Denyse O'Leary is a very strange individual.
To the rest of the world, "intelligent design" (ID) is deader than disco. For years, its supporters pretended "evolutionism" was on the verge of collapse, and that ID was about to overturn "Darwinism" and revolutionize science. Now, even Michael Medved, long term scourge of liberalism and newly minted Discovery Institute fellow, admits:-
"the important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they [its supporters] need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It’s a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else."Indeed. Despite over a decade of hype, ID has produced no research, no discoveries and no science...
For Denyse however, like the Black Knight in Python's Holy Grail, victory is ever-near.
From her bunker at Uncommon Descent, O'Leary's latest post tells us "Why I Think ID Is Winning".
First, she complains that the unknown processes which created life from non-life over a period of billions of years under circumstances we don't yet understand aren't repeated daily in front of her. Stupid? Yeah - but as she proves time and time again, O'Leary is no scientist. In fact, she seems to have severe problems with her reading comprehension.
Having taken a pop at New Scientist, O'Leary then goes after - would you believe it - me. Yup, PTET, fresh from the blagospheric wilderness... O'Leary blathers:-
"I put New Scientist at the high end. For the low end, try this stuff. These people sesem, for the most part, incapable of a civilized argument - or at least that is how they choose to represent themselves. That can’t be good news for their cause."
Huh? Has Denyse actually read this blog? I very much doubt it. I myself was banned from Uncommon Descent long ago - like anyone else who dares ask questions which embarrass O'Leary and her idiot colleagues. Sure, I've been rude to Denyse. I've even apologized for that. But, for the life of me, I can't see why my occasional posts or my irrelevant blog (2,638,306th in the blogosphere!) would be evidence of anything... Other than, perhaps, O'Leary's delusional mental state.
Maybe she wants Uncommon Descent's readers to see how it's own "blogczar" DaveScot called her a "Canadian Cross Dresser" and a "Morhpodyke". Who knows?
For the rest of you... Hello and welcome. You can comment here freely. Please take a look around :)
Update 19 August: Juvenalia. An Apology
More PTET v Denyse
On blogging about God & ID
God is a Poopyhead
7 Questions Intelligent Design Can't Answer
7 Evidences For Cdesign Proponentsism
It's all too much at UD
subscribe to PTET
4 comments:
Hey man nice to see you in the UD/morphodyke world again! You're a UD celebrity and shit now. Good work!!!
-They Call Me Mr Tibbs
Denyse obsessively googles herself and the various key words she feels are "her domain." It is often entertaining to watch the sheer amount of cognitive dissonance going through her head when she finds something really juicy.
While UD and the Disco. Inst. may eventually get around to some creative footwork to do damage control on the Medved quote, I think the fact that they've kept mum on it so far indicates the degree to which it's taken them unawares. When they think they have something to say, they usually can't clam up for this long.
The Black Knight is an excellent analogy for O'Leary. Noticed that Dembski didn't agree with her last month when he eulogised Templeton:
"He shared with me regarding his initial investments at the end of the Great Depression and how they paid off big time: he chose 100 stocks that had fallen extremely low and invested $100 in each. When the economy turned around with the coming of WWII, those investments went through the roof. This, as he related, was the start of his brilliant investment career. That story is mentioned in the obituary linked to above; he must have told it a lot! Question: If ideas are like stocks, would this be a good time to invest in ID?"
To me that sounds like a pretty clear admission that, at least on the face of it, ID's stocks are now low. His "ideas are like stocks" schtick implies that they go in and out of favour without any regard for whether they have merit or not, which means even if ID does go up because it's fashionable, it'll go down again later. He and O'Leary should really confer on strategy; are they playing near-winner or temporary loser?
Stewart
Thanks guys :)
It does seem that the gig is up for the Disco Institute...
However, there seems to be an infinite number of lunatics lined up to oppose "Darwinism" no matter what...
So I don't think we need to sorry *too* much about Denyse O'Leary or Dr Dr Dr Bill starving any time soon ;/
Post a Comment