Fumble in the endzone

| 37 Comments

Denyse O’Leary wrote:

As far as I am concerned, American Darwinists are as dumb as a bag of hammers. Or, as we say here in Toronto, Canada, “smart like streetcars.” By assailing the Smithsonian in droves over the showing of an inspiring film, which the vast majority of them have NEVER SEEN, which suggests that there is meaning and purpose in the universe (well, hello!), they have managed to create a situation where the Smithsonian must now screen the film for free.

- Denyse O’Leary, Toronto

ROTFL. This is getting funnier and funnier Denyse. Yes it was those dumb Darwinists who created a controversy by claiming that the Smithsonian Institution was warming up to Intelligent Design, robbing the Discovery Institute of much of the legitimacy and PR of this event and somehow Darwinists are dumb…

The Smithsonian Institution has withdrawn its much coveted co-sponsorship and is returning the money. The Smithsonian Institution, after further reviewing the movie, is dropping its co-sponsorship arguing that “the content [of Privileged Planet] is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution”.

All that is left is a private showing of a movie in an Smithsonian museum to a select group.

As far as Denyse’s objection of Darwinists not having seen the movie, Wesley Elsberry has commented

Interestingly, ID advocates daily go about ignoring scientific research or claiming that it doesn’t exist, the vast majority of which they also “have NEVER SEEN”.

Doesn’t seem to give them the least pause, does it?

Unless the movie is reversal of the flawed Privileged Planet arguments, having read the book and the surrounding hype should be enough. Even Denyse admitted that the movie was about ID arguments… Remember…

Read more about why PP is flawed from a scientific perspective, especially, the two presentations by Kyler Kuehn, one of which was presented at American Scientific Affiliation 2003 Annual Meeting.

So perhaps Denyse may help us understand her conclusion that “Darwinism is certainly wrong”, when the vast amount of evidence supports Darwinian theory and there is little or no evidence to suggest that it is wrong?

Could Denyse explain? Or are we ‘Darwinists’ to dumb to understand this

Denyse’s endzone fumble was quite impressive, the subsequent spin however is even more fascinating to watch. Or as Michael Roberts stated

Congratulations to Denyse for scoring an own goal. If she had not hyped up the whole story these so-called Darwinbots never would have known.

[PvM: I apologize for the many spelling errors in this posting. I hope I got most of them addressed. Sigh…]

37 Comments

When you find yourself calling the hundreds of biologists at Caltech, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, and Yale “dumb as a bag of hammers”, you might want to revisit your ideas.

Or don’t, and continue to make us laugh.

Come on, guys, cut her some slack. After all, she’s Canadian.

OK, before you cut off my supply of Moosehead Lager, I mean that in the nicest possible way.

After all, Denyse has more backbone than all those worms at DI because she enabled comments on her blog. Pro and Con. Not a lot of vitriol there, from what I read, just the usual banter between rational people and Heddle.

I refrained from posting a lampoon on her site because, after all, she is a comedy writer. I can’t take the competition.

Good blog, but: “distantiating”? When I was an editor the red pencil would have been out, for sure…

Not that I’m distancing myself from your point or anything.

Not to mention the other gaffes; “Darwinisn”, “to dumb”.

I’m willing to work for PT as a copy editor for the price of a few attaboys and a chance to share a pitcher if that ever becomes convenient.

Doesn’t Telic Thoughts also allow comments from both sides? A quick visit showed some evolutionist posts.. maybe they are just less efficient at deleting than Dembski. Does anyone here have much experience posting on Telic Thoughts?

Re: “Or, as we say here in Toronto, Canada, “smart like streetcars.””

Both my brothers lived in Toronto for years. Two of my nieces have lived there all their lives. My first wife was born and brought up in Toronto, and had family there. I have several good friends who were born and brought up in Toronto. I have visited there about 50 times, usually for several days at a time.

I have NEVER heard anyone in Toronto or anywhere else say “smart like streetcars”.

Of course, this has no implications as to the accuracy of the rest of O’Leary’s writings.…

I agree with John Wilkins. “Distantiate” is hideous. What on earth is wrong with “distance”?

Bruce McNeely Wrote:

I have NEVER heard anyone in Toronto or anywhere else say “smart like streetcars”.

As someone raised in and posting from Toronto, I can tell you that I’ve never heard that phrase before either. As I own the sneaking suspicion that the average electrical appliance (let alone a streetcar, obviously an intelligence of a higher order) possesses more smarts than the average creationist, perhaps Ms. O’Leary’s comment should be construed as a compliment?

This is my first post; I just had to chime in to try and expiate the rash words of a fellow (sigh) Torontonian. Back to lurking…

errrm, isn’t it smithsonian institution?

I say we all start saying Distantiate and see how long it takes to “become a word.” Then, the dictionary writers of the future will wonder why we bothered. It’ll be great.

I wrote to the Smithsonian, as suggested… not programmed… suggested. An act, you’ll note, that contra-distantiated me from my fellow Darwinists…

Oh, and while I’m at it… Why is O’Leary calling us all Darwinbots when Christians routinely threaten boycotts of major corporations to prevent them from sponsoring things that they don’t like… Or has she never heard of Microsoft?

Hi from another Torontonian. “Smart as a streetcar” sounds new to me, too. I propose an alternate form: “smart as Denyse O’Leary”.

I can’t say I’ve ever heard any of my Toronto friends say “smart like streetcars” before either, but then I’m from Oshawa so what do I know, :-). Although those things are annoying to get stuck behind when you are heading down Queen St.

Harq al Ada asked:

Doesn’t Telic Thoughts also allow comments from both sides? A quick visit showed some evolutionist posts.. maybe they are just less efficient at deleting than Dembski. Does anyone here have much experience posting on Telic Thoughts?

Well to try it out, I tried commenting on this blog. That was at 3:30 PM my time. Less than eight hours later, my comment has been removed to the memory hole. The do warn that comments which are abusive, of topic, or of low quality are likely to end up in the hole, but I challenge anyone to say how any of those descriptors apply to my comments.

I am inclined to believe the purpose of the “memory hole” is simply to evade criticism.

I also live in Toronto, and can verify that the saying does exist. The full version is: “Strong like bull, smart like streetcar” You don’t run into it every day, mind you - you have to watch for the right moment in the conversation.

Ah-ha!

Apparently “strong as bull, smart as streetcar” is a translation/adaptation of a Ukrainian proverb, brought to Toronto by that community.

Doesn’t Telic Thoughts also allow comments from both sides? A quick visit showed some evolutionist posts.. maybe they are just less efficient at deleting than Dembski. Does anyone here have much experience posting on Telic Thoughts?

I have had no problem posting there, on the ‘Orr Misrepresnts Science” thread.

Heh, that’s pretty good. Going to have to use that.

It seems to me that Denyse O’Leary was as dumb as a bag of hammers for claiming that the Smithsonian was “warming to intelligent design” (her exact words) when that clearly wasn’t the case. She continues to say that the Smithsonian is showing this film. Oddly enough I haven’t seen any criticism of her from ID proponents for getting these very basic facts wrong, and in doing so contributing to a chain of events that resulted in the Smithsonian Institution withdrawing its cosponsorship of the film.

I suppose it’s ironic that this entire chain of events came about at least in part because in getting its film shown at the Smithsonian the Discovery Institute managed (intentionally or uninentionally–hmmm, I wonder which) to dupe a lot of people into thinking the Smithsonian was somehow endorsing “intelligent design”–including Denyse–thus forcing the Smithsonian to take steps to distance itself from that misperception.

And in all of this, few people (at least in the ID community) are asking the very basic question: why did the Seattle-based Discovery Institute choose the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC as the location to show its film in the first place?

MrDarwin Wrote:

hus forcing the Smithsonian to take steps to distance itself from that misperception.

I think you meant distantiate.

Well done, Bayesian Bouffant, FCD; we should always correctify our misunderestimations!

Another thing interesting about O’Leary is the “never speak well of the opposition” sort of thing she seems to have going. Faced with perfectly reasonable behavior on the part of the Smithsonian in their principled refunding of money to the DI and fulfilling their role as physical host, O’Leary lashes out at other targets.

Ah, for the days of “Find the good and praise it.”

I have gone on the record to correct mistakes made concerning ID advocates. Has O’Leary done anything similar to correct misinformation spewed by ID advocates about working scientists in evolutionary biology?

A few words about commenting on Telic Thoughts. The “Memory Hole” feature is modeled after PT’s own “Bathroom Wall”, and was not installed to evade criticism. Authors are responsible for their own threads, so you might experience different standards of moderation, but we all try to be as fair and evenhanded as possible.

With regards to Tom’s comment, it was moved to the Hole by mistake, and since we haven’t yet installed a button for moving comments out of the Hole… well, it’s still sitting there. However, our Resident Unpaid Programmer has told me he’s on it.

I can confirm that since my last comment here, my comment at Telic Thoughts has been returned to its original position.

I know what a “memory hole” is from the viewpoint of system software – it’s an address space not decoded as a local RAM cycle by the memory management logic, allowing accesses within that space to be forwarded onto a bus for use by a bus-based device.

Does the “memory hole” at Telic Thoughts have anything to do with this meaning? If not, what is it intended to refer to?

Hi Flint,

The Memory Hole serves the same purpose as the Bathroom Wall at PT, namely to prevent posters from ruining the normal discourse, while still allowing their posts to be read. The name is inspired by George Orwell’s novel 1984 and was chosen because it fits into our whole thoughts/mind theme. You can read more here.

Krauze:

Thanks. I haven’t read 1984 for a long time, and it seems I need a refresher on it.

Hello. you won’t believe this, but I found this thread because I was looking for uses of ‘distantiate’! I’m reading a book called ‘The Virgin Text; Fiction Sexuality and Ideology’ (Jon Stratton, Harvester P, 1987) and found this: ‘. . the woman as sexualised object - distantiated and fetishised in the same manner as the text …’ (p.58) so not finding it my big dictionary, or WordNet (or my brain - I’m doing a Phd and have a literature MA), I googled it and found you guys. I’m happy now - it is a bit of pretentious obfuscation designed to make a weak point sound better - just like your creationist friend’s argument!

More power to your opposable thumbs - we don’t have many flat-earthers round here (I’m in the UK). Aidan

eschew obfuscation!

As an update on my experience at Telic Thoughts, I now find that every post I make there disappears within 12 hours. It does not go into the memory hole, or some other publicly accessible part of the blog. It just disappears.

In their comment guidelines I find that “Of course, any spam, threats, and material of a pornographic or violent nature will be deleted entirely.” I can safely say that my comments contain no spam, threats, pornography or violence. So, their comment guidelines are misleading. They need an additional phrase indicating they will simply censor you if in debate you press them too closely when they disagree with you.

I will grant that if you simply stick with cliches so they can spin your comments as stereotyped, and you as not understanding ID, they are then happy to let comments stand.

Tom, your last post was just a huge copy and paste of my own response to you. It was deleted because you didn’t write anything at all that was your own words. Other than that, if you posted in an old thread , it goes into a moderation cue. If no one is around to approve it, after a while, it just gets deleted.

Tom, your last post was just a huge copy and paste of my own response to you. It was deleted because you didn’t write anything at all that was your own words.

Guts, it does you no good to lie. By far the majority of the words in my most recently deleted post were novel content. Anyone remotely interested can easily confirm this for themselves by reading the post, which I cross posted here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anti-[…]message/1516

I cross posted it, of course, because I expected it to be deleted, as had my previous three or four posts to telic thoughts.

That is actually a quite different post from the one you posted at telic thoughts. However, I can easily post this comment at the site and respond point by point.

By the way, if you think that your any of your posts are being deleted unjustifiably, feel free to e-mail me at my address, I will not only send it through if I see no reason why it should have been deleted, but I will subsequently respond point by point. I’ll note that, in my opinion and experience, Tom has not offered any criticism that was not adequately addressed. What he does is just repetitively repeat or reword the same vacuous assertions in threads where those vacuous assertions aren’t even the topic.

TelicThought is well known for deleting comments which do not meet the approval of its moderators. Nelson’s response shows how ID friendly sites either do not allow comments or strongly moderate comments. Vacuous assertions are btw the hall mark of intelligent design.

Guts:

That is actually a quite different post from the one you posted at telic thoughts. However, I can easily post this comment at the site and respond point by point.

No. The post deleted at Telic Thoughts was cut and pasted from the email to Anti-CED. Except for formating differences between the to sites, therefore, it was word for word identical. They were also posted at approximately the same time. Having cut and pasted the from the email, I added the introductory comments, and then sent the email. Further, I proof read the first and last paragraphs as it initially appeared on Telic Thoughts to ensure the post had not been truncated.

That Guts says the two posts are quite different shows that he either never read the telic thoughts post before deleting it, and is lying to cover his butt; or that he had read it, knows the posts are the same, and that the original post contained novel content, and is lying to cover his butt.

I’ll note that, in my opinion and experience, Tom has not offered any criticism that was not adequately addressed. What he does is just repetitively repeat or reword the same vacuous assertions in threads where those vacuous assertions aren’t even the topic.

Far from adequately adressed, Guts comments have shown that typically he does not even understand the criticisms. He remains on record as asserting that the requirement that p(e|h)> p(e) has nothing to do with whether a hypothesis predicts evidence, which gives some indication of his understanding of the philosophy of science.

Pim:

TelicThought is well known for deleting comments which do not meet the approval of its moderators. Nelson’s response shows how ID friendly sites either do not allow comments or strongly moderate comments. Vacuous assertions are btw the hall mark of intelligent design.

Yes, since posting at Telic Thoughts I have noticed your post to the PT: http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archi[…]/001014.html

This raises the question, if Telic Thoughts has, and continues to delete posts because of on topic discussion, why did does Krauze suggest otherwise both in comment 33565 above, and in the comment guidelines at Telic Thoughts?

Hmmmmm So telic thoughts is not really telic thoughts at all ? Tim perhaps Guts has a good understanding of Politics

Could they be taking Orwell as a guide for censoring crimethink not as an acid criticism of thinkpol. They only want to see goodthink because it makes them Minipeaceful when all crimethink is removed it will be Minilovely

Gut .…When you say “feel free to email me” is that the same meaning as Ingsoc A Vocabulary .…where there is is no real meaning for the word “free” except in the use of “free” where my dog is “free” from flees.

Well gutless count me as one of the Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc

In Ingsoc “Countless other words such as honour, justice, morality, internationalism, democracy, science, and religion had simply ceased to exist.”

Hah.… the Fundies have gone one even better ! .…just rape the words so badly that whenever anyone utters those words everyone knows the speaker is just BSing. They invent meaningless words that have negative connotation Darwinist, Evolutionist they wouldn’t dare to use crimethink but that is what they mean make no mistake.

The great thing about their version of Insgsoc is that it makes instant martyrs out of them. They even claim being Christian is the new Gay.

Well gutfull here is some crimethinkI’m sure you would find ungood on your site

Excerpt from “The Principles of Newspeak” An appendix to 1984 Written by : George Orwell in 1948

What was required in a Party member was an outlook similar to that of the ancient Hebrew who knew, without knowing much else, that all nations other than his own worshipped ‘false gods’. He did not need to know that these gods were called Baal, Osiris, Moloch, Ashtaroth, and the like: probably the less he knew about them the better for his orthodoxy. He knew Jehovah and the commandments of Jehovah: he knew, therefore, that all gods with other names or other attributes were false gods. In somewhat the same way, the party member knew what constituted right conduct, and in exceedingly vague, generalized terms he knew what kinds of departure from it were possible. His sexual life, for example, was entirely regulated by the two Newspeak words sexcrime (sexual immorality) and goodsex (chastity). Sexcrime covered all sexual misdeeds whatever. It covered fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and other perversions, and, in addition, normal intercourse practised for its own sake. There was no need to enumerate them separately, since they were all equally culpable, and, in principle, all punishable by death.

Pity Joe Campbell came along and told everyone that ALL religion is Myth eh? gutwrench.

While I’m on it everyone should read the appendix on News Speak and just consider the various classes of ingsoc http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-prin.html Particularly

The C vocabulary.

The C vocabulary was supplementary to the others and consisted entirely of scientific and technical terms. These resembled the scientific terms in use today, and were constructed from the same roots, but the usual care was taken to define them rigidly and strip them of undesirable meanings

Note also 1984 was the start of of Orwells preordained death of Old English. He thought it would not be until 2050 that all meaning would be removed from Standard English and no respectable “good” test for truth would be available to the man in the street. The scientific method as a test for veracity i.e. “good” or a quality test for detecting BS or as the Fundy bots like to call it “Darwinism” was completely removed from the vernacular.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on June 2, 2005 5:48 PM.

That is Ms. T. rex, buster! was the previous entry in this blog.

Revisiting Rivista is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter