The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science

_{William Dembski

October 11, 2006

Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Religion, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Check out this great looking website (if only the content matched in quality): http://richarddawkins.net.

Anybody who is willing and able to upgrade the look, feel, and functionality of this site (Uncommon Descent) to match that of the Dawkins site will receive three of my books autographed. What a deal. Think it over.

Comments

DharmaBum said: "Dr. Dembski: Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ will receive three of my books autographed. What a deal. Think it over. Sorry no one got your joke. It hinges on the reader recognizing the egomaniacism of expecting to obtain professional design services for just three of your autographed books. The outrageousness of this is driven home by the fact that you have offered relatively nice cash awards in other contexts. And I certainly wondered if Ã¢â‚¬Å“think about itÃ¢â‚¬Â were a double entendre when I first read it." I think DpharaBum is right, now that I think obout it. RDs page is all about RD and his egomania! Especially his quotes on the sidebar I find very creepy :) Nice design on the ironic joke here :) even though I didn't get it. I need to work on my design detection :) Maybe RD should learn how to be a humble athiest, but if you are God yourself (allknowing at least) why should you practice any humbleness towards anybody?tb_{October 13, 2006
October
10
Oct
13
13
2006
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

Remember this is a blog with comments vs. a website. There is a difference. One feature that would be nice and add some interactivity ( by voting) for most popular posts.late_model_{October 12, 2006
October
10
Oct
12
12
2006
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

Dawkins' site has a special help and resource line -- for atheists!! Oh yes, and you will not believe how extensive it is. OK, so, an anti-religion list, what is the big deal? Doesn't he have every right to promote these groups? Oh, sure. But, just picture this for a quick moment -- UD providing a list of pro-religion groups. UD would be tarred and feathered on the spot. Why, that would be conclusive proof that ID is religion, not science. Accusations would fly. Our kids would lose all interest in science and join monasteries. The courts would have to jump in and save the day yet again. And who knows what else.Ekstasis_{October 12, 2006
October
10
Oct
12
12
2006
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

As for upgrading this site - I have to agree with the comments offered so far. Ya, I'm an IT pro too and have designed and built sites for various cie's and government sectors. Dawkin's site is definitely too cluttered and I like the comment that said it looks like he's running for office. Perhaps more truly he wants to be god himself. ;-) ("everyone in your world wants to be Maleldil" - CS Lewis, Out of the Silent Planet) Whatever, the thing that would make this site look better is pro quality images and decor. It's a tad too bland IMO. The feel and usability are fairly good already. The "leave a comment" box is way too small though and needs some tools added. This box should always have the text format tools available unless a user checks an off option. Or at least some guide to codes for text formatting, smileys, block quoting etc. - placed right next to the box. This site has the look and feel of a regular blog so it's already great for that. Add some better pics, a little more color & decoration and you'll have done most of a very nice upgrade already. BTW, Wordpress - mentioned at the bottom of the pages here - has some very nice blog templates that would do very well. Just add sugar.Borne_{October 12, 2006
October
10
Oct
12
12
2006
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski:
... will receive three of my books autographed. What a deal. Think it over.
Sorry no one got your joke. It hinges on the reader recognizing the egomaniacism of expecting to obtain professional design services for just three of your autographed books. The outrageousness of this is driven home by the fact that you have offered relatively nice cash awards in other contexts. And I certainly wondered if "think about it" were a double entendre when I first read it. You are no egomaniac. So why did readers of this blog fail to realize that you had gone over the top? Think about it.DharmaBum_{October 12, 2006
October
10
Oct
12
12
2006
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

That site only has the appearance of design. That is just the result of random HTML mutations selected out by "browsing selection." I am sure, in time, this site will evolve in its own good time. You won't observe it though. One morning you'll wake up and it'll just be different. You'll sit back, sip your cup of coffee and think "Hmmm.... long periods of statis interrupted by rapid changes." THen you can come up with a name for it, like, oh, I don't know... punctuated equilibrium or something similarly cool sounding.EdH_{October 12, 2006
October
10
Oct
12
12
2006
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

As a full-time web programmer/sysadmin and part-time web designer, I second the comments above. Dawkin's site is much too busy. (Remember - everything you create you have to maintain.) I like the simplicity and clear focus of UD and I like to see our effort going into quality content and not getting distracted with eye candy. Just one suggestion — Denyse's photo at the top of the page doesn't do her justice. A better picture there would brighten things up.sagebrush gardener_{October 12, 2006
October
10
Oct
12
12
2006
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

That site looks terrible. The top name heading makes it look like he's running for office. Also, there's just too much 'stuff' going on with the front page. It gives me a headache looking at it.Doug_{October 12, 2006
October
10
Oct
12
12
2006
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

I think I have "The Dog Delusion" when I look at RDs page! Or did I get something backward? I am sorry there was no Dog! BTW. Dr. Dembski why would you want UD page look like RDs page? I don't want UD look athiestic, do you? Still I would say that UD could look a bit prettier! :) Could I do it? I think I could, but I ain't got time for it! :(tb_{October 12, 2006
October
10
Oct
12
12
2006
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

off-topic (sort of): http://richarddawkins.net/article,129,Natural-lsquoKnowledgersquo-and-Natural-lsquoDesignrsquo,Richard-Dawkins "A spider doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know how to make a web as a fisherman knows how to make a net. Spider genes are a recipe for legs, muscles and spinnerets, together with a brain whose wiring diagram causes it to manipulate muscles in such a way that a web automatically results. The spider ? presumably ? knows nothing of webs or flies, any more than you knew how to build yourself during your nine months of unconscious gestation. Genes literally donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know anything, but in a powerful sense they store knowledge about environments from the ancestral past." Especially for the last sentence: I don't understand how NDE folks can appreciate such kind of non-sense... Where is the scientific explanation to this ? Where are the experiments which testifies that information can be acquired and chemically coded by non-guided, mindless processes ?... ---------------------------------------- on-topic: Same comment as DaveScot (#14). I don't think you need to change something on UD...Sladjo_{October 12, 2006
October
10
Oct
12
12
2006
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

Dawkins website is a reflection of his mind. Cluttered, flashy, but ultimately without substance.DaveScot_{October 12, 2006
October
10
Oct
12
12
2006
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski: The design of Dawkins' site is actually quite bad. Tribune7 and jwrennie got it right.DharmaBum_{October 12, 2006
October
10
Oct
12
12
2006
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

If I may make a brief comment, I liked the previews of recent comments feature we had on UD temporarily a few weeks ago - I guess there was a reason the feature was disabled - (took too much space on the top of the homepage, or took attention away from other site features?). Anyway, it helped me see what people were actually commenting on without having to check each thread. Such feedback as comment previews to me helps make the site more usable. rgds from Australiaozcanyoner_{October 12, 2006
October
10
Oct
12
12
2006
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT}

Borne and jerry, Book was written about Dawkins' sloppy thinking. Dawkins' God by Alister E. McGrathSrdjan_{October 12, 2006
October
10
Oct
12
12
2006
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT}

I have done this sort of design work in the past. The first thing you must do to help the designer(s) out is catalog the content you wish them to present. For example, do you, like in Dawkins's "New Articles" section (column 3), wish to present a variety of up-to-date articles, movies, and audio programs in a variety of formats? Just pointing out that what looks like a simple visual element requires a good deal of effort behind the scenes including access to the content. At the opposite extreme is column 4, "Recommended Reading," which is probably something you can do now. It's just a list of images with underlying links. To get started you might use some of the templates and other goodies (CSS, JavaScript, HTML, PHP, etc.) which Yahoo! has made available for both non-profit and (I think) commercial use . These are professional quality, can be customized, and are just the sort of thing you need (there are other collections as well). There are also good quality, open source graphics available elsewhere which you will need. (I can provide pointers to both of these resources if anyone wants to pursue them. Leave a comment here, though, as right now I'm having trouble with email. Sorry, I'm not in a position to do the actual work for free -- it is an enormous amount of work even with the opensource resources.) What I would truly love to see is a cooperative effort by both the ID and the Dawkins side to use high-end presentation techniques to put everyones' views on the table in one moderated forum to accomplish two goals: 1. provide a one-stop shop for the undecided or just plain curious to see what all this talk is about without having to feret out which side may be twistings the others position around unfairly 2. show the world that there are people of good will on both sides who can work together in spite of their intellectual differences. Maybe this would dampen the naming calling on both sides and focus everyone on the work of developing useful knowledgeAndyS_{October 12, 2006
October
10
Oct
12
12
2006
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT}

BTW Bill, Dawkins' site is not that nice really. Quite cluttered IMHO. I really like the layout here at UC and don't think you should change it. Does that qualify for the three books ? Tada, your website is perfect :Pjwrennie_{October 11, 2006
October
10
Oct
11
11
2006
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

Doc D -- Think usability rather than flash. If you want to upgrade this site (which I don't think is all that necessary after the last change) model it on the sites that get the most traffic while produced with the effort equivilent to what you plan to expend. Dawkins' site seems junky and a bit hyped (phony) to me.tribune7_{October 11, 2006
October
10
Oct
11
11
2006
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

If this book (The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins) doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed.
Dawkins is the Messiah!GilDodgen_{October 11, 2006
October
10
Oct
11
11
2006
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

Ã¢â‚¬Å“That is a discussion of a Dawkins book, chapter by chapter. Each chapter would be a different thread and then those who want to participate would read the chapter and comment on what is deceptive in the chapter, what is good analysis, what is irrelevant etc.Ã¢â‚¬Â -- I like the idea, but I think it would give him more credibility from the ID side than he deserves. I take everything he says with a grain of salt, but IMHO Richard Dawkins is the #1 best thing that could ever happen to ID. Just let him keep talking, keep lashing out against religion. It drives most people mad, and away from Darwinism. I mean really, when you read a quote of his like, Ã¢â‚¬Å“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.Ã¢â‚¬Â Do you really need a chapter-by-chapter analysis to realize heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s off his rocker? I guess it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter anyway, since in a world where everything emerges from atoms mindlessly bumping into each other, what is Ã¢â‚¬Å“reasonÃ¢â‚¬Â? How about science? Who cares?shaner74_{October 11, 2006
October
10
Oct
11
11
2006
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

Do we get to choose which three? Not that I could design my way out of a paper box...johnnyb_{October 11, 2006
October
10
Oct
11
11
2006
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

Bill, To match his site, you're going to have to become as vain as RD and go get several "natural" photos of yourself doing daily activities and such.. . to randmoize them in display on the webpage As for the format, I think his site looks nice, but his site is at the very borderline of becoming too busy looking... much more and his site would look like the classified section of any newspaper. I'd shoot for something a little more resource wise, as nifty, but not near as busy. Remember remember Google the winner. - simplicity -JGuy_{October 11, 2006
October
10
Oct
11
11
2006
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

Here is something one of the posters around here might want to consider. That is a discussion of a Dawkins book, chapter by chapter. Each chapter would be a different thread and then those who want to participate would read the chapter and comment on what is deceptive in the chapter, what is good analysis, what is irrelevant etc. Right now I do not know of any resource such as that to evaluate Dawkin's writings. If you want to generate a lot of hits on the website this would be one way of doing it. I think it would generate a lot of interest and it would be onging as people refer to it when ever Sir Richard appears in a thread.jerry_{October 11, 2006
October
10
Oct
11
11
2006
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

I have to second jwreenie's comment. Dawkin's reasoning is persistently faulty and incomplete. Full of logical fallacies so prominent that any logic trained high schooler should spot them. He never takes his ideas to their real logical consequences. Someone should write a book on him and call it "The Dawkins Delusions" or maybe "Just-so Stories inc. - a journey in sophisms" As probably the number one high priest of fanatical Darwinian fundamentalism he ought to wear a Sith cloak and call himself Darth inSidious - long ago drawn to the Dark Side. The real explanation for his *power*! :) A wave of a hand a few mind tricks and bingo feeble minds eat out of his hand like storm troopers before Obi Wan. It's very sad to see the number of loyal disciples he has managed to glean from the fields of atheist "no-God" hopefuls and sci-fi make-believers.Borne_{October 11, 2006
October
10
Oct
11
11
2006
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Why is it described as a "clear thinking oasis" ? Dawkins is probably the fuzziest and sloppiest thinker I think I have ever encountered.jwrennie_{October 11, 2006
October
10
Oct
11
11
2006
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply