Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Signature in the Cell: Darwinist demands to rewrite product copy

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

But why should that be a surprise? Of course, Darwinists don’t want anyone to read Signature in the Cell. Darwinism is a tax-funded origins cult, especially noxious in countries like the United States and Canada, which do not have and – for good reasons* – do not want established religions.

Yes, I have in my files a recent brownbagged letter, written to Amazon by a Darwinist, demanding that the editorial description of Signature be altered to reflect Darwinist bias.

Some useless flunky actually assured the Darwinist that these changes would indeed be made.

When I protested, I received an insulting e-mail assuring me that the ‘Zon guys understand that I might be upset, but that Amazon does not “support or promote hatred or criminal acts.”

Upset? That doesn’t cover the half of it.

I am a Canadian free speech journalist. A minor one to be sure but we have been kicking butt up and down the country with benighted sons of ditches like him, and their arrogant bosses.

I have had a good relationship with the ‘Zon over the years, and sold many books for them. But … if they cave to some aggrieved Darwin scammer – just another tax burden, really – I am transferring all my business to Barnes & Noble, and I recommend that all good citizens do the same.

It doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with me about Darwinism. Why on earth should these people have dictatorial rights over a private company’s business?

Oh wait, if you are a Darwinist, maybe you know that you are right, and you should rule, and that no one must be permitted to simply publish a book showing that your theories are inadequate to nature, without your interference.

Well then, the remaining good citizens must step into the breach.

*For one thing, countries tend to be more religious when the government avoids meddling. That’s why religious people here want the government out of religion. Except for Darwinists, who need to impose their unbelievable beliefs by law.

Anika Smith at the Discovery Institute also advises me that Meyer is World Magazine’s Daniel of the Year. I’m not sure how helpful that is. Basically, Darwinism is wrong no matter what one’s religion, unless it is atheistic materialism – in which case Darwinism is the only game in town, and tax-funded to boot. But re Daniels, I submit to more experienced judgement.

Also, from Evolution News and Views:

The continued success of Signature In The Cell has driven Darwinists crazy. They’re desperately making louder and ever more ridiculous denunciations of the book and anyone who might have the temerity to suggest people read it for themselves.

An interesting and informative back and forth has been taking place on the pages of the Times Literary Supplement, where last month noted atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel recommended SITC as one of the best books of the year. Not surprisingly, he was attacked (he responded, and he was attacked again) by a Darwinist who told people forgo reading SITC and instead just read Wikipedia. Is this what passes for civil discourse on important topics now? Just ignore the arguments you don’t like? A pretty pathetic state of affairs if true.

Go here for the rest and for the links.

Never mind what you think of Darwinism. If you think that ‘crats are not smart enough to run your life and do all your thinking for you – join the revolution now.

Go here for intellectual freedom news from Canada.

Comments
Cabal:
"Not all of them, I presume. I, for one, am laughing."
Go look in a mirror. Keep laughing. Who are you laughing at? Yourself of course. Keep laughing, sooner or later...Borne
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
I have been reading some of the one-star reviews of Dr. Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell at http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472786/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top and I have to say I am disappointed at their mediocrity and lack of substance. Few of the negative reviewers evince any sign of having read the book. Even those one-star reviewers who have read it rarely make any attempt to summarize its best arguments and address them - which is the proper way to critique a book with which one disagrees. Instead, critics of Dr. Meyer's book have argued with wearying regularity that: (i) it is creationism in disguise; (ii) it is not science because it invokes the supernatural; (iii) it makes no predictions; and (iv) it contains nothing new. All of these criticisms miss the mark. Professor Bradley Monton (who is, by the way, an atheist) makes a powerful case that intelligent design is not inherently theistic, in his online essay, Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision . In the same essay, Professor Monton skilfully dismantles the argument that intelligent design is not science. Although belief in intelligent design neither requires or implies belief in the supernatural, the oft-repeated claim that science can have no truck with the supernatural is simply mistaken. In an blog post by Professor Bradley Monton entitled Physicist Sean Carroll agrees with me on methodological naturalism (October 19, 2009), Monton writes:
In my (by now somewhat infamous) discussion of the Dover trial (which occurs here, and in Chapter 2 of my book [ https://www.broadviewpress.com/product.php?productid=952&cat=0&page=1 ]), I took issue with Judge Jones (and with Robert Pennock) for endorsing methodological naturalism, understood as the claim that science can’t in principle investigate supernatural phenomena. I was happy to come across an article by physicist Sean Carroll where he endorses the same anti-methodogical-naturalism point that I do:
There’s no obstacle in principle to imagining that the normal progress of science could one day conclude that the invocation of a supernatural component was the best way of understanding the universe. Indeed, this scenario is basically the hope of most proponents of Intelligent Design. The point is not that this couldn’t possibly happen — it’s that it hasn’t happened in our actual world.
I’ve been given a hard time for saying this, so I’m happy to see smart people agreeing with me.
The silliness of leading one-star critic Kevin McCarthy's assertion that "There are no predictions" in Dr. Meyer's book can be seen by the fact that another one-star critic, John Kwok, in the review immediately following McCarthy's, acknowledges that Dr. Meyer "notably, offers a series of testable hypotheses in a technically-minded Appendix that could establish Intelligent Design as a viable scientific theory capable of making many important predictions and discoveries in all aspects of biology, especially, for example, in molecular biology and epidemiology." In the interests of reporting accuracy, I should add that Kwok describes Dr. Meyer as a "mendacious intellectual pornographer," lambasts his book as "an intellectual exercise in smoke and mirrors," and then goes on to find fault with one of his claims: that during the Earth's history, newly emergent life-forms should show a 'top-down' pattern of appearance, in which large-scale differences in form precede small ones. Kwok argues that this is inconsistent with the mass extinctions occurring in the fossil record. Ironically, Kwok's argument demonstrates that at the very least, Dr. Meyer is putting forward a scientifically falsifiable claim. Finally, the assertion by one-star reviewer Kevin McCarthy that "the exact same arguments were used by Behe almost 15 years ago" is refuted by the grudging praise offered by evolutionary biologist John Kwok: "I will concede that Meyer is uncommonly good..." - even if he does go on to add: "but he's uncommonly good as both a shill for the Dishonesty Institute and as a mendacious intellectual pornographer pretending to be a credible historian and philosopher of science." Well, quite a few notable scientists and philosophers of science disagree with John Kwok. See here for their positive reviews of Dr. Meyer's work. But it is the shrillness of the attacks by the one-star reviewers, more than anything else, that betrays the poverty of their arguments, as well as their lack of maturity. People who are sure of themselves do not need to shout. To those who are still skeptical of intelligent design, I would like to say: "Look. If you don't like what Dr. Stephen Meyer has written about the origin of life, go and write a better book on the subject. The ball's in your court." In conclusion, if Amazon capitulates to demands by Stephen Wheeler to de-list Dr. Meyer's book as science, then it is showing to all the world that it can be bullied. Such a capitulation, were it to occur, would merit condemnation by people who care about truth.vjtorley
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
I'm pretty certain that Amazon's reply in 5 is a pro-forma, partly because it's not even an appropriate pro-forma: it's clearly intended as a PFO response to complaints about Amazon's decision to stock a particular item. So I don't think it's possible to discern much from that reply about whether or why Amazon intends to alter Signature's blurb.anonym
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
waterbear, if Wheeler has published this, then readers know at least part of the story, I am glad to say, so I have not violated a confidence. FYI, boilerplate or no, I redacted the name of the person who actually sent me the note because he/she is undoubtedly just a cog in a huge wheel system. There is a history of such people taking it in the neck while their more responsible bosses look on and stay safe. And I do not intend to contribute to that history. If the 'Zon carries through with the intent in the correspondence brownbagged to me, part of which appears at Dawkins's site, I will change my supplier. And that is all I intend to - or can do - about it. Not willingly, either. I don't think B&N's architecture is anywhere near as good for a blogger like me. But in bookselling, wholesale corruption in the service of an ideology is far worse than non-blogger-friendly architecture.O'Leary
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
Mrs O'Leary's reluctance as a journalist to publish "brownbagged" correspondence is an admirable protection of the correspndents' confidentiality and of her source's identity. Coincidentally, a letter from one Stephen Wheeler ("that Wheeler guy" in O'Leary's post #7?) to Amazon, and Amazon's reply, was published at Richard Dawkins' website by Stpehen Wheeler few days ago (http://tinyurl.com/y8ppd28). Outrageously, replying to a complaint about wording and a suggested change the zon flunky replies to the darwin scammer with "Thanks for letting us know about the error in the product description. We use many sources to build our website information, and we really appreciate knowing about any errors which find their way into our catalog. I'll notify our catalog team about this and will ask them to correct the error."! This certainly doesn't sound like a boilerplate reply to a letter of the type they received, and is surely a craven example of darwinianist dictatorial tax-funded control over the zon's business.waterbear
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
Seems to me obvious that Amazon doesn't want to appear analogously as "scab" to the striking Evolutionary Biological "union." Someone comes along and writes a book that can be taken seriously that opposes the powers that be and the squelching begins. How predictable––and how nauseating.toc
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
@Nakashima (#1). Mrs O'Leary has brownbagged a letter from a Darwin scammer to the Zon and the reply from the Zon flunky botnik to the tax burden, and summarised their contents here. I don't think it's unreasonable to take her at her word that the exchange shows a demand of dictatorial darwinian control over the Zon's business rather than just someone asking for a change of wording in their on-site advertising. Publishing the text of the correspondence to allow people to make up their own minds about the contents would only impede the work of free speech journalists to kick the arrogant sons of ditches' crat butts up and down the country. Also there might be a risk that publishing the text could reveal how the letters were brownbagged and possibly endanger agents in the field by exposing them to darwinbot retributions.waterbear
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
IrynaB, here you are: A letter that gives notice of my intent to change my supplier if changes to the product copy description are made on a political basis: --- 12/18/09 07:53:54 Your Name:Denyse O'Leary Comments:Dear [redacted], I surely hope you do not really intend to do anything of the kind suggested below. If so, I - who am an active linker to Amazon and have sold many books and other products for you - will very regretfully stop now, and link to Barnes and Noble instead. There has been an active campaign against "Signature in the Cell", of which this is only one phase - attempts to force YOUR COMPANY to rewrite its copy to suit Signature's competitors - because they cannot stand the heat. Okay, look, I understand. Perhaps your company is not situated in a free country. Mine is. If you were to give in to this interference, I could not endorse your services as good quality for my readers, which would be a great grief to me, as in the past I have always found you helpful. How many books has that Wheeler guy sold for you? Please try to understand: Your capitulation to illiberal elements in the science community will not save Darwinism. It will only have the same effect on you as it has had on legacy mainstream media. People go elsewhere for news and services. Thank you very much for considering my comments. Cheers, Denyse O'Leary Journalist, author, and blogger --- PS: IrynaB, I am sorry that your unfamiliarity with English as she is spoke* presents a barrier for you. Many people can easily guess what these terms mean. Some evade child-friendly filters; others are just handy monosyllables. "Free speech journalist" is the designation for Canadian journalists standing up to the soft Euro-style totalitarian state where, for example, French journalists run their copy about the government past the government WILLINGLY. See my "silk stockings" post below. I love interacting with Darwinists because it is fascinating to study an illiberal community up close. It's just not what I am used to. *"English as she is spoke" I am told is the title of a centuries-old manual for Portuguese trying to learn English. It became a catchphrase among English speakers, for obvious reasons.O'Leary
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
Wow, just wow. Definitely one of the most bizarre posts I've ever read. The language... 'Zon? 'crats? Botnik? Sons of ditches? Hull? Free speech journalist? Incredible. I would really like to see the letter you wrote to Amazon. From Amazon's response it seems you were suggesting that Amazon supports hatred or criminal acts.IrynaB
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
Nakashima at 1 and Seversky at 3: I won't publish someone else's brownbagged correspondence, absent a serious threat to the public in general. (Incidentally, I believe that Climategate met that test.) Here is what the 'Zon's botnik told me (I can publish that - or anyway, I had better be able to, because I am just about to): - 0 - Thank you for writing to Amazon.com with your concerns. I understand that you feel very strongly about this issue. As a retailer, our goal is to provide customers with the broadest selection possible so they can find, discover, and buy any item they might be seeking. That selection includes some items which many people may find objectionable. Therefore, the items offered on our website represent a wide spectrum of opinions on a variety of topics. Let me assure you that Amazon.com does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts; we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions. We value all feedback from our customers, and I thank you again for taking the time to send us your comments about this issue. Although we won't be able to comment further on this topic, we hope you'll allow us to continue to serve you. Did we answer your question? - 0 - Naturally, I wrote back and told them that they had not answered my question. I am lying low for a while, as it is possible someone with good sense got through and canned the business of rewriting a product description to suit some peeved Darwinist. Retroman at 4, if you think what I had to say is "a textbook example of slanting, of propagandist writing", I am glad to hope that you do not teach English or Rhetoric. Do you live in an unfree society? And you love it there, right? In which case, all this Nineteen Eighty Four* stuff feels normal? I was a mid-thirtyish adult in 1984, and - so far as I can see - 2009 is far more Nineteen Eighty Four than 1984 ever was. The beauty of it all: So long as governments keep their sticky fingers off the Internet, if you don't like it here, you are only a back browser click away from solving your problem. Until I am sure that the Peeve has not been allowed to dictate copy to the 'Zon, to be run, I will link books/media in future posts to Barnes & Noble. It's a bore and a trouble, but the price one pays for a free society. Point of interest: This sort of thing (a demand to print one's submitted copy) was precisely the issue in the famous case of the Islamic Sock Puppets vs. Maclean's Magazine in Canada last year. The Sox wanted something like five thousand words of free space to respond to an article by Mark Steyn, warning of the dangers of Islamic jihad. And if the Sox didn't get that, they were going to the "human rights" Commission. Briefly, editor Ken Whyte said he would rather go bankrupt, and told them to go to Hull (a boring place on the border between Ontario and Quebec provinces). They went to the "human rights" Commission instead. But guess what - very unusual for our local tinpot Torquemadas (oops, Commissions), the Sox lost. But it's not as simple as to say justice was done. Maclean's, our national news magazine, could afford good lawyers; most victims can't. And even Maclean's can't afford them indefinitely. A number of such cases would cripple them. Of course, there are elements in society to whom such a regime would be admirably suited. Especially peple fronting an unbelievable belief like Islamism, Darwinism, Communism, whatever. *Title of a famous dystopic novel by George Orwell (pen name of Britrish journalist Eric Blair.) O'Leary
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
The word choice of this post, the tone... it is a textbook example of slanting, of propagandist writing. I will bookmark it.Retroman
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
May I offer my support for Nakashima's request to have the correspondence published in the interests of full disclosure? I am curious as to why Amazon should refer to the "promotion" of "hatred" or "criminal acts". Nothing I have read about Meyer's book suggests it refers to any such thing.Seversky
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
O'Leary:
The continued success of Signature In The Cell has driven Darwinists crazy.
Not all of them, I presume. I, for one, am laughing.Cabal
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT
Mrs O'Leary, In the spirit of transparency, would you share that letter and the response you received? I think it would be illuminating to see Amazon agreeing to change text provided by the publisher.Nakashima
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PDT
Please keep us updated on this issue. If Amazon buckles to the darwinian mafia, I will be sending a letter informing them that the many dollars I spend there each year, will now be going to Chapters/Indigo.Blue_Savannah
December 20, 2009
December
12
Dec
20
20
2009
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT
I hear that modern Darwinists, to a man (and woman), are members of the Misologist Society.Mung
December 19, 2009
December
12
Dec
19
19
2009
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT
I am a Canadian free speech journalist
But does this necessarily mean that you can publish whatever you want on a privately owned newspaper or journal? Amazon is not even this, it is just a commercial web page and should not be mistaken for Spaeaker's Corner.osteonectin
December 19, 2009
December
12
Dec
19
19
2009
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply