#44838: — 10/20  at  11:59 AM
[wingnutsimulator] Sorry, you treasonous liberal freak, you're a little late to get on Saddam's payroll. [/wingnutsimulator]

As to the ID gravy train, I would not dismiss out of hand the possibility that Behe knows he's talking complete crap and is just lying to bring in the $$ to feed those 9 kids.

#44839: — 10/20  at  12:11 PM
Well you could try to pull a 'Sokal'; write a load of carp, wait for them to embrace it, then reveal that it is a load of carp. But then, how do you parody a parody?

#44848: — 10/20  at  01:00 PM
Baseyian, Sokal did exactly that. Or do you think the writings of the theorists had already transgressed the boundaries of the parodical?

I've read parts of Sokal's article, and it makes no sense whatsoever, or worse, it makes about as much sense as the writings of Judith Butler. Even the worst ramblings of the IDiots are wonders of clarity, coherence and wit compared to that. That's the real problem if you want to go after the creationists.

#44849: — 10/20  at  01:03 PM
I would say that Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (to a lesser extent) have ridden the materialist rationalist gravy train.

#44850: — 10/20  at  01:08 PM
<TIC>Sell your soul - you're an atheist, you don't need one anyway...switch sides, rake in the dough off books, retire,...then recant everything you said.</TIC>

#44851: — 10/20  at  01:10 PM
It's a Miracle! I found a Genuine Image of JC in my Dorito's! Praise Jezus! I also had a vision that JC wants me to put my Miracle Chip on E-Bay and raise money to Fight For Him and All His Glory!

I think that THIS scam is MUCH more honest than a Ken Hovind "lie for Jezus" or a Dembski smary comment, and so I hereby grant the rights to the Jezus Chip to you in down payment of all the great blogging you have done about the IDiots.

Thanks Jason! Halleluyah!

#44855: Mrs Tilton — 10/20  at  01:26 PM
SL:

Behe knows he's talking complete crap

On the basis of some things Behe had said in passing, somebody ventured some months ago (right here in comments on Pharyngula!) that Behe might in his heart of hearts in fact be a theistic evolutionist (maybe not terribly different to Ken Miller) who had unfortunately painted himself into a corner and didn't know how to get back out. Of course, Behe might well deem it more prudent to stay in that corner. Even allowing for his doubtlessly fat academic salary, with nine kids to feed he might be glad of a little extra cash. (Does he really have 9 kids? Holy cow! I only have three, and I'm not above selling off their spare organs on the black market for pin money.)

To be very clear, by the way: when I write about Behe being not terribly different to Miller if the former does in fact privately accept a Darwinian explanation, I mean 'not terribly different' in terms of what each believes, about both biology and God. In terms of intellectual honesty, they couldn't be more different.

BB:

then reveal that it is a load of carp

The only problem with your plan is that it is awfully difficult to disguise a load of carp as anything else. Though I suppose you could always mash the fish up, mix the resulting paste with artificial colours, form it into sticks and call it faux crab.

PZ:

I'm afraid the only gravy train for good honest science may be to write a textbook, get all your mates to make their students buy it, and do the same for them. But even so, you'll never ring up Da Vinci Code numbers with that sort of scam.

Tell you what, though. I'd be happy to write a manifestly dishonest, poorly argued, ill-informed screed asserting that only the Intelligent Designer offers a complete scientific explanation. Then you can shoot it down with a book of your own. Your book won't sell nearly as well as mine on the prairie, I fear. But here's the thing (and also, the answer to those who are asking how the book I propose to write differs from anything that Behe, Dembski, Wells & Co. have written already): you and I will split the combined royalties 50/50. That's only fair. After all, I am going to have to rely on your knowledge of sound scientific ideas to make sure I haven't inadvertently put any into my book.

#44857: PZ Myers — 10/20  at  01:34 PM
That is simply cunning, devious, and profitable. It's probably hazardous to mention this, but Behe and Miller are both over there on the east coast, not more than a few hours drive apart...

#44859: — 10/20  at  01:37 PM
'I would say that Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (to a lesser extent) have ridden the materialist rationalist gravy train. '

No they have ridden the correct, science based gravy train. I'm often amazed when people use the term materialist. Wouldn't realist be more fitting? Maybe it's just nitpicking though.

Dawkins does a great job bring advanced science to the masses, much like Sagan.

Trackback: Now this is the sort of debate I like Tracked on: View From Above (63.247.129.166) at 2005 10 20 12:09:33
The Abstract Factory: The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject: The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des--- (Scientist pulls out baseball bat.) Moderator: Hey, what are...

#44861: John M. Price — 10/20  at  01:50 PM
Riches lie in masses.

First, go back to alt.out-of-body. Listen to the 'logic' and evidence they claim.

Second, write a fine pet psychic book. A small one for the supermarket check-out lines. (Maybe even add a 900 number call-in for $2.95 a minute - very cheap because pets are not verbal, they must be more telepathic!)

Finally, add to your next book your 'fishy' science experience. Publish a book for psychic sensing of fish habitat and location. Sell it in the supermarket and bait shop-gas-beer-gun-fireworks stores in the midwest.

Buy me a new vehicle for the idea.

#44864: — 10/20  at  02:22 PM
If you don't want to stoop all the way to Discovery Institute level, there's still the Templeton prize, awarded to good Christian scientists like your close friend Charles Townes.

#44866: — 10/20  at  02:26 PM
<blockquote>
Dawkins does a great job bring advanced science to the masses, much like Sagan.
</blockqutoe>
Dawkins' stuff is aging much better. I may never forgive Cosmic Carl for The Amniotic Universe, which appeared in Broca's Brain.

#44868: — 10/20  at  02:46 PM
I grew up in the Texas of the 40's and 50's and my neighbors were nearly all fundies in various flavors. Their preachers were mostly scam artists out to make a profit either in money, sex, or booze—and sometimes all three. So what Johnson, Dembski, and Behe have done is to trod the well chosen path to some serious pin money. And don't think for one minute that they were not aware of that before getting into the game.

I've attended a few creationist/ID meetings—and "debates"—locally in recent years. Invariably there is someone in the lobby flogging the entire opus of whoever is speaking. The faithful always dutifully buy.

#44871: Mrs Tilton — 10/20  at  03:13 PM
It's probably hazardous to mention this, but Behe and Miller are both over there on the east coast, not more than a few hours drive apart...

Yes well, but then that is exactly my point -- Geography is a cruel mistress. It all depends on what you mean by 'east coast'. As a citizen of the civilised world, I could scarcely be expected to notice the obliteration of anything west of the Hudson River. But even assuming arguendo an aesthetically-sensitive plate tectonics, I would have to give you up to achieve Behelessness. You might be inclined to self-sacrifice but as for me, sorry, tolerating the existence of that gibbering japanapes is a small price to pay to enjoy Pharyngula.

#44872: Jonathan Badger — 10/20  at  03:31 PM
"No they [Dawkins & Dennet] have ridden the correct, science based gravy train. I'm often amazed when people use the term materialist. Wouldn't realist be more fitting?"

Well, it is clear that both Dawkins and Dennet want natural selection to be some sort of universal philosophical principle rather than simply one of the mechanisms of biological evolution; in the words of Dennet, natural selection is a "universal acid" eating away at religion and in Dawkins' words it "reveals a universe without design" (which is different from the scientific viewpoint which merely says that a designer is not mandatory). That's materialism.

Now, I'm a Huxley-style agnostic myself, but there *are* plenty of pious folk out there who have no problem with science -- I really, really, don't see the point of alieniating them. It's counter productive because the IDiots can point to the works of Dawkins and Dennett and say "See! Evolution is an eeeevil atheistic philosophy!"

#44873: rob stowell — 10/20  at  03:42 PM
Not exactly on-topic, but a decent blow has been recently struck against our own New Zealand fundamentalist propagandistas, the "maxim institute", by one Paul Litterick of the rationalists and humanists association. Here's what he did
http://www.nzarh.org.nz/fundy/thepost018.htm
I'm just wondering if anyone has tried the same line on some of the DI shills? I imagine "copyscape" is in common use in universities; some quick "cut-and-paste" research might reveal a lot. And it's worth doing! If/when supposedly independent fundy "commentators" are passing the words of others off as their own, it's something the generally torpid media HAVE to pay attention to. Not only is it intellectually dishonest- and they need to be called on this- but I imagine there are legal implications.

#44876: Jim Harrison — 10/20  at  04:01 PM
Does Dawkins really bring scientific ideas to the masses? The sales of even best sellers are tiny compared to the market penetration of movies, let alone T.V. shows. I suspect that a great many of the people who read Dawkins are in the technically savvy fraction of the population already. Has anybody seen a study exploring just who it is that reads scientific popularizations?

#44877: — 10/20  at  04:17 PM
"Well, it is clear that both Dawkins and Dennet want natural selection to be some sort of universal philosophical principle rather than simply one of the mechanisms of biological evolution;"

Having not read D&D (yet) I have to ask if this is correct?

Mutation and natural selection could be part of other fields too, for example development of languages, memes and all sorts of design, where trial-and-error of prototypes are an inherent part however much we want to minimise it. (The problem here may of course be that mutations are not guaranteed to be random, so it is probably not perfect analogs.)

#44879: — 10/20  at  05:09 PM
I'm attending a lecture tonight on "Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Creator" by Walter L. Bradley. From all the Google searches I've done, it appears that he likes to use the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument against abiogenesis while switching the terms 'abiogenesis' and 'evolution.'

I and 4 friends are going dressed as pirates, in the FSM tradition.

There's going to be a Q&A session afterwards; does anyone have any good questions to throw at this guy? I'm trying to compile a little list of questions that I can pass around so everyone will be able to ask one or two.

P.S. the lecture's in 2 hours.

#44882: — 10/20  at  05:59 PM
Yeah, that Sagan guy did a great job educating hoi polloi with his nuclear winter hoax.

Modeling an Earth without surface water, that was real scientific.

But he did it for our own good, us bumpkins bein' too dense to figger out politics by ourselves and stuff.

I don't believe the evolutionist crowd can make any headway arguing against the antievolutionist crowd. The terms of reference just don't overlap enough.

But there might be a reason, based on experience, that the antis don't genuflect before you.

#44884: — 10/20  at  06:14 PM
Don't worry Doc,

"You'll have pie in the sky when you die" (that's a lie)

[/joe hill]

#44891: — 10/20  at  08:00 PM
No they have ridden the correct, science based gravy train. I'm often amazed when people use the term materialist. Wouldn't realist be more fitting? Maybe it's just nitpicking though.

If I'm not mistaken, 'materialist' here means 'believing that the only necessary/plausible/useful causes are material (as opposed to supernatural).'

Dawkins likely is a realist, Dennet maybe not so much. 'Realist' here means 'believing that the deep theoretical structures posited by scientific theories and only indirectly supported by evidence are, nonetheless, real.'

It is nitpicking, but that's what's so fun about philosophy.

#44892: AndyS — 10/20  at  08:17 PM
Mrs Tiltpon: "But even assuming arguendo an aesthetically-sensitive plate tectonics, I would have to give you up to achieve Behelessness. You might be inclined to self-sacrifice but as for me, sorry, tolerating the existence of that gibbering japanapes is a small price to pay to enjoy Pharyngula."

Well done!

#44905: — 10/20  at  11:43 PM
We were talking
About the love that's grown so cold
And the people
Who gain the world and lose their souls
They don't know, they can't see
Are you one of them?