Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolve Yourself, Inc. — ID’s New Success and Motivation Institute


Evolve yourself intelligently to the new and more successful you. . . .**

For some time now I’ve been wanting to complement Darwinalia, Inc. (which will soon be in operation — I have three partners and we own www.darwinalia.com) with an ID-based success and motivation course (complete with infomercials). I had been thinking about something like “Designed for Success” or “Designed to Flourish.” But the more I thought about it, especially with intelligent design taking the hits it has lately, it’s time simply to co-opt the language of evolution and interpret it in an ID-friendly way (in this vein, recall my post about intelligent evolution on this blog some months back — go here). Yes, ID is itself evolving! I was able to procure www.evolveyourself.net (.com and .org were unfortunately taken) and expect to start another corporation once Darwinalia, Inc. is fully up and running.

Let me reiterate that ID has been very, very good to me!


**Like you really want to evolve yourself unintelligently. Sure, it’s good enough for animals and plants to evolve by unintelligent Darwinian means, but not for people like us who have limited time and lots to accomplish.

Xavier, See comment #1 in the following thread for a link to the weblog of a French scientist who is interested in intelligent design: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/index.php/archives/558#comments If you contact him, perhaps he can point you to some additional sites in French. woctor
Hello I live in Belgium but read sometimes american news to help with my english. I hope to find out more about this subject. Also why do everybody get so angry? Is there a european part for intelligent design, and are there any works in french? Xavier Xavier
CommonSense: You have become boring. Goodbye. William Dembski
A couple of important points: panties may be mod, but they ain't exclusively female: witness the Kinks Dedicated Follower of Fashion pulling his nylon panties right up tight. Secondly, girly man as a term of abuse appears to be very much USian: the excellent reggae single by Sophia George "Girlie Girlie" with the chorus "young man you're too girlie girlie" is about a young chap with too many girlfriends, including one in Ayrshire. A splendid reminder to put some good reggae on the gramophone. Thanks, guys. macjim
username, that's warning 1. Please include factual information to back up your assertions in the future. Patrick
Oh, I forgot earlier, DaveScot: I am sorry about closing down the other thread. I know some people may have wanted answers to their questions and all and I certainly didn't want close it down before they were all answered. I'm sure you will start a new one in order to ease their minds, but that is an inconvenience (both starting another thread and easing their minds), so I apologize. CommonSense
Alright, I'm an idiot. I appologize with no qualification. I really thought he was serious. Here he's trying to bait the darwinist worldview and I fall into the trap. I kinda lost my cool there.But that whole "Let me reiterate that ID has been very, very good to me!" bit right after aknowledging that ID has taken some hits recently kinda got my dander up. Please forgive my haste. Bling Bling
Hmmm. ANother way of saying perhaps that, since you lost and now have nothing to offer, you might as well fleece your followers before you go? Perhaps? That would be the typical thiong for a disgraced televangelist wouldn't it? science
Bill's just joking around, Bling Bling. What's wrong with having a little fun? crandaddy
Yeah, that's right Bling! Forget the money. SHOW ME THE ID! CommonSense
22. bling bling - it's taken you this long to wake up? i'm so sorry, man. glad you are able to see now! username
20: Do you think Dumbski would actually take any real criticism? First, if he were to open his mind and be honest with himself, he would actually see that there is no actual war or battle going on between the so-called ID people and people who are really educated about evolution theory, though he always seems to want to portray himself as the next-gen darwinist or the Galileo, shunned from society for his radical beliefs, later to be marveled someday. Please... This demonstrates how immature he is. In reality, scientists who know evolution (not the layperson Dembski tries to poison with sanctionious nonsense) could care less about what he or the likes of him say at all - it doesn't take long for them to realize that his so-called theory has no testable hypothesis, but is diluted with assertions (one of ID's many foundational flaws, folks). Ban me for not being in agreement with you too, I know you will. I won't post here anyway. I've visited here before and I've noticed that, for a website that is central to the discussion of ID, I have yet to see anything that resembles a scientific discussion at all. Never do I ever hear of any details of "ID" discussed here. You don't have to explain why - I already know. The point is, if you DO want to even be noticed by scientists, you'd best at the very least start making up something scientific to talk about. Whining about how your under attack by the evolutionists all of the time (when they could really give two shits about you), is not how you start a movement outside of the circle of those who share your beliefs. If you are honestly convinced that you have a method that scientifically proves an intelligent designer is behind our world, by all means, bring the details to the forefront. I doubt any scientist would turn down an opportunity to prove that such a designer exists. I know you like to paint evolutionists as unwilling to listen to new ideas, clinging on to their precious darwinism with everything they got. The truth is, if there was really a way to prove the existence of god or any arbitrary designer, they would love to hear about it. Who wouldn't? I suspect what's really going on when you try to pain evolutionsists in this way is simply the reflection of your own self. Believe me folks, evolutionary scientists have better things to do. There is no battle between you and them. Yes, it is really an invention of your imagination. [This post marked for deletion because it does not fall into the beliefs held by this blog's community. Ban user for same reason.] username
"But the more I thought about it, especially with intelligent design taking the hits it has lately..." "Yes, ID is itself evolving!" "Let me reiterate that ID has been very, very good to me!" "Like you really want to evolve yourself unintelligently. Sure, it’s good enough for animals and plants to evolve by unintelligent Darwinian means, but not for people like us who have limited time and lots to accomplish." Yikes. I actually believe this stuff Bill. Are you saying your in it for the money and there is no substance to what your peddling? I feel like I have been duped. Ouch. That cuts as close as it comes. I suppose I will Have my viewpoint eliminated for this but man, this utterly shakes my faith in you man. Just another common fraud. Like lenny bruce once said "ANy man of god with more than 2 suits is a shyster." "Let me reiterate that ID has been very, very good to me!" Ok, I think that someone out there needs to remind folks that being alive is a miracle and that there is evidence for design but boy, I don't think it should be someone who is getting $$ off it and then exploiting the folks they've been leading. Thats as bad as tv evangelism. Something smells really bad here. Bling Bling
haha, is Dembski married?? Seems like he has a lot of time on his hands. jujuquisp
unless he just thinks the "selection has eliminated you from the user-pool" line is really, really, really funny.... If that's the case, by all means, keep banning people--material only gets better with practice--of course, I suppose you know about that: argument ad nauseum and all.... CommonSense
"That said, Bradcliffe1, you don’t seem to have quite the right spirit for being part of our evolving community at UD. I’m afraid selection has eliminated you from this user-pool." Clear enough? Dembski apparently agrees with bradcliffe1's suggest, thinks it's helpful, and bans him. OPen dialogue here we come. I can see it's right around the corner. CommonSense
I don't think it's a badge of courage for several reasons: 1. It doesn't take much courage to come here. 2. Getting banned is easier than stubbing your toe. 3. You don't have to be ridiculous to get banned, just disagree, even politely. 4. Oh, and my favorite, you can get banned w=ithout even coming here at all (Mr. Christopher) I see you erased all of my comments on the other thread, DaveScot. Still didn't respond to me, or to bradcliffe1. I'm not sure if erasure constitutes an answer or not, but I believe it to be very sound educational theory. CommonSense
Just wanted to mention quickly about the stuff above concerning what underwear people put on - some people are too deeply entrenched in making clear dichotomies where there aren't any to be made. And to top it off, some people are born hermaphrodites - rhetorically, what are they to wear? On Darwinalia - I think the NSF funds mentioned in an earlier post also go towards purchasing reagents and equipment, etc, for research on evolution. Any chance a portion of the profits from this venture would fund ID's research program? Inoculated Mind
If it's any consolation I didn't ban Miles. I changed his password. He might be able to guess it if he looks in the mirror. DaveScot
Is it some kind of PT badge of courage to be ridiculous enough to get banned so you can run home and say "look, he banned me too"? Charlie
Intelligent Healing Crystals and Intelligent Cancer Curing magnets kind of goes in the same vein as intelligent design. Have you thought of marketing those? That's right up your alley, Dembski. You could even push it as an alternate theory to traditional medicine. You could start publishing books claiming traditional medicine is a theory in crisis and insist children be taught the controversy. That way you let naive school boards do your marketing for you. Let kids decide whether they want to drink yucky tasting cough syrup or buy your healing crystals instead. Or why lose your hair over chemo when you can use my cancer curing magnets. I think this would be totally you Dembski and you already have a built in clientel of people who would believe in your products and not demand any scientific proof that they actually work. And if they do ask for scientific proof then boot them from your blog or have Michael Behe make something up to distract them. You are sitting on a gold mine, brothah! Miles
Bradcliffe1: The point about attracting investors is well-taken. So let me first urge contributors to this thread to offer their thoughts about what an ID-based evolution-language-coopting success-motivation course should look like -- let's hammer out the details. That said, Bradcliffe1, you don't seem to have quite the right spirit for being part of our evolving community at UD. I'm afraid selection has eliminated you from this user-pool. William Dembski
Richard Dawkins has been mentioned on this thread, so I thought I'd post this link to a half-hour BBC radio interview regarding his TV series on religion entitled "Root of All Evil?" http://tinyurl.com/9wsug Some interesting moments: 1) an icy conversation between Dawkins and Pastor Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals and pastor of a megachurch in Colorado Springs. 2) Dawkins makes clear that despite the titel of the TV series, he does not believe that religion is the root of all evil. 3) Dawkins describes his admiration for Jesus as a moral exemplar (but not as God, of course). bradcliffe1
William Dembski pleads: "Hey, let’s get this thread back on track, which is how to make some money with Evolve Yourself, Inc. I’m looking for investors." Dr. Dembski, As a Silicon Valley veteran, I can tell you that you'll need a better "pitch" if you want to attract investors -- sophisticated ones, anyway. Can we hear some more details on how intelligent design, couched in evolutionary terms, could be "sold" to the public as a self-improvement tool? But it's a good idea to solicit ideas from the denizens of your blog. My humble suggestion for a product targeted at your support base: An inflatable possum suit, worned at all times by an ID supporter when engaging in arguments with Darwinians. If the ID supporter begins to lose the argument, as frequently happens, he or she can deploy the possum suit and play dead until the Darwinian loses interest and moves on. This is much cleaner than fighting it out to the inevitable end. bradcliffe1
I like the idea of hijacking Darwinists's already overloaded jargon. For example, phrases such as "descent with modification", "change over time", etc. have sufficient semantic wiggle to subsume just about any origin theory. In college, I would speak of Darwinism in terms of "the flaws of evolutionary theory". Unfortunately, some of my audience would invoke an inordinately protean definition of "evolution". With time I began to see that the term "evolution" is near and dear to many people's hearts. Therefore, I began explaining my position as an evolutionary one with a clarifying caveat that NDT leaves much to be desired (e.g., elucidating both the vacuity of randomness as a causal explanation and the impotency of random variables to describe evolutionary progress). It has been nothing short of amazing! Now, even the most hardened atheist -- almost invariably clinging to a Dawkinsian version of evolution -- freely discuss the many pitfalls of the current synthesis. Qualiatative
I really don't see why people should be outraged at the "co-opting of evolutionary language." I mean, ID has already co-opted the language of creationism, so I think it only fair and balanced that it take from the other side of the aisle. Also, isn't it the idea that is important and not the words used to express it? CommonSense
Hey, let's get this thread back on track, which is how to make some money with Evolve Yourself, Inc. I'm looking for investors. William Dembski
Karl wrote: "Deletion is something that Bill Dembski calls “viewpoint discrimination,” by the way. Try not to abuse your new powers at Uncommon Descent." There are plenty of places where those who are hostile to ID can express their viewpoints. Those of us who support ID are exposed to these arguments everyday in magazines, newspapers, TV, the Internet, university classrooms, etc. ID advocates have relatively view outlets for expression. This blog is one of them (another antagonistic poster has already implied that churches are inapproriate venues for discussion of ID, so there's another place we're not supposed to be heard. Can't talk about it in school, either). If evolution activists decide to make this yet another forum for THEIR point of view, then it really doesn't lend any balance to the discussion. This blog just becomes one more forum for an already overexposed idea (neo-Darwinism), at the expense of a widely misunderstood, misreported, and underrepresented idea (ID). Sorry if that feels like viewpoint discrimination. Welcome to our world. russ
Innnnnoculated wrote: "...but I don’t think that his usage justifies basing an insult off of having attributes associated with women." I don't see why this is especially offensive to women. Characteristics that are admirable in one sex may not be admirable in the other. Panties represent feminine allure in women, which is a good thing and not a bad thing---FOR WOMEN. It can even be a source of women's power over men. But a man who wears panties demonstrates that he lacks a certain aspect of masculinity--maybe it's a sort of controlled aggresiveness or toughness. Such a man is appealing neither to women nor to other men. Therein lies the insult. Of course, people who were indoctrinated in human nature at most universities will not understand this. They will believe instead, the silly tripe that men and women are the same except for a few body parts. russ
So anyhow, don't have a cow, man (Bart Simpson). Dickie Dawkins is married (third or fourth time) to some hot model (incredibly enough for such a pathetic little putz, a FEMALE model) that looks half his age. My juvenile insults, I'm sure, are not likely to have any effect on the butt of the joke. It's really for the entertainment of his enemies you see. And he has far more of those than he has ex-wives. Although I reckon' the exes are probably in the enemy category now too. DaveScot
My burst. I keep spelling Arnie's name using the Jewish "Schwartz" as a base. A particularly egregious faux pax, I suppose, given Arnie's dad was a Nazi. Holy Hypodermic Batman! You're right about inoculated. I stand here, well sit here actually, in abject embarrassment. There's nothing, and I do mean NO THING, worse than misspelling something in a spelling flame. I'm too humbled to ban you now. Good work. DaveScot
Thanks, Dave, for pointing out that I misspelled the word 'puerile' I will be sure to remember the correct spelling. I am well aware that Governor Schwarzenegger (not "Schwartzeneggar," by the way) resurrected the phrase girly-man from SNL, but I don't think that his usage justifies basing an insult off of having attributes associated with women. I was not aware that it was consistent with other things you have called Richard Dawkins, so I stand corrected. My statement should now read: "How puerile to use social charateristics of women as an attempt to insult someone." I assure you, if you would pick up a dictionary, that "Inoculated" is spelt with only one 'n'. It is one of the most often misspelt words in the English language, so I forgive you for the attempted pop-shot. One point for you, and two for me. :) So quick on the trigger finger, are we? Deletion is something that Bill Dembski calls "viewpoint discrimination," by the way. Try not to abuse your new powers at Uncommon Descent. Inoculated Mind
Inoculated Mind Did you mean puerile? "Panties in a bunch" is a common American expression. I chose it for continuity with past comments where I called Dawkins a girly-man. Interestingly, I'm unsure if girly-man is a uniquely American expression. Girly-man was popularized about 20 years ago on Saturday Night Live, a very American comedy show, in a repeating parody skit of body-builder Arnold Schwartzeneggar. Ahnold is now the governor of California (truth is stranger than fiction). Anyhow, the Governator (a term coined to combine the word governor with Arnie's most famous movie roles as "The Terminator") is Austrian. And his father was a Nazi. So anyway, girly-man faded into relative disuse many moons ago. Possibly even a coon's age ago. But Ahnold recently resurrected it by publically calling the California state legislature in Sacremento "girly men" for not being able to reach some difficult decision. So what do you think, is girly-man an American expression or what? By the way, innoculated is spelled with two n's. How about if I go ahead and delete you so you can return using real words in your name and comments? DaveScot
How purile to use the clothing of women as an attempt to insult someone. Inoculated Mind
Bill "it’s time simply to co-opt the language of evolution and interpret it in an ID-friendly way" Hijacking the language of evolution... That'll sure ruffle some feathers. Not to mention getting Richard Dawkins' panties in a bunch! :-) DaveScot

Leave a Reply