(Note addendum to this post: the infamous Uncommon Descent memory hole is in operation.)
A while back, Bill Dembski was bragging about how he was going to be snuffling about Baylor University, affiliating himself with an ID research lab there. It was a strange situation: a serious lab working on ID problems? OK, we’ve been asking them to do this for a long time. But then to associate itself with a weirdo like Dembski? One step forward, ten steps back.
Here’s a fun interview with my friend and colleague Robert Marks. I hope you catch from the interview the ambitiousness of the lab and how it promises to put people like Christoph Adami and Rob Pennock out of business (compare www.evolutionaryinformatics.org with devolab.cse.msu.edu).
Yes, do compare. The MSU link takes you to the Avida group doing research on digital evolution; the other link…well, it’s defunct. It makes Dembski’s arrogant claim rather amusing, don’t you think? I don’t think his reputation as a prophet is holding up well.
Apparently, Baylor pulled the plug on their lab. It seems that this was not a Baylor-supported initiative, but was an entirely independent idea from Robert Marks, and they did not like the fact that there were implications that this work was being done under their sponsorship. It is also amusingly revealed that this “lab” actually had no physical location, but was actually some kind of virtual entity, and that Marks was merely “signifying his wish to use a computer to analyze problems in evolution”. I’m so inspired by this, I think we’re going to have to start referring to Pharyngula labs — it’ll work if I throw a white lab coat on over my pajamas, won’t it?
“Apparently” is emphasized in the paragraph above, though, because the source of all this information is Uncommon Descent, which is the very personification of untrustworthiness. As if to emphasize that fact, UD also posted a purported letter from Baylor president John Lilley. It is a bizarre document that sounds like nothing I’ve ever read from the head of a university; despite my sympathy with its anti-creationist sentiments, I’d find it a little weird to have an administrator dictating what a department is allowed to consider science … and it’s a little unlikely that the head of a conservative Baptist college would be quite so forcefully opposed to a religious idea. It was very suspicious.
The commenters over there bought it without hesitation, though; the author (suspected of being Dembski himself, posting under an alias) had to belatedly add a disclaimer that the letter was a parody. A parody of what has not been explained.
As Wesley notes, it’s a weird situation. Dembski has long been doing this desperate dance to maintain some tenuous connection to Baylor, a place with considerably more prestige than the bible college he’s at now, and all he’s ever managed to do is stick his foot in his mouth and alienate himself still further. This is another case; I wouldn’t be surprised if the Baylor president is wishing there were some way to kick this persistent kook off his campus forever.
Being a politic fellow, though, as most university presidents are, he won’t say that, ever. Maybe the paranoid creationists at UD should forge another letter with Lilley saying, “Will no one rid me of this troublesome creationist?”
Dembski has now deleted the “parody” comment and all of its comments, and instead makes this ridiculous accusation:
Clearly, readers of UD fell for it, but so did many people on the other side, judging by all the many emails they sent President Lilley to confirm whether Botnik’s parody actually represented Lilley’s words.
No. The people on my side were rightly incredulous that Lilley had written it, and were also loathe to believe that UD would sink that low (we should know better now). Faced with two unbelievable explanations, people tried to resolve the dilemma by writing to the one person in the affair who we could expect would respond honestly — and it wasn’t the nuts on the ID side.
While the original post in poor taste has been deleted at UD, the Panda’s Thumb has preserved a copy.
Who needs the lab coat? If there can be writers pretending to be journalists under the banner Pajamas Media, why not people pretending to be researchers while sitting around in their jammies?
Or did the Disco Institute beat us to this idea?
In that case, Muppet Labs was more real (and closer to doing science)! :-D
Surely, PZ, you’ve spent enough time in an academic setting to know that there’s nothing surprising about virtual “centers” and “institutes” that exist only on paper, waiting for money and an opportunity to turn themselves into something more substantial. I’ve seen a number of these at several institutions, attached like little remoras to their host department. It’s an essential part of academic turf construction.
“Pharyngula Labs” is hardly ambitious enough. How about, “Pharyngula Center for Smackdown Science,” or “Pharyngula Institute for the Identification of ID-influenced Initiatives”? Let your imagination run wild…
“Centers” and “Institutes” and “Groups”, yes — calling them “Labs” is a little weird, though. and you don’t get to claim institutional affiliation just because you feel like it. If I arbitrarily decided to create the “Pharyngula Institute for the Promotion of Godlessness” and put it on one of the academic hosts I have access to, and pretended it was an official group under the umbrella of UMM, I think I could expect to be deservedly slapped down in very short order.
I, Bill Dembski, express my most sincere apology to President John M. Lilley of Baylor University for posting a forged correspondence on my website, Uncommon Descent, and attributing it to him. It was intended as a parody of the more professional decorum with which university presidents are expected to conduct themselves, but my readers have found it neither obviously false nor humorous. I deeply regret the damage President Lilley’s reputation may have suffered as a result of my ill-conceived prank.
Pharyngula Institute for Spreading Science and Ungodly Philosophy? ;-)
Bill Dembski has now been “outed” as the perpetrator of the childish hoax on his “Uncommon Descent” site, by his (somewhat) more mature henchperson, Denyse O’Leary, who quickly saw the potential train-wreck and persuaded Dembski to put a (belated) “parody” heading on his completely fabricated post. But until Denyse stepped in, I think Dembski thought people would buy the purported letter from Baylor’s president, John Lilley, as real. I’m sure Lilley, who now knows about this escapade, was not amused at all.
Fun, isn’t it? So much so you seem to have missed the good news from Sal. He’s taking night classes, and doesn’t want to annoy his teachers.
Although he almost failed that (follow that thread of the comments: if you get to the AIDS denier, you’ve gone too far).
Bob
peter – do you have a link to say that it was specifically WmAD that did this? Enquiring church-burning ebola boys want to know!
Bob
I’m running a lab right now. I’m currently looking into the vexed question of whether one man can eat chicken legs, watch soccer on TV and check his RSS all at the same time, how much mess he’s going to make and when he might stop long enough to clean it all up. It’s vital work. I bet you’re all running labs too.
It strikes me as the kind of “lab” where you send in a few cereal box tops, and they send you a set of mouse ears and a decoder ring, and voila!
The Intelligent Design Laboratory Environment at Baylor University for Nitwits and Knee-jerkers.
In reply to Bob O’H, Denyse O’Leary all-but-confirmed to me that Dembski wrote the hoax letter, after I told her I suspected his authorship, telling me that “Botnik” was someone “of whose identity I suspect there is little doubt.” Dembski hasn’t denied it, although I’ve given him the opportunity to do so.
I think he got envious over Prof Steve Steve and attempted to out satirize U of E.
What is it about all these engineers suddenly championing ID? I was ambushed by an engineering professor the other day who was trying to tell me that Evolution and Free Will were mutually exclusive. I think he was thinking of the brain too much like one of the AI programs he works on…
There are legitimate informatics research efforts incorporating evolutionary biology and evo-devo; good riddance to this stalking horse.
The misrepresentation regarding Baylor that got them slapped down is funny in a schadenfreudlich way; it’s not particularly surprising, though–deception seems inherent in their modus operandi.
test — seems suddenly my comments are being held for moderation for some reason.
If you read through the comments at UD, “botnik” says what might be the most hilarious thing ever said on that blog:
“…but my motto is ‘once on the web, always on the web.'”
(Comment #23)
Because UD never deletes comments of any kind…
My apologies for hijacking the thread, but I saw something in the “park-rangers-versus-creationists” thread that I had to bring up, and I doubt anyone is reading that one still…
CalGeorge (#24) said:
The No Conflictists can go jump in a Kentucky lake. Stop kowtowing to the nuts. If someone wants to believe in and pray to a human being who became undead and flew up to Heaven, I see no reason to be considerate. Being considerate means taking their nutty notions seriously, which I refuse to do.Their god-intoxication is hilarious and they deserve, first and foremost, our laughter.When they become obnoxious, they deserve our scorn.If they attempt to justify their god-beliefs, they deserve to be ripped to shreds.
This REALLY bothers me. I can imagine this is how they talk about us, and the reason why they’re generally willing to lie, cheat, break the law, etc… to get their ridiculous “point” across. I’d hope that my fellow atheists would try to rise above this sort of behavior, no matter their level of frustration. A while back, a lot of frequent comment-writing Pharyngula readers were ragging me about the slippery slope of being “in your face” atheists with the t-shirts, book store re-arranging, etc… but read CalGeorge’s quote above one more time. Sounds like I was right. Maybe it’s time to re-examine your willingness to turn this into some stupid fatwa.
A link to Wesley’s Weird Science is here. He also notes:
If Dembski is behind any of this, it could possibly explain the weirdness. As World Magazine notes:
A link to Wesley’s Weird Science is here. He also notes:
If Dembski is behind any of this, it could possibly explain the weirdness. As World Magazine notes:
How do you get from “Point and laugh at people’s silly beliefs, and tear their justifications apart” to “Lie, cheat and break the law?”
For starters, PZ was essentially saying that government employees should be getting into religious debates on the clock. Um… heard of the Constitution?
Then CalGeorge backs him up, saying that these folks don’t deserve us being considerate, but rather our scorn. And then there’s the whole “ripping to shreds,” bit, which is disturbing.
This sort of thinking always has a way of going too far given enough time.
On the theme of acronyms, I think I like PZ’s original suggestion (#4), but feel it’s important to maintain Pharyngula’s regional flavor, therefore would recommend “Pharyngula Institute of Minnesota for the Promotion of Godlessness”.
DaveX: So you would prefer they carefully avoid saying anything that might upset some religion somewhere? Might as well just shutdown the park.
He didn’t ask for religious debate. If someone demands the park acknowledge the earth is 6000 years old, its not “religion” to point out how silly that is.
Back in 2005, the Poor Man blog renamed itself “The Poor Man Institute for Freedom and Democracy and a Pony.” They provide a handy guide for creating a think tank:
Also notable is that Robert Marks is not barred from discussing religion on the Baylor university site. He has apologetics texts there.
What has gone missing is the “EIlab” pages, where 3 unpublished papers coauthoured with Dembski was presented. John Lynch has a description of how the “Lab” turned out.
Some commenters on Good Math, Bad Math discussed these papers. Commenter secondclass has the best analysis.
In short: As usual Dembski doesn’t prove what he claims. (That he has found an obstacle to evolution, or that a reduction of a search space constitutes measurable “active information”. Their explicit example takes the ev model outside its expressly described applicable parameter space to find it a bad algorithm. And so on.) If those papers sneak past peer review they will be ripped into so much confetti.
Also notable is that Robert Marks is not barred from discussing religion on the Baylor university site. He has apologetics texts there.
What has gone missing is the “EIlab” pages, where 3 unpublished papers coauthoured with Dembski was presented. John Lynch has a description of how the “Lab” turned out.
Some commenters on Good Math, Bad Math discussed these papers. Commenter secondclass has the best analysis.
In short: As usual Dembski doesn’t prove what he claims. (That he has found an obstacle to evolution, or that a reduction of a search space constitutes measurable “active information”. Their explicit example takes the ev model outside its expressly described applicable parameter space to find it a bad algorithm. And so on.) If those papers sneak past peer review they will be ripped into so much confetti.
It’s a bit of an aside, but I’d just like to mention that Baylor College of Medicine (where I go to school) is completely unaffiliated with those Baptist nuts up in Waco. Hell, we aren’t even in the same city.
If Dembski is getting smacked down by the administration at a Baptist school like Baylor, I can only imagine what we’d do to him here at BCM.
I think “botnik” is more likely to be O’Leary in this case, not Dembski (not that it matters all that much who it was).
As ridiculous as Dembski is, I still haven’t found much that can compare to Behe’s “Evolution tells us that clouds are related to watermelon’s”* comment.
*:This was a rough paraphrase of what was said.
Totally!! Can I be a lab tech? Can I? Huh? Please?
Correction, it was Gish not Behe who made the watermelon comment. I keep thinking of Behe because of the Dover trial debacle.
Posted by: Nerull | September 2, 2007 2:37 PM
“…some kind of virtual entity…”
All smoke and mirrors. “Poofed” into existence, as it were. If it worked for the unnamed Intelligent Designer, why shouldn’t it work for UD?
It may or may not be silly — that’s completely beside the point. It’s wrong.
It’s demonstrably and demonstratedly wrong. That brings it to the science side of the NOMA line. Therefore it is fair game for a national park service.
It may or may not be silly — that’s completely beside the point. It’s wrong.
It’s demonstrably and demonstratedly wrong. That brings it to the science side of the NOMA line. Therefore it is fair game for a national park service.
The link at Baylor is still working
“Pharyngula Institute for Spreading Science”
Interesting acronym that will make..
What do you think PZ?
STuart
“It’s demonstrably and demonstratedly wrong. That brings it to the science side of the NOMA line. Therefore it is fair game for a national park service.”
But science is ALREADY presented at these national parks. Therefore, I think it is fair that PZ is implying the park do MORE– and it is this rather unqualified “more” that will most likely stray into an unconstitutional area.
Consider another example. Some kid brings up creationist issues repeatedly in biology class. Teacher says, “well, this is the way I’m teaching it– this is what science says, etc…” But of course, this kid continues to disrupt the class with his questions. While they may be relevant to this kid’s life, they’re no longer the province of this teacher. If the teacher goes past his role as someone who presents this information, and begins arguing the issue with this kid, he’s not only short-changing his other students, but stepping outside of his job as a teacher. We ask that Christian teachers present their material, and leave the so-called “greater” questions outside the classroom– partly because of the vulnerability of children, but also because of the Constitution, which seems quite clear on these sorts of matters. How is the nationally-funded park ranger any different?
I’m going to name my house the Idaho Falls branch of Pharyngula Laboratories. It might get embarrassing if PZ never actually establishes the main virtual labs. But if that happens, I can just write a parody letter, I guess.
Why did you ignore the last two letters? Is this a UK vs US thing, such that it was unrecognisable as a whole term/phrase?
Stuart your suggestion is offensive and out of keeping with the decorum serious informatic exploration of the possibility of intelligent design demands.
I suggest you take the P.I.S.S. out of the Intelligent Design discussion immediately!
Hmm… Apparently I’m invisible. Or should that be unapparently! That’s interesting. It does mean I’m in no danger of either being disemvowelled or winning a Molly though. However, I suspect PZ has sufficient magic squid powers such that he’s still able to detect my existence if he tries really hard. So the former isn’t as safe a conclusion as the latter.
DaveX,
I can understand not appreciating the belligerent attitude towards religion often expressed here, which I think is how you got started on this thread. But ultimately arguing that it’s unconstitutional for park rangers to visit the creationist museum and see what they’re up agains is way off base.
If the student objects to evolution in a biology class on religious grounds, i.e. “but the bible says the earth is 6000 years old”, then I agree, the teacher need not attack the bible or Christianity, but should probably just say “this is a science class, and I’m not going to get into a religious argument.” But they didn’t build an $X million creation science museum just to fill it with pages from the bible. It claims to show actual science that disputes what biologists and geologists say about the nature of evolution and the age of the earth, using the language that scientists use. People aren’t coming back to the state parks and pestering rangers about the bible: they’re coming back thinking they know some scientific facts that cast uncertainty on what the rangers or the placards or the informational videos are saying.
To return to the teacher’s example, if the student objects to evolution and starts spewing phrases like “irreducable complexity” or “flood dynamics”, then the teacher is not crossing into constitutionally questionable territory by pointing out the flaws in the scientific points being raised. The park rangers are not visiting Sunday schools and church services looking for biblical contradictions to argue against Christianity. They’re visiting an institution that purports to be scientific in nature so they’re prepared for questions that are scientific in nature.
Things like “creation science” and the creation science museum exist wholly as an thinly veiled attempt by religious literalists to pretend their objections to science are actually based on science and not religion. They do not get simultaneously claim that creation science is a real science but also deserves all the 1st amendment protections of a religion.
DaveX:
No, he’s not implying that. In fact, he explicitly asserted the opposite in a later comment on that thread:
“Someone wants to listen to the ranger’s spiel, then praises god’s majestic handiwork and the great forces at his disposal, fine, let’s not use this opportunity to try and smash some Episcopalian’s faith. Some wackjob comes up and argues with the ranger and says those rocks are no more than 6000 years old, not fine and not good — the ranger’s job is not to simply accommodate whatever the tourists say, it is to educate.”
The point is that science is not being presented adequately under these guidelines. Adequate presentation involves a discussion, not just a lecture. When a tourist brings up some common evidence-based objection–and the entire purpose of the Creation Museum is to teach people that there are evidence-based objections to mainstream geological, biological and archeological science–the ranger should be allowed to listen to it and respond with an evidence-based counter.
If the tourist then retreats to “That’s just my faith,” or “That’s what the Bible says,” or anything like that, then sure, the ranger needs to divert or end the conversation. But if the ranger raises the “religion” flag and cuts off the conversation while the tourist still claims to be operating on the science side, then she’s just confirmed all their suspicions about mainstream science being biased and dogmatic.
I’m sure you’ve read some Jack T. Chick tracts. Fundamentalists think all scientists and academics behave that way; any pro-creationism evidence we can’t beat, we just cry “religion” and ignore it. We shouldn’t play into that stereotype. It’s neither good pedagogy nor good…framing.
any pro-creationism evidence we can’t beat
What pro-creation evidence?
In the best case you are dealing with people who have not only swallowed lies out of ignorance, but are crusading (otherwise they wouldn’t confront the Park Ranger). You aren’t going to make any headway at all because they have invested their ego in the confrontation. What the Park Ranger has to do is win in the eyes of the audience, not the creationist, because it is the audience that the creationist is playing to. Ideally this can be done politely and without any reference to religion, but the Ranger doesn’t have to rebut the creationist, just win. I suggest the dismissive approach:
“I’m sorry sir/madam, but that is incorrect. Perhaps you’d find some of the fine geology books in our store interesting. Now, if you look over the rim, you’ll see…..”
I don’t think the ranger will win unless the audience is convinced that she at least can rebut the creationist. She doesn’t need to launch into a lecture on flood deposition or anything, but it would be very helpful to be specific on which subfield of geology can resolve the tourist’s objection, and which book is a good introduction to that subfield.
thanks best regards
nice web thanks demirsoy