That, by the way, is the reason that the campaign against The Design of Life failed. The campaigners assumed that the whole world agrees with them and with their campaign. That doesn’t happen to be true. And it shouldn’t be."
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 11 2008,14:45

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 11 2008,11:56)
[quote=oldmanintheskydidntdoit,Mar. 11 2008,08:36]O'Leary continues
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That, by the way, is the reason that the campaign against The Design of Life failed. The ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AH HA!  I have decoded Denyse!  

Under her NEW contract, she gets paid by the number of times she can use the word "campaign" in a single paragraph!

My evidence - from your link:  

"That, by the way, is the reason that the campaign against The Design of Life failed. The campaigners assumed that the whole world agrees with them and with their campaign. That doesn’t happen to be true. And it shouldn’t be."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Paid by whom?  The International Bad Prose Conspiracy?
Posted by: Reed on Mar. 12 2008,02:11

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 11 2008,12:45)

Paid by whom?  The International Bad Prose Conspiracy?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Otherwise known as the Illiterati conspiracy :p
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 12 2008,21:52

A prose by any other name...
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on Mar. 17 2008,10:48

I heard a rumor that someone else bought this book not long ago.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 17 2008,11:23

Uh-oh.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#4 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Theology > Creationism
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sales seem to be slipping.

And what's #1 in Creationism, you ask?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#1 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Theology > Creationism
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Science, Evolution, and Creationism >, by the National Academy of Sciences.

Shermer's < Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design > sits at number 2, and < A Call to Sanity > (with which I am not familiar) by Jason Scott Yeldell is at number 3.

D'oL D'oh!  That has to sting.

ETA:  On the upside for D'oL and DO'L, < they're beating that other con-artist Sylvia Browne >, who checks in at number 5.


Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 17 2008,12:01

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 17 2008,11:23)
Uh-oh.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
#4 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Theology > Creationism
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sales seem to be slipping.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Not according to the publisher >.

Here is the breakdown, if you don't want to read the whole newsletter:

- Sales are great! We've sold 1200 books!  
- Our run of 10,000 books will run out in less than 2 years!
- We're one of the top developmental biology books on Amazon!
- Shhhh. Be vewy, vewy quiet. We don't want to call people's attention to the fact that it is the op-tay ook-bay in eationism-Cray.
- Readers love the book!
- The Darwinists hate the book and are trying to destroy it!
- We need your help to defeat the Darwinists!  Okay, we don't actually need your help, we really just need your money. Send it to us!

One quote:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bill Dembski spoke on intelligent design to roughly 200 people at a venue just off Times Square in New York City following a private screening of the movie, "EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed.". The book sold well at the event, which was sponsored by King's College.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I even found a picture from the event:

Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 17 2008,12:07

Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 17 2008,12:01)
I even found a picture from the event:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks like Dembski's really let himself go...
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 17 2008,12:12

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 17 2008,13:07)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 17 2008,12:01)
I even found a picture from the event:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Looks like Dembski's really let himself go...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At least he ditched the sweater.
Posted by: Leftfield on Mar. 17 2008,12:15

< More from the publisher's newsletter: >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Working with specialists in Canada and India, our web site for the book features a blog that now averages 221 visitors a day, and climbing - not bad for a young blog!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe that explains DO'L's prose stylings: her exquisite work is all edited by "specialists" in India before being loosed on the world! :p
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 17 2008,12:43

Quote (Leftfield @ Mar. 17 2008,13:15)
< More from the publisher's newsletter: >
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Working with specialists in Canada and India, our web site for the book features a blog that now averages 221 visitors a day, and climbing - not bad for a young blog!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe that explains DO'L's prose stylings: her exquisite work is all edited by "specialists" in India before being loosed on the world! :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JanieBelle gets that many hits a day just from Google searches for "literotica".

Various permutations of "Emma Watson Naked" also usually generate that many.

She could go two weeks without posting a thing and get more hits than the D'oL blog.

Perhaps that's not a fair comparison, though.


< How 'bout this instead? >
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 17 2008,12:46

Quote (Leftfield @ Mar. 17 2008,12:15)
< More from the publisher's newsletter: >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Working with specialists in Canada and India, our web site for the book features a blog that now averages 221 visitors a day, and climbing - not bad for a young blog!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe that explains DO'L's prose stylings: her exquisite work is all edited by "specialists" in India before being loosed on the world! :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy Denyse's Diction !

I followed your link, and right after they beg for money because they need it to do God's Work, they are still selling Of Pandas & People... For $29.95!!!!!
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 17 2008,12:48

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 17 2008,12:43)
Quote (Leftfield @ Mar. 17 2008,13:15)
< More from the publisher's newsletter: >
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Working with specialists in Canada and India, our web site for the book features a blog that now averages 221 visitors a day, and climbing - not bad for a young blog!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe that explains DO'L's prose stylings: her exquisite work is all edited by "specialists" in India before being loosed on the world! :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JanieBelle gets that many hits a day just from Google searches for "literotica".

Various permutations of "Emma Watson Naked" also usually generate that many.

She could go two weeks without posting a thing and get more hits than the D'oL blog.

Perhaps that's not a fair comparison, though.


< How 'bout this instead? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another Holy Denyse's Diction... You are kicking the Morphodyke's Ugly Buttocks 5,285 to 8!!!!
Posted by: Bob O'H on Mar. 17 2008,13:18

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 17 2008,12:43)
< How 'bout this instead? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Or this? >

Dave for Teh Win!!!onetyone!!!!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Mar. 25 2008,09:06

O'Leary comes out and admits that DOL is a creationist propaganda tool!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, Darwinism's utter failures fuel creationism, as The Design of Life handily details. But that's a point for a less frenzied moment than the present one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< LINK >
I guess a bit of honestly was overdue from that lot...
Posted by: J-Dog on Mar. 25 2008,18:44

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 17 2008,13:18)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 17 2008,12:43)
< How 'bout this instead? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Or this? >

Dave for Teh Win!!!onetyone!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WOW!  14,000 to 8???!!!????  Dave over Denyse???
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on June 17 2008,03:07

The DOL blog is still going strong with such ID related news as

Cambrian food webs similar to webs observed today

Genome mapping: Platypus genome a patchwork, like the animal itself

Fossil fish find reveals that live birth is ancient, not modern

Brain: Octopus develops advanced brain, but what does the brain do?


and finally

Science and media: Can DNA Analysis Uncover a Mummy’s Ancestry?

I actually read most of that last post and I simply can't see what the relevance is to ID. Of course I understand this is O'Leary and "relevance" means something different to her then everybody else but this one snippet struck me as very relevant
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, other scientists warn, that these results must be replicated by independent research teams in separate laboratories before the results can be confirmed. Peer review is also essential to giving the team’s work credibility. Otherwise, this work will remain more celebrated in the media than in the scientific community.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's nice to see even DoL getting it right occasionally. So I look forwards to DoL repeating this over at UD.

< Tard >
Posted by: dnmlthr on June 17 2008,14:18

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 17 2008,19:18)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 17 2008,12:43)
< How 'bout this instead? >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Or this? >

Dave for Teh Win!!!onetyone!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< This made me damn near spill my wine >

And no, it's not a euphemism.
Posted by: Dr.GH on June 17 2008,16:25

I don't understand why DoL only gets 8 hits rather than the ~60k on a google search. What's the filter?
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 29 2008,12:35

The Design Of Life Update - Because it is all about Teh Science::

Long, long ago, The Designer [ s] created [/s] front-loaded a God-Loving puppet that signed up to be on the Foundation of Thought and Ethics mailing list.  And since my puppet and I thought that you might all enjoy their most recent lies and truth-stretching, I am including their latest combination Plea For Money and Research Lie To The Rubes Plan - Design Of Life.

So take a break from all that Church Burnin' and Teh War On Christmas and Christians, and settle down now, on a long winter's day for The December Issue From FTE!


Dear Friend of the Foundation,

In spite of the widespread economic downturn, a wonderful opportunity to continue expanding our outreach has come to FTE. Please give me just 15 minutes to consider together first, what great things are going to happen in 2009, and then, this very strategic opportunity.

Open Doors
FTE's books are 1) generating interest and winning acclaim from more and more influential and strategic people, and 2) with the support of new technologies, they are entering many new markets and reaching more readers, including numbers of students. Professional groups that we are working with now or that are currently reviewing our books with that purpose in mind include The Heritage Foundation, The Intercollegiate Studies Institute, The Discovery Institute, Amazon.com, The C.S. Lewis Society, The Conference on Faith and History, Faculty Commons, Google Book Search, and others.

But the biggest doorway is that opened by scientific work that affirms intelligent design. Quietly and largely unnoticed, we have entered a new era in this century–a major era. On the 10th anniversary of his best-selling book, Darwin's Black Box, Prof. Michael Behe acknowledged the heated rhetoric wars that had arisen between Darwinism and intelligent design. Then he added something profound: he said he knows that in the end, science, not politics will settle this dispute. Now, we are not predicting a settlement in just a year or two, but still you can see today how this is going to come about.
An Example? Some Amazing Things Happened in 2008
Historical, even revolutionary things . . . in science. In a section of The Design of Life titled "How Many Genes Must Change?" the authors discuss these questions: What is the minimal number of mutations required to form a new structure in a species? and How likely is it that that many mutations could occur in a single organism and actually produce the new structure? (The authors were considering earlier work by British biologist E. J. Ambrose, who said a minimum of five mutations would be needed.) With due caution and generous concessions to Darwinism's creative capacity, Dembski and Wells demonstrate that the probability of some favorable new structure arising in a population is nil. But the Darwinists yawned. This is dismissed as speculation. There remained a need for clear research to determine if evolution could deliver the estimated five mutations needed for an organism to produce the new structure.

That was then, and this is now. In fact, experimental research has been underway throughout most of this decade, long enough for us to get a very satisfying glimpse of where this is going. Dare I say it? Earth-shattering breakthroughs are on their way. Future science textbooks will one day open new chapters recounting this landmark progress. A prime example is the research that has been conducted since 2005 by Ralph Seelke, Prof. of Biology at the Univ. of Wisconsin - Superior. Dr. Seelke's research is looking for an answer from the much studied tiny organism, Escherichia coli. Specifically, he is researching the question, when just two mutations are needed to produce a new, functioning structure – one that would give an organism survival advantage – can E. coli do that? So far, his answer has been a very solid "NO!"

His research makes Dr. Seelke an ideally qualified scientist to carefully review the way DoL's authors handled the Ambrose "minimal gene mutations" question. Here, then, are a few of Prof. Seelke's comments: "I got a chance to read Dembski's discussion of Ambrose's work, and it's a good analysis of the problems with forming a new structure."
I can't say that we actually know what's involved in forming a new structure, but five [genes] would be a minimum estimate. Ambrose's discussion also assumes that you have five genes that are already close–very close–to being what you need for that structure. He then gives very generous probabilities for a useful change to occur. However, the results are again a dismally low probability.

The normal case is that, if you inactivate a gene in these organisms, there's nothing in the 4.6 million bases of the E. coli genome . . .that will substitute for that inactivated gene. That's certainly been the case in my studies. For over 7,000 generations, and hundreds of billions of cells, my E. coli have sought in vain for a protein that will substitute for the one that I inactivated. It simply doesn't happen.
Much more research should and will follow. But we've crossed a continental divide, folks. The biochemical research open to this question is well underway, and so far, Darwinism has fallen flat on its face on the laboratory floor.

In the latest advance in the continuing stream of technologies brought to the task of marketing DoL, FTE has become a Google Book Search Partner, meaning anyone anywhere on the worldwide web can go online and, when searching on a phrase anywhere in the book, DoL will come up in the listings, with a picture of the book and a link to our web site where it can be ordered.

Despite so many encouragements, FTE has a very serious financial situation. We must raise $100,000. In addition to the $50,000 we need to give all our books strong backing in their various markets as we enter the new year, we need to pay at least $35,000 of debt, and, after that, as much back salary as possible.

Multiplication: FTE's Strategic Opportunity! As we said in our last letter, a group of FTE's faithful partners have come forward and are offering all our other partners a 1:1 match of whatever you contribute to FTE between now and January 15! We are extremely grateful to these friends, and with them, appeal to you now to give to the work of FTE for the exciting year ahead. The total of the matching funds is $35,000. So every dollar of the first $35,000 to come in will be matched. That's $70,000 of the $100,000 we need.

Please prayerfully consider what you can do to help. We are at a fork in the road, and we must not let this wonderful opportunity slip by!

As our way of saying thank you for contributions of $50.00 or more, we are happy to provide a copy of Dembski and Wells' How to Be An Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist–or Not (endorsed by the producers of the documentary EXPELLED).

Sincerely,

Jon Buell
President

P.S. We realize that most people will want their contribution to count for and be receipted in 2008. However, there may be some who prefer to date their check January, 2009 and have it deposited in 2009. We can do either, and will carry out your exact wishes.


I love the Sciencey line about "prayerfully consider" sending all the money you can.  Nice touch Buell!
Posted by: midwifetoad on Dec. 29 2008,12:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't say that we actually know what's involved in forming a new structure, but five [genes] would be a minimum estimate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

:p
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 29 2008,14:01

Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 29 2008,12:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't say that we actually know what's involved in forming a new structure, but five [genes] would be a minimum estimate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah.... well, I guess we'll all just be on the edge of our seats waiting for the many ID Scientists finish all their lab experiments.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Dec. 29 2008,14:06

Seelke

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
just two mutations are needed to produce a new, functioning structure
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and Behe thought how many were required for the creation of chloroquinone resistance? So why are they pushing this "five mutations"position? Bueller? Anyone?

Seelke can now educate the rest of the ID community that evolution does move towards a particular target (recreating the protein he inactivated), but towards any improvement available. No gradient = stasis.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Dec. 29 2008,14:08

does not move

Dang.

i can haz edibuddon?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Dec. 29 2008,14:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Seelke can now educate the rest of the ID community that evolution does not move towards a particular target (recreating the protein he inactivated), but towards any improvement available. No gradient = stasis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That does seem to be the point of understanding toward which ID cannot evolve. ;)
Posted by: Art on Dec. 29 2008,14:48

Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 29 2008,12:35)
The Design Of Life Update - Because it is all about Teh Science::

....

His research makes Dr. Seelke an ideally qualified scientist to carefully review the way DoL's authors handled the Ambrose "minimal gene mutations" question. Here, then, are a few of Prof. Seelke's comments: "I got a chance to read Dembski's discussion of Ambrose's work, and it's a good analysis of the problems with forming a new structure."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm...  that wouldn't be the same Dembski who, in NFL, implied that females are evolutionary dead-ends, would it?

Dembski would almost certainly consider  < the transition in plants from annual to perennial > to be irrelevant as well.
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Dec. 29 2008,15:43

Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 29 2008,13:35)
The Design Of Life Update - Because it is all about Teh Science:

...

That was then, and this is now. In fact, experimental research has been underway throughout most of this decade, long enough for us to get a very satisfying glimpse of where this is going. Dare I say it? Earth-shattering breakthroughs are on their way. Future science textbooks will one day open new chapters recounting this landmark progress.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dare I say it?  WaterlooooOooOooooOoos...on their way...one day...
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 29 2008,15:52

Quote (Gunthernacus @ Dec. 29 2008,15:43)
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 29 2008,13:35)
The Design Of Life Update - Because it is all about Teh Science:

...

That was then, and this is now. In fact, experimental research has been underway throughout most of this decade, long enough for us to get a very satisfying glimpse of where this is going. Dare I say it? Earth-shattering breakthroughs are on their way. Future science textbooks will one day open new chapters recounting this landmark progress.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dare I say it?  WaterlooooOooOooooOoos...on their way...one day...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you have to at least give them credit for making A Testable ID Prediction - Earth-shattering breakthroughs are on their way. Way to go out on a limb sport!   I give it a 100% on the vagueness scale.  

At least Dembski gave a time-frame of 10 years (I think it's down to 8 now) before ID supplants Darwin.
Posted by: Reed on Dec. 29 2008,20:35

Quote (tards @ short,bus)

Then he added something profound: he said he knows that in the end, science, not politics will settle this dispute.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


so, it's not settled... but they totally now which way it's going to come out!!!
Posted by: Marion Delgado on Jan. 05 2009,19:18

Until JAD gets the credit he's due, I won't believe this "teach both sides" nonsense.

Why do you think they kept time cameras off the market? No one really wants the truth.
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.