The Evil Mad-Libber

| 28 Comments

Dembski provides us with an excellent Mad Lib:

I never cease to be amazed, but not surprised, at how blind scientists are to their own prejudices. I have followed your paths of dealing with these prejudices and, as have many others, I have had my share of encounters with intellectual bigots. Within a week of my joining the staff at the 1                   (adjective/noun) 2                   (adjective/noun) Research Institute, my removal was called for by a sizable group of the research staff who had discovered (by doing a Google search) that in 2001-2-3 when I was at the 3                   (adjective/noun) Center, I had signed the Discovery Institute statement questioning Darwin’s theory of origins. The human resource department had the sense to inform the president that they could not fire me for beliefs that did not impact my job as head of 4                   (noun). I have since then enjoyed many productive exchanges on the topic of ID and origins that have revealed a profound ignorance of the subject on the part of the staff. Most had never met a trained scientist that did not go along with the Darwinian dogma. Now after a typical seminar by an outside speaker we are able to discuss the passing references to evolution that are totally without proof or demonstrable mechanism but are inserted into talks to explain some incredibly complex and improbable cellular system.

Let’s play along!

28 Comments

I never cease to be amazed, but not surprised, at how blind scientists are to their own prejudices. I have followed your paths of dealing with these prejudices and, as have many others, I have had my share of encounters with intellectual bigots. Within a week of my joining the staff at the Timothy McVeigh Research Institute, my removal was called for by a sizable group of the research staff who had discovered (by doing a Google search) that in 2001-2-3 when I was at the Scientology Celebrity Center, I had signed the Discovery Institute statement questioning Darwin’s theory of origins. The human resource department had the sense to inform the president that they could not fire me for beliefs that did not impact my job as head of NAMBLA. I have since then enjoyed many productive exchanges on the topic of ID and origins that have revealed a profound ignorance of the subject on the part of the staff. Most had never met a trained scientist that did not go along with the Darwinian dogma. Now after a typical seminar by an outside speaker we are able to discuss the passing references to evolution that are totally without proof or demonstrable mechanism but are inserted into talks to explain some incredibly complex and improbable cellular system.

I read Dembski’s post about this “mystery scientist” and, frankly, I doubt the guy exists.

after all, isn’t Dembski the same dingleberry who wrote an anonymous review on amazon.com of Mark Perakh’s “Unintelligent Design”, saying that it wasn’t good, and that William Dembski’s book was much better as an intro?

How do we know this? Well, a server glictch on Amazon’s Canadian servers caused the real names of the reviewers to be posted for a time, and Dembski’s trashy little tactic was exposed for all the world to see. The laughing was heard far and wide.

Given this one small example, and the numerous others, of Dembski’s dishonest shenanigans they guy has proven himself untrustworthy time and time again.

The scientific community gave this clown more consideration than he deserved when he first popped onto the scene, but he has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that he cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

I never cease to be amazed, but not surprised, at how blind scientists are to their own prejudices. I have followed your paths of dealing with these prejudices and, as have many others, I have had my share of encounters with intellectual bigots. Within a week of my joining the staff at the Khullar Astrology Institute, my removal was called for by a sizable group of the research staff who had discovered (by doing a Google search) that in 2001-2-3 when I was at the Thomas Moore Law Center, I had signed the Discovery Institute statement questioning Darwin’s theory of origins. The human resource department had the sense to inform the president that they could not fire me for beliefs that did not impact my job as head of The Psychic Friends Network. I have since then enjoyed many productive exchanges on the topic of ID and origins that have revealed a profound ignorance of the subject on the part of the staff. Most had never met a trained scientist that did not go along with the Darwinian dogma. Now after a typical seminar by an outside speaker we are able to discuss the passing references to evolution that are totally without proof or demonstrable mechanism but are inserted into talks to explain some incredibly complex and improbable cellular system.

I have read better written “letters” by Nigerian Finance Ministers forced to sell [Enable javascript to see this email address.] because their PayPal accounts had been compromised.

The part about the HR department telling the pres what he could or could not do was a scream! Definitely written by someone who has never really held a job for long. Let’s see, who could that beeeeeeeee.…

I never cease to be amazed, but not surprised, at how blind scientists are to their own prejudices. I have followed your paths of dealing with these prejudices and, as have many others, I have had my share of encounters with intellectual bigots. Within a week of my joining the staff at the Homosexual Deprogramming Research Institute, my removal was called for by a sizable group of the research staff who had discovered (by doing a Google search) that in 2001-2-3 when I was at the Satan’s Spaceship Research Center I had signed the Discovery Institute statement questioning Darwin’s theory of origins. The human resource department had the sense to inform the president that they could not fire me for beliefs that did not impact my job as head of junk math. I have since then enjoyed many productive exchanges on the topic of ID and origins that have revealed a profound ignorance of the subject on the part of the staff. Most had never met a trained scientist that did not go along with the Darwinian dogma. Now after a typical seminar by an outside speaker we are able to discuss the passing references to evolution that are totally without proof or demonstrable mechanism but are inserted into talks to explain some incredibly complex and improbable cellular system.

Hah! The Idiotic Design of Buffalo Bill’s sock puppetry is clear even without a filter!

Oh my goodness the explanatory filter is so clear now. If you know its not Timothy McVeigh, you can rule out Scientology. OMG NAMBLA did it. I’d like to see that model of origins.

I never cease to be amazed at how blind scientists are to their own prejudices. I am an (adjective) engineer, and therefore an expert at all kinds of science. I was telling my colleagues the other day that Darwinism can’t be true because it contradicts facts stated on page (number) of my Bible. My colleagues actually laughed at me, showing that they had been totally taken in by the Evil Atheist Darwinist conspiracy, which is responsible for the spread of AIDS, abortion, rampant homosexuality and Britney Spears. Boy, won’t they be sorry they called me a (combination of adjectives and nouns expressing a biological impossibility) when they see me being taken up in the rapture!

“Now after a typical seminar by an outside speaker we are able to discuss the passing references to evolution that are totally without proof or demonstrable mechanism but are inserted into talks to explain some incredibly complex and improbable cellular system.”

How irritating and how typical - IDers always want evolution proven from scratch in every seminar, otherwise the speaker should leave it out. They seem to think that every research result in biology has to be framed in terms of whether it supports or undermines evolution. Biology has moved on to more interesting questions.

“Now after a typical seminar by an outside speaker we are able to discuss the passing references to evolution that are totally without proof or demonstrable mechanism but are inserted into talks to explain some incredibly complex and improbable cellular system.”

This one would be fun to play with as well. Bring on all the deniers!

“ …passing references to quantum mechanics that … are inserted into talks to explain some incredibly complex and improbable subatomic phenomena.”

“ …passing references to HIV and AIDS causation that … are inserted into talks to explain some incredibly complex and improbable immune-system malfunction.”

“ …passing references to the Holocaust that that … are inserted into talks to explain some incredibly complex and improbable historical consequences of World War II.”

“ …passing references to the moon landing that … are inserted into talks to explain some incredibly complex and improbable plan for future space exploration.”

“I never cease to be amazed, but not surprised, at how blind scientists are to their own prejudices. I have followed your paths of dealing with these prejudices and, as have many others, I have had my share of encounters with intellectual bigots.”

Dembski needs to learn to express himself more precisely and in a more nuanced manner. Upon reflection he probably would agree that “prejudices” and “bigots” is not what he wanted to say. Instead, a better term, one that could quite accurately be applied to all too many scientists, particularly biologists, is “hubris”. Some scientists tend to forget that science proves very little, that it is in the business of formulating working hypotheses that can and repreatedly have been overturned by the next discovery, and that it is based on unprovable axioms just as is almost any other human endeavor. A little more humility and perspective is in order in this regard.

Dembski means nothing to me and I could not care less as to what he said or meant about anything. But by jumping on his case based on his choice of words, folks here are over-reaching and over-killing. Give him the benefit of the doubt!

Carol, Carol.

“The benefit of the doubt” is exactly what Dembski, by his own deplorable actions and words, has shown beyond any question he does not deserve. I’m not even going to bother to summarize.

He, like you, is nothing more than a laughingstock.

He lies for Jesus. You lie for Moses. Spot the difference.

The best efforts of Darwhinists only seem to encourage more critical discussion. I have been approached by many professors (not just the untenured ones even the tenured ones) who would like to participate in this event but would rather not because of the hostility towards critical thinking.

http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/05/[…]_design.html

In honor of a previous post…

I never cease to be amazed, but not surprised, at how blind scientists are to their own prejudices. I have followed your paths of dealing with these prejudices and, as have many others, I have had my share of encounters with intellectual bigots. Within a week of my joining the staff at the Weenus and Beaver Research Institute, my removal was called for by a sizable group of the research staff who had discovered (by doing a Google search) that in 2001-2-3 when I was at the Weenus Center, I had signed the Discovery Institute statement questioning Darwin’s theory of origins. The human resource department had the sense to inform the president that they could not fire me for beliefs that did not impact my job as head of Weenus. I have since then enjoyed many productive exchanges on the topic of ID Weenus and origins that have revealed a profound ignorance of the subject on the part of the staff. Most had never met a trained scientist that did not go along with the Darwinian dogma. Now after a typical seminar by an outside speaker we are able to discuss the passing references to evolution that are totally without proof or demonstrable mechanism but are inserted into talks to explain some incredibly complex and improbable cellular system.

Someone send it to Bill.

We can stay on focus if we don’t have someone whose boring old naive “discoveries” and scientific ignorance are thrown at us repeatedly. But sure, we can do something with this:

“I never cease to be amazed, but not surprised, at how blind scientists are to their own prejudices. I have followed your paths of dealing with these prejudices and, as have many others, I have had my share of encounters with intellectual bigots. Within a week of my joining the staff at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory…, my removal was called for by a sizable group of the research staff who had discovered (by doing a Google search) that in 2001-2-3 when I was at the Raelian Center, I had signed the Discovery Institute statement questioning Darwin’s theory of origins. The human resource department had the sense to inform the president that they could not fire me for beliefs that did not impact my job as head of the JPL’s Life sciences division. I have since then enjoyed many productive exchanges on the topic of ID and origins that have revealed a profound ignorance of the subject on the part of the staff. These ignorant people don’t even know that complexity is a measure of design, but think that purpose, capability, and particular goals have to be at least plausibly ascertained prior to assigning design as the cause of a phenomenon. Most had never met a trained scientist that did not go along with the Darwinian dogma. Now after a typical seminar by an outside speaker we are able to discuss the passing references to evolution that are totally without proof or demonstrable mechanism but are inserted into talks to explain some incredibly complex and improbable cellular system. I am pleased to set these bigots straight about the lack of need for mechanism or any evidence whatsoever when one adopts ID as a theory of origins.

Supposing that the letter was genuine, something not to be assumed when Dembski claims it, I am glad that sense prevailed and no one tried to fire him, since apparently his Raelian beliefs (or their equivalent) did not impact his work. And I also understand the embarrassment at having a pseudoscientist who follows Dembski as a colleague.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

I never cease to be amazed, but not surprised, at how blind scientists are to their own prejudices. I have followed your paths of dealing with these prejudices and, as have many others, I have had my share of encounters with intellectual bigots. Within a week of my joining the staff at the PALM READERS Research Institute, my removal was called for by a sizable group of the research staff who had discovered (by doing a Google search) that in 2001-2-3 when I was at the Let Your Fingers Do The Walking Center, I had signed the Discovery Institute statement questioning Darwin’s theory of origins. The human resource department had the sense to inform the president that they could not fire me for beliefs that did not impact my job as head of Parlor Tricks R’ Us. I have since then enjoyed many productive exchanges on the topic of ID and origins that have revealed a profound ignorance of the subject on the part of the staff. Most had never met a trained scientist that did not go along with the Darwinian dogma. Now after a typical seminar by an outside speaker we are able to discuss the passing references to evolution that are totally without proof or demonstrable mechanism but are inserted into talks to explain some incredibly complex and improbable cellular system.

Carol Writes “Some scientists tend to forget that science proves very little, that it is in the business of formulating working hypotheses that can and repreatedly have been overturned by the next discovery, and that it is based on unprovable axioms just as is almost any other human endeavor. A little more humility and perspective is in order in this regard.”

Gee, apparently Carol thinks technological and medical progress is something Santa leaves under the Chanukah bush.

Carol, you’re simply clueless about the relationship between science and technological advance.

Indeed science doesn’t prove things, but science is a method for making sense out of uncertainty.

It is much better than IDiots and Creatobabblers who simply assert certainty, like that moron on Pennsylvania Ave., and not be bothered with any facts at all.

The human resource department had the sense to inform the president that they could not fire me for beliefs that did not impact my job as head of discovering gravity and inventing light rays. I have since then enjoyed many productive exchanges on the topic of poofy magic stuff that have revealed a profound ignorance of the subject on the part of the staff.

Carol Clouser Wrote:

Dembski needs to learn to express himself more precisely and in a more nuanced manner. Upon reflection he probably would agree that “prejudices” and “bigots” is not what he wanted to say.

I agree that Dembski would benefit from expressing himself in a more finely-worded manner, but loaded words such as “prejudices” and “bigots” are probably what he wanted to use. It’s relatively beneficial to give a charged statement and then quietly retract it later. Using such charged terms gets your name in the news, your view splashed across the front pages; once the initial shock has registered, and people have moved onto the next major news story, then you can issue a correction or an explanation of what was truly intended. As a relatively recent example of this in other sources, remember when Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Chavez?

Carol Clouser Wrote:

Instead, a better term, one that could quite accurately be applied to all too many scientists, particularly biologists, is “hubris”.

Not just scientists, but anyone with a higher degree. If you talk with people in tech support, or any such support industry, some of the harshest stories told are about doctors, scientists, or professors, who believe that since they’ve proven that they know everything about a given subject, means that they know everything about anything. I agree, too many people - on both sides, both pro-evolution and pro-“ID” - think that their authority about X means that they’re an expert on (a completely unrelated) Y.

Carol Clouser Wrote:

Some scientists tend to forget that science proves very little, that it is in the business of formulating working hypotheses that can and repreatedly have been overturned by the next discovery, and that it is based on unprovable axioms just as is almost any other human endeavor. A little more humility and perspective is in order in this regard.

Yes, science proves very little. And that, in a nutshell, is why I respect science more than fields of study that prove many things. The moment that something is claimed to be proven, is the moment that object is removed from the field of study. Anything that disagrees with a proven fact must mean that something about the disagreeing object must be wrong. As you take proper word choice with the care it deserves, I must disagree with the use of “overturned” here, though. The majority of cases when a scientific theory is ‘overturned,’ it is actually modified to handle a case that doesn’t quite fit in to the current theory. An easily-understandable example of this is in relativistic physics. Sir Isaac Newton recorded a basic formula that seemed to explain accelertion in the 17th century. As experimentation showed, it appeared to work. In the early 1900’s, Einstein published an article about acceleration at relativistic speeds - speeds near the speed of light - which noted that Newton’s formulas didn’t seem to work in such situations. What was found to work in this situation didn’t “overturn” Newton’s formulas; instead, it added to them - the relativistic formulas reduced to Newton’s at low speeds, and appeared to work correctly at high speeds. (Note that, if Newton’s “laws of motion” were considered fact, we would end up with something like Greek celestial circles - applying bandages to the system, instead of trying to determine if the system itself was flawed.)

Carol Clouser Wrote:

Dembski means nothing to me and I could not care less as to what he said or meant about anything. But by jumping on his case based on his choice of words, folks here are over-reaching and over-killing. Give him the benefit of the doubt!

Dembski means little to me; however, I view what he is doing as spreading misinformation and detrimental to science as a whole. Though I would not normally condone nitpicking over word choice, Dembski’s tendency towards exaggeration and use of loaded words is a bad habit that needs to be called out.

And, on topic of the original post, my choices would be: “Within a week of my joining the staff at the Ministry of Truth…” “… that in 2001-2-3 when I was at the Flat Earth Society Research Center…” “… that did not impact my job as head of Department of Misinformation.”

Alas, I too have had my share of encounters with the intellectual bigots of science.

Within a week of my joining the staff at the Kosmo Kramer Komputing Kollege, my removal was called for after a spiteful co-worker revealed that I had once worked for an Intelligent Designerarian and Magical Mathematologist The human resource department had the sense to inform the president that they could not fire me for my unnatural proclivities that did not impact my job as head of Kneepad Scuttling, and since then many people have enjoyed the dulcet tones of my falsetto eunuchdom.

Some scientists tend to forget that science proves very little, that it is in the business of formulating working hypotheses that can and repreatedly have been overturned by the next discovery, and that it is based on unprovable axioms just as is almost any other human endeavor. A little more humility and perspective is in order in this regard.

Well, since, as you say, every other human endeavour is also based on unprovable axioms, there’s no need for more humility in science than in other areas.

And, in fact, given how effective science has shown itself to be at determining the best set of axioms for a given situation (so that mathematics folk like myself can get on with the real work :P) scientists probably have slightly less need to be humble than other folk.

Plus, if scientists act too humble, folk like Dembski attempt to portray it as a sign of lack of confidence in their results. Which sucks.

To stay ontopic is for once hard since it seems limited; I probably doesn’t understand it. Sorry Reed.

I prefer to expand on Parse’s excellent commentary to Carol. I too disagree with Carol’s wording or assumptions. Science is not based on “unprovable axioms”. As an human endeavor its methods has been tested and improved, and so has its results.

After the fact some goes in and note that some discovered structures are general and can be assumed, for instance universality. The only assumption that seems to be inherent is that phenomena that explains observations are taken to be natural, but that is merely a description.

Other general assumptions can be explained as derivative and being observations. Order instead of chaos follows in large enough mathematical or physical structures, and is observed. Universality is parsimonious, and is observed. Causality follows from order and observers proper time, and is observed. And so on and so forth.

Since nothing is assumed or proven in the scientific endeavour, but observed and verified, a little more humility and perspective from whose who assumes and proves are in order.

Perhaps I should note that I only sketched the primary derivation of causality. It is a large and manysided subject, connected with locality, relativity, coarse-graining and enthropy, and so on.

Uuups - “entropy” (blushing).

I never cease to be amazed, but not surprised, at the lack of humility and perspective displayed by scientists. They think that by studying the mutually-observable world, they can learn more about its nature and workings than is revealed by my religion. Worse still, they think they have learned enough about the world and human psychology to say that my religion is wholly invented, a mere palliative for my ego and insecurities, and not true at all! This is an outrageous overstepping of the bounds of science. After all, they don’t know that lightning isn’t the wrath of Zeus, or that my ethnic group’s creator god doesn’t exist. They should be more respectful of such competing theories, instead of dismissing them as primitive superstitions out of hubris.

Like AD I was thinking in terms of previous posts, but sought to illuminate my contributions but was only partly successful. Perhaps someone else can improve on these images. Since we seem to be headed for a derailment I’m posting this draft.

Within a week of my joining the staff at the 1 Beavers 2 Beaver Research Institute, my removal was called for by a sizable group of the research staff who had discovered (by doing a Google search) that in 2001-2-3 when I was at the 3 Boobies Center, I had signed the Discovery Institute statement questioning Darwin’s theory of origins. The human resource department had the sense to inform the president that they could not fire me for beliefs that did not impact my job as head of 4 wee more boobies.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Hey, this is like one of those “Mad-libber” thingies too!

Dreived from Comment #100515 Posted by AC on May 12, 2006 09:52 AM (e)

I never cease to be amazed, but not surprised, at the lack of humility and perspective displayed by religionists. They think that by studying revealed religion, they can learn more about its nature and workings than is discovered looking at the mutually-observable world. Worse still, they think that their religion, while wholly invented, and a mere palliative for their ego and insecurities is all they need to know about the world and human psychology. Not true at all! This is an outrageous overstepping of the bounds of religion. After all, they don’t know that lightning is the wrath of Zeus, or that their ethnic group’s creator god does exist. They should be more respectful of science, instead of elevating primitive superstitions out of hubris.

I’ve moved the off-topic conversation as best I could to the Bathroom Wall

I’m locking this post.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on May 11, 2006 12:47 PM.

Francisco and Mootness, Take 2 was the previous entry in this blog.

How to Detect the Designs of those Nasty Persecutors 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 4.381

Site Meter