Which one of you little rascals Sokaled AiG?

| 39 Comments

Answers in Genesis started this so-called peer reviewed journal called Answers, and the latest publication therein is such a confused mess that I'm wondering if it could be a hoax. Just the title alone would be sufficient to tell this is codified lunacy: An Apology and Unification Theory for the Reconciliation of Physical Matter and Metaphysical Cognizance.

Continue reading "Which one of you little rascals Sokaled AiG?" (on Pharyngula)

39 Comments

I confess, I confess. I wrote it, you know, wrote it all. Yeah,,, you know, the part about the tangible and the intagible being in reality, Yeah. And that other paragraph, yeah, you know,, where I said,,, yeah, you know. It was cool wasn’t it. Yeah

Somebody should not only Sokal AIG, but also publicize all over the blogosphere the fact that they are going to do it before they do it. Hilarity ensues…

About a year ago the movie What the Bleep Do We Know? was making the rounds, especially in West LA and the Hollywood area.

Now we see AiG using similar ideas and coming up with a “new” take on fundamentalist religion?

Quantum entanglement with the devil; woo, woo!

This doesn’t look like a Sokal style job to me. I fully expect such a stunt to be pulled, but I’d expect the perpetrators to wait a bit before sending it in. Besides which this is too much of an insane mess, I expect the hoax to actually sound much more coherent and logical, but based on clear fallacies that can be brought up later to reveal the total lack of peer review.

On this, though, I’m disappointed. Frankly I’ve come to expect AiG to at least do better than this. It’s as if they know that no one gives a damn about the journal so they might as well throw any old rubbish up onto it. The rubes that support them wouldn’t be caught dead reading a scientific journal, or even a pretend journal, so they’re not a concern. The actual scientific community’s conclusion is already a given, so there’s no point in trying to impress them either.

Is that what this faux journal has become? A prop, filled with words that nobody is expected to read, to be referred to but never cited?

Alright everybody; check out the first line (after the Abstract):

“For more than 40 years I…”

Who cares?

…have been contemplating this issue of ontology”

Now seriously. Let’s do the whole “real science, AiG science” gig again. When’s the last time your hear an article in a cell bio journal say, “Y’know? I’ve been thinking a lot about evolution.”

That’s the first “peer reviewed” journal I’ve seen that is written in the first person, letting us know what the author is “contemplating.”

oh my…and I haven’t even gotten past that first sentence…I think I’ll quit now

Wow. That’s all I can say. I thought this was funny… then I went and tried to “read” the “journal” article. Wow.

Poe’s Law, anyone?

Wow. That’s all I can say. I thought this was funny… then I went and tried to “read” the “journal” article. Wow.

Poe’s Law, anyone?

You can’t P-A-R-O-D-Y that, they do such a near perfect a job of that all by themselves.

School yard projection by someone 25 going on 75. A great gnashing of teeth indeed, if he keeps it up he’ll eat out his rectum.

Oh no!! There’s more. http://www.answersingenesis.org/art[…]es/arj/v1/n1

And, just who is Desmond P. Allen? What university or lab?

David Buller Wrote:

That’s the first “peer reviewed” journal I’ve seen that is written in the first person, letting us know what the author is “contemplating.”

Writing scientific articles in the passive voice became de rigeur in the 1970s (I think). In the 90s there was another movement to write in the first person, because the passive voice is (a) a minefield of grammatical errors waiting to happen, and (b) clumsy.

I have read peer-reviewed scienctific journals that were mostly written in the first person - although, admittedly, this was mostly in the plural, (i.e. “we”) or, occasionally, “one of us”.

Having said that, I don’t recall having read a paper that announces how long the author has been contemplating the topic.

It looks like the authors of the ARJ nonsense seem keen on telling us what they think. For example, this incredible sentence appears in the ARJ “paper” on “Microbes and the Days of Creation”, “I once believed that all microbes were simply created on Day Three—with all the plants (and seed-bearing life). “

Those of us who are reality-obsessed are reading this drivel more attentively than the YECs. In a year’s time nobody will be reading it since it’s going to get tedious and lose its humorous appeal pretty quickly. I expected the scientific content to be nil; instead it managed to achieve a substantial negative score.

A prediction: The only person who will ever cite Desmond P. Allen’s “paper”, is Desmond P. Allen when he next decides to engage in some more of this masturbatory writing.

ke:

You can’t P-A-R-O-D-Y that, they do such a near perfect a job of that all by themselves.

And that includes the editors, not just the paper authors. From the “instructions to authors”.

Foreign words and phrases should be italicized only if they are uncommon to our readers:
Lebensraum (italicized)
angst, canard (nonitalicized)

Nigel D: I have read peer-reviewed scienctific journals that were mostly written in the first person - although, admittedly, this was mostly in the plural, (i.e. “we”) or, occasionally, “one of us”.

I vaguely recall an anecdote of a famous scientist (Bethe, Schroedinger, level famous) who wrote a paper where he referred to himself in first person plural, we. A reviewer objected to the use of we in a single author paper. So he added his dog’s name to the list of authors! Thus his dog became the only animal to have a peer reviewed scientific paper to its credit!

Was it really true?

Talking about spoof papers, one of the most famous one was by S. Candlestickmaker.

Astrophysicist Subramanyum Chandrashekar wrote a series of papers titled something like the invertability of Hamiltonian operators or some such topic. His colleague, Prof John Sykes, wrote a spoof with the title The Impertability of Elevator Operators by S. Candlestickmaker, from the Institute of Studied Advances, Old Cardigan, Wales referring to momentous equations like 3^2+ 4^2 = 5^2 (Pythagores, 520). Students of Chandrashekar got it typeset like a real paper from The Astrophysics Journal.

John Sykes notes that this spoof got him more fame than his original research, which he attributes to the popularity of Chandrasekhar.

Well, technically it is a peer reviewed journal - it just doesn’t say that their peers are a bunch of goofy religiously-biased nutjobs that don’t understand science. It is most certainly not a peer reviewed scientific journal but whatcha going to do when your peers are a bunch of religious nuts?

When I saw it first posted, I was stunned at just how bizarre and illogical it was. But the only purpose of a paper like this is to hold up in front of uneducated audiences as a PR tool to say that creationists do “peer reviewed” research, that “real” research confirms creationism, and that it is being repressed by the mainstream community. The fact that it is complete crap is irrelevant. The “more eruditer” and denser it sounds, the better. The rest of us can laugh all we want, but they couldn’t care less.

Laugh it up now. But I guarantee this drivel will show up as evidence of a peer reviewed scientific basis for ID as soon as they can find safer venue for another Kitzmiller-esq trial.

Of course ID will have to have a new name then. My vote goes to “knowledgeable scheme” by simple substitution of synonyms. Look for edits that result in “creatable me” in some future edition of Pandas.

Off-topic, but a heads-up for a major purpose of Panda’s Thumb.

This link:

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/[…]n-in-tx.html

regarding a creationist stealth campaign to obtain a majority on The Texas State Board of Education.

From reading it I just get the mental image of an upside-down pyramid. Way to much attempted depth in philosophy is based upon such a shallow idea.

And they think it’s standing just fine…

If they think god is a guy and they have a loving relationship with him are they not homosexual?

Suffer the little children.

Ravilyn Sanders Wrote:

John Sykes notes that this spoof got him more fame than his original research, which he attributes to the popularity of Chandrasekhar.

Then there was that paper (not a spoof) by George Gamow who added the names Ralph Alpher and Hans Bethe ahead of his own to the list of authors even though he was the sole author. That became the Alpher, Bethe, Gamow paper.

That became the Alpher, Bethe, Gamow paper.

Ah well, said paper would probably be Greek to me, anyway. :p

So now they really can’t claim they aren’t intrerested in whether goddit or not. This paper rather firmly, if illogically, adds god to the equation.

Summary of the ID movement in his own words

“… Even before I understood the model of evolution, I already knew it was illogical. Frankly, I was offended that my teachers expected me to believe it. And I was extremely disappointed in them for apparently believing it themselves. In time I learned that logic can never convince passion. Irrespective of one’s education, without a purposed conscious intervention, one’s passion transcends one’s logic and reason.”

Tailspin:

So now they really can’t claim they aren’t intrerested in whether goddit or not. This paper rather firmly, if illogically, adds god to the equation.

I don’t think AiG was ever NOT interested in saying that God did it. They aren’t the DI.

Mike Elzinga: Then there was that paper (not a spoof) by George Gamow who added the names Ralph Alpher and Hans Bethe ahead of his own to the list of authors even though he was the sole author. That became the Alpher, Bethe, Gamow paper.

Actually Gamow’s grad student Alpher contributed significantly to the paper. By coincidence that paper was published in The Physical Review on April 1, 1948. So some thought the whole paper was an April Fool’s Day joke.

Ravilyn Sanders Wrote:

Actually Gamow’s grad student Alpher contributed significantly to the paper.

Ravilyn,

Thanks for the correction. Now that I think about it, I believe you are right. I should have looked it up before commenting.

I did remember the April 1st date, however.

Mike Elzinga:

Ravilyn Sanders Wrote:

John Sykes notes that this spoof got him more fame than his original research, which he attributes to the popularity of Chandrasekhar.

Then there was that paper (not a spoof) by George Gamow who added the names Ralph Alpher and Hans Bethe ahead of his own to the list of authors even though he was the sole author. That became the Alpher, Bethe, Gamow paper.

Gamow couldn’t get Delter to agree to be listed.…

That’s the first “peer reviewed” journal I’ve seen that is written in the first person, letting us know what the author is “contemplating.”

[…]

I have read peer-reviewed scienctific journals that were mostly written in the first person - although, admittedly, this was mostly in the plural, (i.e. “we”) or, occasionally, “one of us”.

The problem isn’t with the subject, it’s with the verb. “I previously proposed”, “I then tested” – relevant. “I have been contemplating”, “I did not know”, “I had a bowel movement” – irrelevant.

Carl:

A prediction: The only person who will ever cite Desmond P. Allen’s “paper”, is Desmond P. Allen when he next decides to engage in some more of this masturbatory writing.

Knowing the quote-mining and blog-citing antics of certain contributors at Conservapedia.com, I would not be surprised if the editor known there as Conservative (and several other aliases elsewhere) has many cites to the Answers article.

Actually Gamow’s grad student Alpher contributed significantly to the paper.

If “contributed significantly to” means “wrote”. It was the basis for his PhD thesis.

Gamow couldn’t get Delter to agree to be listed….

Uh, there was no Delter … but that didn’t keep Gamow from trying:

Gamow also urged Herman to change his name to Delter to match delta, the next letter in the Greek alphabet. Despite Herman’s [R.C. Herman, who worked with Alpher on the computer calculations – PG] refusal, in a paper in a major scientific journal Gamow referred to “the neutron-capture theory…developed by Alpher, Bethe, Gamow and Delter.”

Popper’s Ghost:

Gamow couldn’t get Delter to agree to be listed….

Uh, there was no Delter … but that didn’t keep Gamow from trying:

Gamow also urged Herman to change his name to Delter to match delta, the next letter in the Greek alphabet. Despite Herman’s [R.C. Herman, who worked with Alpher on the computer calculations – PG] refusal, in a paper in a major scientific journal Gamow referred to “the neutron-capture theory…developed by Alpher, Bethe, Gamow and Delter.”

Gamow was a well-known prankster in the physics community, but he was by no means the exception. Unofficial and semi-official history is full of some very funny stories.

I could never do the story justice, but Donald Glaser, at a centennial celebration at the University of Michigan Physics Department some years ago, told how the bubble chamber really was developed. It turns out that H.M. Randall, who was department head, was perceived as somewhat of a strict tee-totaler who did not approve of drinking or permit alcohol in the labs. So Glaser smuggled beer into the lab, popped the tops off the beer bottles, and with beer squirting all over the lab, irradiated them with various kinds of radiation.

After a few weeks of this, the lab reeked of stale beer; and then Randall walked in.

Victor Weisskopf, of course, had his stash of Pauli jokes.

It is unfortunate that science is so often perceived to be or is portrayed as humorless. However, go into any laboratory nearly anywhere, and there is much humor to be found.

there is much humor to be found

I favor the fruit fly genes, named after mutations:

agnostic - Agnostic flies do not learn odors in certain temperatures. Agnostic people have also problems in making up their mind.

LOL.

drop dead - Brains of mutants deteriorate rapidly. They start walking in uncoordinated manner and soon die.

LOL … sort of.

ether a go-go - Mutants shake their legs under ether anesthesia.

LOL.

… and so on.

In fact, I am sponsoring a contest for the first person to pull a hoax on AiG.

http://hjhop.blogspot.com/2008/01/h[…]genesis.html

Enter. Do it now.…

HJ

There is a contest to hoax AiG at my website. The link is prominent, so click it.

HJ

There is an another paper on Pasteur. I think it might also be a hoax. Pasteur was not a creationists though they lie that. Pasteur by his experiments disproving abiogenesis made creationism false. How can a man pop out from dust when even bacterias cannot pop out from dust like that.

People who claim that Pasteur disproved abiogenesis (or creationism) are clueless, including the author of that TalkOrigins entry … http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abi[…]eration.html is much better. Pasteur disproved nothing (as that link states, “you can neither prove a universal negative nor a universal positive with a finite or limited set of observations”); he simply demonstrated (or not: “Pasteur repeatedly ignored positive results in experiments, claiming that they were due to error rather than spontaneous generation; in fact only 10% of his experiments gave his desired result”) that exposed broths ferment while sterile broths don’t. Inference, further evidence, and the application of Occam’s Razor yields germ theory, but nowhere is there a proof that “bacterias cannot pop out from dust”, leaving open many possibilities … such as bacteria and men “popping out” from inorganic matter via a very lengthy process (for which there is much evidence), or God whipping them up on a whim (for which there is no evidence).

Pasteur was not a creationists though they lie that.

It’s not a lie; for much of his life he was. However, that’s neither here nor there, as what Pasteur or anyone else believed or believes has no effect on what is actually so.

I have a strong urge to strangle people who misspell “Gandhi” as “Ghandi”.

:-)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PZ Myers published on February 28, 2008 6:23 PM.

Essay Contest— get those submissions in!!! was the previous entry in this blog.

Convergent evolution of a gene that blocks HIV in monkeys 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