The Shorter Denyse O'Leary

1. Insist you reject evolution for scientific, not religious reasons

"They want to be nice. They want me to be nice. They would like everything to be nice... Well, how nice, exactly, are things for anyone who disagrees, based on evidence?... Notice, I said, "based on evidence." Because that is the key."

- Denyse O'Leary, Catholic Darwinists..., 13 Feb 2008

2. Question the faith of Christians who do accept evolution

"the upcoming Evolution Sunday, on which American liberal Protestant clergy will try to sell Darwin's theory of evolution to their congregations."

Denyse O'Leary, Dhimmis for Darwin? ..., 29 Jan 2008


"87% of evoutionary biologists are atheists and agnostics. 78% are pure naturalists (materialists)... That's an astounding figure and points to the fact that Darwinism is a pseudoscience cult - the creation story of militant atheism... The rap against Evolution Sunday is that so many of the churches involved hang very loosely to traditional Christian teachings."

- Denyse O'Leary, ...Evolution Sunday service, 10 Feb 2008

3. Claim religious persecution when people call you a hypocrite.

"...some people really do have their shirts in a knot over other people’s religions. Not as many as over race, by any means, but still... Jewish people are way more at risk than others... If I weren’t so happy being a Catholic, I would be tempted to be a Jew. I wouldn’t be tempted to be an atheist/agnostic, because it doesn’t sound like anyone cares much."

Denyse O'Leary, Hate crimes against religions..., 14 Feb 2008

Further reading: "I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove... No product is ready for competition in the educational world." - Philip Johnson, father of the ID movement, 2006 "Intelligent Design is a really, really bad idea --scientifically, politically, and theologically. I say this as a dedicated conservative, who has on many occasions defended and espoused religion and religious conservatism. I also say it as a professional molecular biologist, who has worked daily (or at least week-daily) for years with biological problems to which the theory of evolution has contributed significant understanding -- and to which Intelligent Design is incapable of contributing any understanding at all." - Mac Johnson, Intelligent Design, and Other Dumb Ideas, 15 Nov 2007 "I don’t believe in intelligent design mainly because there’s no scientific evidence for it, but also because it’s problematic theologically as well. A belief in evolution doesn’t immediately lead one to become an atheist—no matter what the atheists say. It does mean that you can’t take the Bible literally, but with all deference to my Fundamentalist readers (and I use the term “Fundamentalist” in its exact sense, not as a slur), the Bible is not a work designed to be taken literally." - Jay Redding, 18 February 2008 CBEB's: St. Denyse of Leary cries about persecution, then asks for more. Added: "the utter irony is that O'Leary is criticizing an individual scientist for doing what young-earth creationists and proponents of intelligent design do as a rule, consistently, all the time, namely refusing to take seriously the evidence against their views, and allowing their views to be shaped by older paradigms that have been replaced in mainstream science by ones that better fit the evidence." - James McGrath, Exploring Our Matrix, 19 Feb 08

Retro Otherfunk 101

Now playing at Radio Otherfunk... A chance to hear the first episode from August 2006. Take yourself back to those heady days of war in Lebanon... and... erm... whatever was happening to you back then. It all seems a bit hazy.

There's great music including Reunion, a competition, a call for your favorite cover racks, and a "name those tunes" competition, all in a handy 15 minute chunk.

Head over now to Radio Otherfunk, or download here: Radio Otherfunk 101

Enjoy the show.

Uncommonly Undecent

"The time has come," DaveScot said,
"To blog of many things:
Of prizes--math--design inf'rence--
Of morality--Dawkins--
Why the sun's not boiling hot--
And the use of a half-a-wing."

after Lewis Carroll



I mean to blog on so many things. Cloverfield. Veils. Crazy music. Archbishops. Guitar lessons. The nihilism of UK politics in the early twenty-first century. Woo and season four of Lost.

But this week, I have been blogging mainly about the ongoing insanity at Uncommon Descent ("UD"). Where else could the "Blogczar" publicly humiliate a lead ("morphodyke") blogger, say christians who eat meat go to hell, delete several threads, then carry on as if nothing had happened?

Meanwhile the UD stream-of-consciouslessness rolls on, with threads on how tornadoes, picture compression, Nature magazine, the Catholic Church, C S Lewis, John McCain, Evo-devo, Artificial Intelligence, Alfred Wallace, intuition, Mendelism, quantum physics, mathematics, insults, hybridization, fossils and Richard Dawkin's book advances all prove that Darwin was wrong and Jebus lives.

It's a running gag in the microscopic world of tard blogging that no-one reads Uncommon Descent, except sock-puppets and a hand-ball team of voodoo engineers. Indeed, a cursory examination of Google Trends shows that Intelligent Design's impact on the zeitgeist has been negligible:

"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove... No product is ready for competition in the educational world." - Philip Johnson, 2006

Meanwhile William Dembski whines about Dawkins outselling him and pins the absurd Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth on the chest of Holocaust-exploiting snake-oil salesman Ben Stein.

All science so far.

But why, then, does nearly half of the US population believe man did not evolve from earlier lifeforms? Could they be right and science be wrong? Or is this not about science at all? Is it about something else?

Uncommon Descent's Denyse O'Leary argues that the media overstates both the power of the Religious Right and the support for evolution. She wants more power for the first and less for the second. She wants us to embrace religion and disregard science for our own moral good.

But despite UD's rhetoric to the contrary, many religious people accept the scientific evolution for with their faith in God. Many also see that ID is bad theology as well as bad science.

That's why every time the "Intelligent Design" movement is mentioned, it should be alongside the mendacious, hypocritical, and pratfall-slapstick words and behavior of it's leaders.

CBEB's Update 18 Jan:
St. Denyse of Leary cries about persecution, then asks for more

"I hate to disappoint the church burnin’ ebola boys but I won’t be commenting on UD in the future. I just told the smarmy Canadian cross dresser [Denyse O'Leary] to go fuck itself in an email. It would have banned me in any case as it’s nowhere near as cool as Bill Dembski. The stick up its disgusting ass could make a redwood feel inadequate. I’m going to go ahead and forgive Bill for this monumental brainfart as he’s going through some long term bad shit on the homefront with a sick child. I felt bad about bailing out on him at a time like this but he forced my hand. No big deal... P.S. if my dog was as ugly as the Canadian cross dresser I’d shave his ass and teach him to walk backwards... HAHAHA - I kill me sometimes!" - DaveScot, Blogzcar of Uncommon Descent

Edited into shape and to add an easter egg link.

DaveScot [not]Apologises

DaveScot, "BlogCzar" at Uncommon Descent, has issued an apology:

"DaveScot: ... I deleted the “Sterling Example of Anti-Religionists” thread due to many complaints that it was offensive. I want to extend my apologies for my own vulgar contributions that many found to be offensive. When I find myself among the crude and vulgar I tend to participate at the same level rather than rise above it as I should."

Kodus and respect to him for that.

The sorry saga is told here.

If only the rest of Uncommon Descent was so principled.

I apologize too for any offense caused, although I won't pretend it didn't happen.

Update: In the interests of probity, the deleted UD thread is presented here: A Sterling Example of the Anti-religionists

A further update. I was wrong. DaveScot's "apology" is nothing of the sort. If he was truly sorry, he would have deleted the UD thread immediately and apologized for humiliating his colleague. Dembski clearly had no option but to keep DaveScot on. How must Denyse O'Leary feel on all of this? "Morphodyke"? "Smarmy cross dresser"? Is that acceptable discourse at the Discovery Institute ("NAMBLA")?

DaveScot humiliates Denyse O'Leary

Update 13 August: Denyse O'Leary disses PTET (!!!1eleventyone!!!)



Update 18 Jan: Be sure to check out CBEB's:
St. Denyse of Leary cries about persecution, then asks for more



I'm PTET.

Welcome to the blagospheric wilderness.

A few days back, I wrote a post titled Denyse O'Leary: Douchebag for Christ, including a "defaced" picture of the lady in question.

For readers who find this offensive and inappropriate, or who have never heard of Ms O'Leary, I've provided a handy introduction below. Everyone else can skip this bit.

Denyse O'Leary is a pulitzer-eligible journalist. She writes on Uncommon Descent, the blog-home of the Intelligent Design Movement, alongside world-reknowned mathematician William Dembski and genius-level-IQ polymath "Blogczar" DaveScot. Intelligent Design ("ID") is the notion that "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable"- or "Darwin Was Wrong", for short. Almost all of its supporters are religious although some, like DaveScot, are agnostic. However, most religious scientists say ID isn't science. They accept the standard scientific understanding of evolution. Most people do not know this. In 2005, the ID movement was at last poised to supplant Darwinism and bring the scientific establishment to its knees in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. DaveScot predicted certain victory. It ended in humiliating defeat. The ID Movement responded with a flash animation mocking the trial judge Jones, voiced by William Dembski, replete with fart noises . This was, after all, the Christian thing to do. My post was a tilt at the windmill of O'Leary's ignorance about the Christian Right. It was linked to a new endeavor, Blogging on PseudoScientific DoucheBags. I defaced the picture to mark Uncommon Descent's treatment of Judge Jones. I'd posted several times before about figures at Uncommon Descent without anyone flipping out - although I had been banned from commenting there for asking various embarrassing questions. Although I am an atheist, I get on perfectly well with many religious people. Casey, of Casey's Critical Thinking, kindly said: "Thanks for stopping by, PTET. I admire your wittiness. You do have a way with words, even if we don't agree. I find your posts entertaining, even though I'm on the opposite side of the debate." I'm not perfect. I make mistakes. But, like Denyse, I am not a bad person.

In an breathtaking move to humiliate his colleague Denyse, DaveScot linked to my post from the front age of Uncommon Descent ("UD"). This is a rare event. UD readers aren't usually allowed out their walled garden, which keeps them ignorant and in-line.

He must have known that lurkers would appear, to publicise his own past bizarre attacks on Denyse O'Leary:

"I hate to disappoint the church burnin’ ebola boys but I won’t be commenting on UD in the future. I just told the smarmy Canadian cross dresser to go fuck itself in an email. It would have banned me in any case as it’s nowhere near as cool as Bill Dembski. The stick up its disgusting ass could make a redwood feel inadequate. I’m going to go ahead and forgive Bill for this monumental brainfart as he’s going through some long term bad shit on the homefront with a sick child. I felt bad about bailing out on him at a time like this but he forced my hand. No big deal...

P.S. if my dog was as ugly as the Canadian cross dresser I’d shave his ass and teach him to walk backwards... HAHAHA - I kill me sometimes!"

He'd also called Denyse a "morphodyke"

Even so, Dave took the moral high ground, claiming his rudeness was down to four years in the Marines and being an ex-Darwinist, and explaining:

"[Denyse] never liked me and the feeling is mutual. Dembski likes both of us so to keep peace in the family we're civil with each other but that's about as far as it goes.

I will however defend her religious beliefs, even though I don't share them, and expose any anti-religious fuckwads of the sort that cluster around blogs like this piece of shit."

As UD-regular larrynormanfan pointed out, I did not attack Denyse O'Leary for her religious beliefs.

Aaaaaaaanway.

A big thanks to everyone who commented on the original thread. I owe you all beers.

While we all wait for Uncommon Descent to finally implode once and for all, please have a look around :)

The Argument Regarding Design
God is a Poopyhead
7 Questions Intelligent Design Can't Answer
7 Evidences For Cdesign Proponentsism
It's all too much at UD
Radio Otherfunk - Darwin Day Special

UPDATE: 15 Feb 08:
Uncommon Descent have broken their link to my original post, so their readers will think my page is gone. They have demoted their thread to hide it. How nice.

For more on this messy story, see Mr DNA's hilarious Vincent Edward St. Francis: Deep Cover Sockpuppet at CBEBs!

Update 2: DaveScot has now apologised for his behavior. Kind of. Credit to him for that.

The Argument Regarding Design

The History of every major Galactic Civilization tends to pass through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of Survival, Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How, Why and Where phases.

For instance, the first phase is characterized by the question "How can we eat?", the second by the question "Why do we eat?" and the third by the question, "Where shall we have lunch?"

- from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, by Douglas Adams


By the end of the twentieth century, the Western World thought it was pretty damn smart. Science in agriculture meant no-one went hungry. (No-one worth speaking of, anyway). Science in nutrition and medicine brought long life to most. And science in capitalism brought us a wide range of affordable choices of where and what to eat.

But in the twenty first century, some people want to push us back from the third phase.

While writing this post, I found my very argument used in an old entry at Confessing Evangelical:

...the religious "How?" phase is probably the most fertile ground for the Gospel...

In the "Why?" phase, things can get trickier... because people are assaulting the foundations on which its proclamation rests... But at least people in the "Why?" phase can be reasoned with, and persuaded to reconsider their position in the light of biblical teaching.

However, people in the "Where shall we have lunch?" phase can be very difficult to reach, since they will listen and nod politely as we proclaim the Gospel, before... turning away to see what else is on the menu...

The primary tool being used to push culture back from questions of "Where" to questions of "Why" is known in skeptical circles as The Argument Regarding Design, or "TARD".

It goes thusly: Many people think the The Universe appears to be "designed". The mere existence of life, the universe and everything seems so remarkable, wondrous and ridiculous that it just has to have an explanation, and it's reasonable, they say, to infer that this explanation is "god".

This argument has never convinced everyone. In fact, more people than ever see the notion of "god" as a human construct. None of this means that God does not exist, of course, or that non-believers don't think that the universe is remarkable, wondrous and ridiculous.

But we live in a cultural battleground, and for as long as TARD has existed, some have sought to argue that unbelief is unreasonable - and even dangerous.

Warriors for TARD such as William Dembski, William Lane Craig and Denyse O'Leary seek to head a vanguard of churchmen, bloggers and lay commentators all arguing that without "god" or some similar designer, the Universe and everything in it simply could not and would not exist. There would be no life, no evolution, no human laws, no scientific "laws", no mathematics, and no moral standards.

To non believers, this is begging the question, amongst any number of other logical fallacies.

Only the droolingly delusional would argue that life, evolution, scientific "laws", mathematics and moral standards don't exist to some extent or another; quite a lot of people don't agree that "god" exists; and even amongst those who agree that "god" exists, there's a wide range of interpretation as to what "god" might be.

Worse, throughout history even "believers" have accepted that TARD is only compelling to other believers. Their conclusion? Non-believers do believe secretly - they just pretend they don't. This is TARD writ large.

Does God exist? Maybe he does, maybe he doesnae.

The problem for non-believers is that some people who use TARD also believe in all sorts of crazy nonsense, whether it's seventy-two virgins or Jesus riding dinosaurs. That's pure TARD.

That's not to say people who accept The Argument From Design aren't smart. Some are beyond brilliant. And it's also not to say that God doesn't exist or that the Universe isn't designed or that only atheists are right or anything like that. It's just saying that TARD can never prove that disbelief is unreasonable.

So here, in its place, is a call for unity - a call to make sure we don't end up being broadsided by people who want to bomb us back to the first question.

Whoever we are, believers and non-believers, let's stop pretending we have all the answers. Lets work together to ensure that no-one has to ask "how can we eat". And please, while we keep asking "why do we eat", lets not be so foolish as to pretend that there's only one place to have lunch.




"Let me get this straight: You believe that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father will let you live forever if you pretend to eat his flesh, drink his blood, and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that he put there a long time ago as punishment for all humanity because a rib-woman made from a dust-man was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a magical tree." - Unknown

"...a series of diverse sects pretty much all of whom believe that the eternal intelligent entity, who supposedly created the entire awesome expanse of the universe and every creature in it, sent one part of his threefold yet singular self disguised as an ape to this insignificant planet in a "remote" part of the galaxy to be born to a female ape who'd never had sex, and for who's species there was little to no evidence of parthenogenesis, live like a tit and die nailed to a bit of dead tree two-ish thousand years ago just so some apes could feel good about cornholing their neighbour's wife and coveting a golden calf..." - Louis, AtBC, 13 Feb 2008

Radio Otherfunk - Darwin Day Special

Radio Otherfunk Episode 204 is a Darwin Day special!

Whether you're a creationist, and IDitist, or a Evolutionist, teach the controversy for 20 minutes with some great tunes.

Where else are you going to hear Motorhead, Billy Preston, Josh Ritter, the Louvin Brothers, Toy Zimmerman, Buddy Davis, the Lemmings, MC Hawking and more all on the same bill?"

Check it out - RADIO.OTHERFUNK.COM :)

Denise O'Leary: ******** For *******

Update: 15 Feb 2008 The sorry tale of this post is told here: DaveScot humiliates Denyse O'Leary Update: 22 Aug 2008 PLEASE READ: Juvenilia. An Apology.

Denyse O'Leary is like a goldfish, constantly surprised to to find herself stuck in a bowl.

At Mindless Hack, one her several dozen absurd blogs, she is staggered and amazed to learn that not all white born-again Christians are Republicans. She quotes a Zogby Poll:

"In both Missouri and Tennessee, white evangelicals who ranked jobs and economy as the most important issue area in deciding how to vote far outnumbered those who considered abortion and same-sex marriage most important."

***** Freakin' ******. She would have known that if she'd checked Wikipedia:

The Christian right, while being a fairly large movement, does not represent all evangelicals.... The Christian Left includes some theological conservatives. Many evangelicals in both the United States and abroad are more or less politically neutral.

Hilariously, Denyse blames "media commentators" for creating a "myth of a dangerous Christian Right, poised to take over".

Huh!? If Denyse was able to find her ass with both hands, she'd know that it's the self-declared "Religious Right" itself which has created this myth, for political ends. In the 80s it cynically used the Moral Majority movement to help conservative politicians get elected. More recently, it has used the creation/evolution debacle to try and force Evangelical Christians to choose between "secular" science and religious dogma.

Here's Wikipedia again, or what happened next:

A recent study by the Barna Research Group concluded that most Americans under the age of 40 have a negative view of evangelical Christians as a result of the activities of the Christian Right.

But the well has been poisoned. Many Evangelicals in the USA still think that "evolution" is incompatible with their faith, despite what a great many Christians say to the contrary.

Way to go Denyse.

And oh yeah. I would have gently pointed this all out at her "blog". But she doesn't allow public comments.

She really is a *********.

Ted Haggard... Gayness Cured By Prayer!

Ted Haggard may be a hypocritical lying scumbag, but at least he's not gay. Oh wait.

Not all Fundagelicals are hypocritical lying scumbags, of course. Or gay. If only they could tell the difference just by looking...

Here's a selection of the best blog headlines on this story:

1. Ted Haggard’s Premature Evacuation
   
2. Ted Haggard Premature Ejection From “Restoration Therapy”
   
3. Ted Haggard Leaves De-Gayification Program
   
4. Ted Haggard: Still Gay!!! Not prayed straight!! Who would have thought??
   
5. Ted Haggard... still gay
   
6. Ted Haggard Flunks Straight School
   
7. So is Ted ex-gay, ex-ex-gay, ex-ex-ex-ex gay or what?
   
8. Ted Haggard has left his "treatment" before he got all of the gay out.
   
9. Haggard Quits Re-Straightifying Program
   
10. Ted Haggard quits 'gay cure' program - doomed to life of methy-gayness...
    
11. Ted Haggard Leaves De-Gayification Program
    
12. "Tell Me Reverend, How Much Is It For A Massage and Redemption?"
    
13. Ted Haggard's Church- Ex-Gay Brainwashing Didn't Take
    
14. I'm Not Gay, I Just Really Love Rainbows!
    
15. Mitt Romney, Ted Haggard Drop Out

What's your favourite? Got any better ones?

Have A Happy Sunday

Amadou & Mariam - Senegal Fast Food

J P Holding Doesn't Get It

2008 hasn't started well for the Soldiers of the Lord. Geoff Simmons of the Discovery Institute ("NAMBLA") had his ass handed to him by PZ Myers, and even more fun, self-styled wanker-for-Christ and the least pleasant man in apologetics J P Holding found himself way out of his depth after picking on prickly academic Hector Avalos.

In both cases, even the Christian peanut gallery handed victory to the godless heathens... And both Simmons and Holding have been busy re-writing history with themselves as the winners.

Holding writes at his absurd Tektonics:

"These days I reserve my ammunition for those who might be considered the cream of the crop of the atheist world."

What a twat.

Which brings me to this video:



I'd never seen Holding's face before. I'd always envisaged him as a small chap with a Napoleon complex... But it seems he's as corpulant and as pudding-like as his bully-boy persona.

In this 30 second clip, Holding shows that his years of "study" and "ministry" devoted to convincing himself and the feeble minded that everything happened exactly like he learned in Sunday School has been a total waste of time. He shows himself that his entire life's work and religious vocation depend entirely on his ability to believe one set of fairy tales and disbelieve all others.

But hey. I'm sure he treats his dogs well.

Here's JohnLArmstrong answering Holding's question, in case anyone missed it:



Game, set and match.




Edit: Since Holding pretends his belief in the Resurrection is based on solid historical evidence, he deserves one of these...

Update: RDTWOT asks of this post, Why are anti-theists so hostile?

Friends of God

I've yet to see the documentary "Friends of God", but this clip is quite a taster. The inherent nihilism of Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity is laid bare here.

The "Behemoth Is A Dinosaur" song is so marvelous I decided I must have it. I couldn't find a downloadable version, so I tripped off to pay my $19.99 to Answers In Genesis, only to find they wanted to charge me an extra $68.21 in shipping. What a rip! I've decided to pray really hard, and see if I can get hold of a copy that way.



The original video link is dead - so I've substituted the trailer. The bit where Ted Haggard and the evangelicals lie about their sex lives is priceless. See the movie. It's great.

1,391,575th in the blogosphere

I guess rising from 4.5 millionth to 1.3 millionth in the blogosphere is something to celebrate. "Philosopgy". Oops. Fixed now but immortalized here :)

I've left some thoughts at the new Blogging on PseudoScientific DoucheBags. If that sounds like your bag, check it out.

In other news... Radio Otherfunk has an all new rap special for your listening pleasure. And you can even subscribe straight to iTunes. The wonders of technology.

And I've finally got subscriptions worked out for this blog. Whoop-de-do!

Have a great weekend. Unless you're one of my enemies. In which case have an alright-but-not-too-special weekend.

It's all too much at UD...

The fallout from PZ Myers annihilation of ID Creationism & Geoffrey Simmons on Christian Radio rumbles on hilariously.

Meanwhile Ucommon Descent "Blogczar" DaveScot's already tenuous grip on reality has slipped still further away. He is now claiming that he didn't delete the infamous thread where UD's own readers conceded PZ had won the debate hands down. One comment which still seems to be missing in action at UD is this from bfast:

"In my opinion we should just close our eyes and pretend that this debate never happened."

That advise is clearly difficult for UD's readers to follow, as these reader comments show:

Mapou
01/30/2008
1:55 pm

It’s clear to me that ID needs a major event, something so big that it will knock everybody’s socks off, scientists and laymen alike. Somehow, I don’t think that debates, arguments, movies and websites are going to cut it. I may sound like a pessimist but deep down, I’m an optimist. There is no doubt in my mind that we’ll win this fight when the time comes and we’ll win it hands down. When that happens, the enemy will be totally discredited and ridiculed. There is a mountain of crow waiting just for them.

mike1962
02/07/2008
5:09 pm

...darwinist materialists often act hypocritically when they seek to maintain a reputation of loving truth where ever the facts lead, when, in fact, they often engage in lies, deceit, half-truth, character assassination, political maniputation, etc., for their own ends. Some of us think they should be taken to task for it. It’s time to make a cord of whips.

Mountain of crow? Cord of whips?

So what's next for Uncommon Descent? Kool Aid all round? A snipers rifle and a clock tower?

Given the latest of news of ID Theory's complete and utter failure as science, the end - or at least an end - surely can't be far away.

Denyse O'Leary: IDiot for God

Update 13 August: Denyse O'Leary disses PTET (!!!1eleventyone!!!)



No-one embodies the intellectual, moral and spiritual vacuity of the "Intelligent Design" movement more than Denyse O'Leary.

The Canadian journalist's inability to process information contradicting her petty prejudices is legendary. A recent post at Uncommon Descent lays into what she terms Intelligent design and its enemies:

"Looking at the big picture over the past seven years (when I first started to take the intelligent design controversy seriously), one item stands out: The behaviour of the promoters of Darwinian evolution."

For O'Leary, the problem is not that ID has produced no research, no science, and no substance... It isn't the rejection of "ID Theory" by the scientific establishment and even conservative religious scientists, nor its catastrophic court defeat at Dover... It isn't even that ID has failed utterly in its own terms and goals as set out in the Wedge strategy and elsewhere... It is that people have been mean in pointing these things out.

Incredibly, after seven years of writing on the topic, O'Leary still seems clueless about what "science, "research" or "evidence" actually mean.

After a scattershot paranoic attack on her "enemies", O'Leary promotes her latest column in Mens News Daily ("ranked in the top 75 most popular right of centrer websites for 2007"). This supposed defense of abstinence education for teenage girls links to an item in the Washington Post, which referenced various studies showing such schemes were ineffective.

But O'Leary makes no attempt to address these studies or the issues they discuss. Instead, her readers are treated to a rambling discourse on O'Leary's relationship with her own father and then a list of her previous articles on unrelated topics.

How this challenges the studies reported on the ineffectiveness of abstinence education is not explained. But then to O'Leary and her target audience, explanations are unnecessary - their opinions trump any evidence. "Conservative" is right, "Darwinism" is wrong, and reality is irrelevant.

In another posting at Uncommon Descent O'Leary again links to another of her blogs, this time discussing The real reason why Darwinism is overwhelmingly confirmed - a tale for our times. Again O'Leary shows just how clueless seven years of taking the "controversy seriously" has left her: she still thinks that arguments about how evolution occurs are somehow magically evidence that it has not occurred... And that they are somehow miraculously evidence in favor of "Intelligent Design".

As a final irony, in yet another entry in yet another of her blogs, O'Leary reminds herself that the "Intelligent Design" ain't religion, no siree, lie is just a lot of hooey. Who would have known.

God Is A Poopyhead

I haven't read "The God Delusion" or" God Is Not Great". I don't need effete French intellectuals to tell me how to think...

I was therefore interested to read this in Brent Rasmussen's review of Vox Day's new book called "The Irrational Atheist":

"Day... scrupulously breaks down many of the arguments and claims made by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, and Onfray in their books, and then demonstrates, with meticulously detailed footnotes and references, why each one is flawed in some fashion - logically fallacious, historically inaccurate, mathematically incorrect, or statistically flawed.

This is no surprise. Anyone who thinks they can prove that there is no "greater power" in the Universe is on the same road to delusion as the South Carolina housewife who thinks Jesus helps her biscuits raise in the oven. We're all irrational beings.

The point is, of course, that the burden of proof is on those who want to argue that some definable, understandable, type of God actually does exist... And the whole point of Reason, surely, is to help us keep a collective grip on reality.

In many ways the whole argument is diversionary. As Rasmussen says:

"over the years I have come to realize that being an atheist is only rather secondary to who I am, and how I choose to define myself. First and foremost, I am a husband, and a father. Second, I am an American. After that, I am a civil libertarian politically. Then, I am an atheist.

Weirdly enough, this doesn't put me very far off from Vox Day himself -- except for the whole God and Jesus thing. Heh."

Well put.

Of course, things get gnarly when people insist that their particular irrational view of the world should be imposed on everyone else. We saw it in the 20th century with Facism and Communism, and we're seeing it in this century with religious Fundamentalism.

Over at the amusingly named Casey's Critical Thinking, I got into a discussion with Casey and a commenter on his blog about predestination and free will.

As ever, the conversation swiftly turned to morals in a world without God:

"If your conscience tells you that it is wrong to
rape and murder, what if someone else feels it is perfectly normal to do these things? On what basis can you condemn these actions other than you feel it is wrong?"

I could never work out why anyone would think that this argument is anything more than droolingly cretinous.

But then I had a revelation. I realised Fundamentalist Christians think that in a world without "God" might would be right, the end would justify the means, and no-one would be accountable to anyone because that is precisely how their "God" acts in the Bible.

"He" is accountable to no-one - not even his own rules... Might is Right and He broaches no opposition or dissent... And the End Justifies the Means, since all arguments about "the problem of evil" ultimately come down to God being a bit of a jerk either (a) for reasons beyond our comprehension; or (b) for our own good. (Ht: AtBC).

It's not just the Fundamentalist God which is utterly absurd. The standard "Christian" view of God depends entirely on the Resurrection of Christ meaning something. But we are talking about an all-powerful omnipotent omniscient God: a God who can fix the World Series and watch Angelina Jolie in the Shower any time He wants; a God who can take the pain of a bazillion Supernovas going off directly in his face without flinching. I fail to see what could possibly be impressive about the "suffering" he incurred dying on a cross. He's bloomin' immortal, for heaven's sake.

The God described in the Christian Bible is a dysfunctional father. He is a bully, a tyrant and a psychopath. But beyond that, the mere notion that a Universe-Encompassing being would be so insecure as to require us to believe it and punish us if we don't, is ludicrous.

That's why I can safely say that God is a poopyhead.

LOLTheist: Blasphemy is Teh Funneh

Here's a website that does exactly what it says on the tin. I made the lamb one using Rolfbot.

7 Questions Intelligent Design Can't Answer

A few days back, I wrote about the 7 Evidences For CDesign Proponentsism I just couldn't seem to refute. So why, you ask, haven't I become a True Believer[tm] and signed my blog over to Denyse O'Leary? Well, you know I just might... If only someone could help with these seven questions that "Intelligent Design" just can't seem to answer...

1. Why the censorship?

   For all their bluster about not being invited to all the best science parties, IDers are themselves staggeringly intolerant of debate. Sure, they squabble amongst themselves like a bunch of schoolgirls at the mall... But try asking them simple questions on their home ground, and you'll be shown the door faster than if you'd made a drunken pass at their mother.
   
   Here's one of my questions which Uncommon Descent thought too dangerous to print...

   "[Is] the “designer”... responsible for nature itself (in which case why should we be surprised that the universe works in wondrous ways) or is the designer only responsible for things which do not work in nature?"

   Ask yourself... Why would that question be controversial?
   
   

2. Why the deliberate ignorance?

   In the same thread at Uncommon Descent, "Unlettered and Ordinary" wrote:

   "Why do you think very skeptical atheists after studying the universes physics become theists? The same goes for some who study the OOL inquiry. No one twists their arm, they come to the conclution after studying the evidence that these things were designed."

   Here's my reply which was blocked:

   "Physicists are substantially less likely to believe in God than the general population. Biologists are even less likely."

   It seems that True Believer[tm]s don't like to be bothered with little things like "facts".
   
   

3. What do engineers know?

   Why on earth do IDers think engineers should know more about biology than biologists? CBEB picked up on this whacko comment at UD:

   "...how much does this guy know about biology? I would suspect that any “brilliant” electrical engineer would line up with us software developers to voice his incredulity."

   You have to wonder how these IDers would they like it if biologists came and told them how to fix cash registers and comment their Java code...
   
   

4. If it's not about religion, why the Bible stuff?

   Throw a rock at UD, and hit a Bible quote. One user, Lutepisc, quoted Isiah and Psalms in one post, and scolded me for asking him if "the God of Abraham" was the "Intelligent Designer" in the next:

   "Why not seek an answer to your question at a church, synagogue, or mosque? Why ask it on an ID blog? (Unless, of course, you’re basically here trolling…)"

   Remember - he had quoted the Bible to me...
   
   

5. What else has "materialistic ideology" subverted?

   Every page at Uncommon Descent trumpets:

   "Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted."

   WTF? Do these guys use non-materialistic ideologies when building bridges or making computer chips? Do they sacrifice goats to keep struts from falling, or have to bat invisible dancing pixies away from subroutines? Do they cast runes to find out legal precedents? If not, why on Earth do they think biologists should be troubled by such concerns?
   
   

6. Who designed the designer?

   Here's another question you can't ask at Uncommon Descent. Literally. Even ID supporters are not allowed to ask it. Why? Because the obvious answer ("It's Intelligent Designers all the way down") shows the whole ID-as-science enterprise to be completely, utterly, and irredeemably vacuous.
   
   

7. Where's the science?

   The Wedge Document was written in 1998. And yet ten years later, despite the delusional aspirations and beliefs of ID's supporters, even William Demski and Michael Behe admit that ID hasn't "yet" produced any science. One day soon Howard Ahmanson, Jr. is going to want to know what's happened to all his money. At least Dembski has one comfort... No-one thinks he's being spending it on clothes...

So there you have it. If any IDers would like to take a stab at answering any of these questions, please, you can comment here.

Casey Luskin - The Chuck Norris Of cDesign

Word comes from ERV that noted scientist and Discovery Institute ("NAMBLA") attack-dog Casey Luskin has sent out a scary "lawyer letter" demanding "copyright" pictures of himself be removed from the internet.

Laskin, the Chuck Norris of the cDesign Movement, knows a thing or two about copyright, having a hand in warding off allegations that William "Wild Bill" Dembski ripped off some video for one of his "presentations".

It is not known whether Laskin, picutred here, was involved in the recent theft of an M&M Parody by the noted peer-reviewed science-ology journal "Uncommonly Dense".

Meanwhile, Chuck Norris, the Casey Luskin of the action-movie world, has attracted controversy himself.

Fans of the noted not-gay scientist and movie tough-guy have rallied to his defense after a Republican Party hack called for an improbable "boycott" of Norris because, amongst other things, he does not believe in Evolution. The Church Burning Ebola Boys have more, including some priceless nonsense from Chuck's fans.

In other news... My comments awaiting moderation at UD have now been deleted for good. I can only presume they were scared the whole edifice of CDesign Proponentsism would have crashed to the ground if my words had been printed. Damn their eyes! If only there was somewhere else I could publish what I had to say. Well, somewhere where one could get insider the hermetically-sealed minds of the typical ID supporter would be nice...

Apart from that it's been a quiet day on the blogosphere. If you're looking for something remarkable, check out CBEB’s Hillbilly Gospel Show.

(And if Luskin's lawyers would like his picture removed from this blog entry, all they have to do is ask).



Update: Luskin tries to roundhouse kick ERV and falls on his ass - More here.

Radio Otherfunk has a whacked out Country Special - check it out.

Teach The Controversy? Not in ID-land...

It's a sad day for free speech. I've only been back blogging a short while, and already I'm being silenced. It's like there is some sort of conspiracy...

First, Reasonable Kansans wouldn't publish my comment on their blog entry about what a nasty racist Charles Darwin was. All I did was agree with them that racism didn't exist before Darwin. What's so controversial about that?

Then, the very same blog ripped off my crappy picture of Darwin with scary eyes and didn't even say where they got it from. That's cold, man.

Even worse, I have a whole bunch of comments "awaiting moderation" on a thread at the ID Blog Uncommon Descent. There's nothing rude in them... But I guess they might be considered "awkward questions". I mean - are my meandering words really going to bring the whole edifice of ID down if they are published? It seems unlikely.

And finally, due no doubt to some administrative oversight, my access to the press section of the forthcoming movie "Expelled" seems to have been revoked. I can't think why.

I'm not saying in the slightest that blog owners should not have the right to moderate or even delete comments... But one has to ask oneself, surely, why Creationist and ID websites and blogs practically never link to sites with opposing viewpoints. Compare that with their "enemies". We almost universally do link to creationists and IDers.

Ask yourself why.

For now, I'm going to try that "faith" I keep hearing about. I'm going to pray really hard, and maybe, just maybe, Godthe Intelligent Designer will speak to someone with the courage to stand up to censorship (Enbay Einstay!?) who will come to my rescue.

After all, we know for a fact that the ID community regularly use the supernatural in their work as engineers, lawyers, journalists, computer scientists and speech writers. That's how they are so sure that "Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins". If it works for the ID crowd, surely it will work for me too!

I'll let you know if anything changes. Fingers crossed. Pray for me.



Update 1:

Reasonable Kansans let me comment on the ripped-off-picture:

LOL...Oh, I knew you'd be slithering around soon enough and provide us with said link.

Thanks for a horrible night's sleep. Your Darwin is creepy...it made me dream about freaky transitional zombies chasing me in an attempt to kill off the weaker link. Oh the HORROR!!!

Nice. Still nothing on their racist Darwin thread. But hey...


Update 2:

My comments are no longer "awaiting moderation" at Uncommon Descent. They've been deleted entirely. Damn! And I was so close to bringing down "Intelligent Design" too. So much for the power of prayer. It's no wonder I hate God so much.