Magicians have been doing it for centuries: using misdirection to keep attention off what is really going on. Darwinists have refined this art when it comes to defending their story: talk about religious motives, define “science” so that ID cannot be considered, fear-monger about the dangers of theocracy and the collapse of science education… etcetera, and so forth. Above all, divert attention from the substantive issues, like the origin of biological information. Listen to Michael Egnor here on that subject. Now for the just-for-fun part: Check out this PowerPoint file of a David Copperfield illusion. Who can solve it and identify the misdirection?
After reading yet another Pim van Meurs (PvM) rant at Panda’s Thumb and seeing him reuse for the umpteenth time the phrase “scientific vacuity of intelligent design” I thought it would be fun to see how the meme is faring and what other monkeys are aping it. Click here to take a stroll through the simian section of the zoo. Watch out for flying feces.
It seems The Discovery Institute recently quoted PZ Myers in one of his more memorable faux tough guy ravings and to my delight Paul Myers, the red-faced raving labcoated academic pansy, in response treats us to another display of impotent, impudent juvenile rage over ID proponents. Imagine, as you read his latest rabble rousing speech, a small man reminiscent of Fidel Castro only in a white labcoat instead of olive drab military dungarees. He’s waving around a test tube and pipette instead of a 9mm Glock and AK-47. He rants to a crowd of nerdish college kids that aren’t old enough to shave and despite their best efforts to change the situation are all still virgins. Warning the juvenile sycophants about teh ne plus ultra danger of Intelligent Design like it was capitalism encroaching on the communist world and extoling the virtues of Teh Scientific Way like it was Marxism reincarnate. AND he gets fan mail. FAN MAIL! Proof positive he’s doing it right. Uber validation! What a dork. Fierce like a potted plant. ROFLMAO
Ready? Read on…
Get meaner, angrier, louder, fiercer
Posted on: March 1, 2007 11:45 PM, by PZ Myers
The IDists love to quote me, because I am rather militant in my opposition to their lies. They are particularly fond of one particular quote* that they’ve even used in their fund-raising literature. They think it’s damning; some of my fellow anti-creationists swoon and protest when they hear the words, but they tend to be faint-hearted anyway. But here’s what’s really amusing.
I get fan mail from people all the time who are overjoyed that someone out there on the evolution side isn’t an apologetic ditherer.
This from Ooblick.com, Andrew Arensburger’s Blog. He’s planning a re-enactment podcast of the Dover trial, and is looking for voice talent to participate. PZ Myers advertised it on his website, so was jokingly named as Casting Director, and I guess that I have to shoulder the blame for that, since I’m the one who lied about PZ Myers’ casting directorship, and now I’m having to take the heat.
Andrew said he had asked PZ to advertise the project, since he has a large audience. Well OK Andrew, now you have your thunder back. You’re the casting director, and anyone interested can reach you at Ooblick.com/pandas/ (record corrected), and please Andrew, don’t get on DonaldM so hard. You know, chutzpah is not such a bad quality to have (actually Ã¡Â¸Â¥uÃ¡Â¹Â£pÃƒÂ¢). By Wikipedia’s definition, “Chutzpah can be used to express admiration for non-conformist but gutsy audacity.” Does that not fit PZ or what!?
I thought it would be nice to help Andrew with the podcast, so I offered a few suggestions, not just for a podcast, but for a four act play that would definitely bring in some bucks. So I commented on his blog, an put forth some ideas:
Don’t believe everything you read Andy, but thanx anyway for taking me literally! And good luck with you podcast. I really think a four act play would be better, tho. Here’s a compendium:
Read More ›
Dr. Terry Tommyrot questions the existence of Richard Dawkins in this brilliant spoof — whoever did Dawkins has him down. Here’s the audio as a wma file: The Dawkins Delusion. [[Click HERE for the transcript.]] [[The inspiration for this came from http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/does-richard-dawkins-exist.html.]]
Evolution Pundit Glenn Davidson’s Website
Over at ATBC one of our brightest detractors Altabin (banned here, natch, because he’s just too smart for us) suggested an experiment. He misquoted the bible of course. It’s wolf and lamb or lion and calf. But we get his drift.
53. Were all the animals friendly to man before the Flood? Idea: raise several baby animals like snake and mouse together to see if they remain friends as they are older.
That one may not have such a happy ending. Next time try it with a lion and a lamb.
As it just so happens… Read More ›
Ã¢â‚¬Å“We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true.Ã¢â‚¬Â –Robert Wilensky HOMEPAGE: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~wilensky SOURCE: http://www.jimpoz.com/quotes/speaker.php?speakerid=855
It is my speculation the notorious Beyond Belief Conference and Dawkins call to make religion illegal are signs secularism could be on the brink of crisis. Ironically, Daniel Dennett unwittingly gives powerful “scientific” reasons why secularism is doomed and why religion (which tends to be ID-friendly) will prevail as the dominant paradigm in human culture. See Evolution is Cruel to Dawkins and Dennett.
Mike Gene said it so well:
And therein may lie the most cruel irony of evolution. While it may make it possible for Richard Dawkins to be intellectually fulfilled, it also means that Dawkins, from an evolutionary perspective, embraces a world view that is maladapted to his biological essence and thus is nothing more than another evolutionary oddity whose lineage is a dead-end.
PZ Myers! By removing all the irrelevant bloviation he’s succeeded in getting Pharyngula’s content compressed to its core essentials. A remarkable invention in blog efficiency. Follow this link to see how the invention works.
I’m considering offering $250 for the winning entry in a flash animation contest. I’d like the flash animation to incorporate the following elements: (1) Portray Richard Dawkins as a cult deprogrammer. (2) Portray a 7-year old Stephen Colbert as the theist he must convert to atheism. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuXpysYEhgA and below) (3) Employ 10 classic Dawkins quotes. (4) No violence. (5) I’ll throw in an extra 100 bucks for a flatulent version of Dawkins (only for private use — maybe). This needs to be done cleverly and with a light touch. Right now I’m just soliciting ideas to flesh this out.
They say ID is dead yet they just can’t stop talking about it on Panda’s Thumb. I counted 21 mentions of “ID” and “Intelligent Design” on just the home page without expansion of any articles or comments. If they believe ID is dead that means the thumbsters are necrophiliacs. Gross. I’ll add that to their growing list of character flaws; The Church Burnin’ Necrophiliac Ebola Boys. But hey, I just kid those fine folks. I understand that as chance worshippers they’re in the business of not letting go of dead ideas. Hey Wesley! Can you spell non sequitur? I knew you could. 😛
Since Richard Dawkins thinks he has the right to reprint my letters to him by posting them over the Internet (go here), I’ll assume the same privilege applies to me. Let’s start with this exchange from the spring of 2000 (the paper in question became chapters 3 and 4 of my book NO FREE LUNCH):
From: Richard Dawkins [mailto:richard.dawkins@SNIP.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Algorithms Chapter
Dear Dr Dembski
Your paper is quite well written, and is not stupid (like the writings of your colleagues). But you are not saying anything I didn’t say myself, in The Blind Watchmaker, even if more briefly:-