… try Denyse O’Leary sometime. She’s now written a list of predictions from ID, and I don’t think she understands the meaning of the word “prediction” in a scientific context. Eight of the nine are variants on the theme, “there will be no natural explanations for X,” which, try as we might, reveals that our demands for positive, productive explanations from the ID crowd go unheard, and they’d rather just whine that they don’t understand something, so we must not, either.
The one exception: she doesn’t believe the eco-doomsayers who predict that we will destroy all life on the planet. She seems entirely unaware that a) no one claims that — what’s predicted is economic discomfort, displacement of human populations, some species going extinct and others thriving, etc. — and b) this doesn’t represent a prediction of intelligent design, either.
If your brain hasn’t recovered from the ablation it suffered from the laser-like stupidity of Comfort, though, I don’t recommend reading O’Leary — two such traumas on top of one another can be permanently damaging (I can only do it because years of reading this crap has turned my cortex tough as leather.)
It gets worser. Even I can’t post on her interweb blog!!!
Plus this was in response to a request for “samples of things that intelligent design theory has predicted, which researchers have later determined to be true?”
She couldn’t even read the question properly (to be fair, neither could a host of commenters on UD, which does tell us much about the IDiots), rather it’s all more “predictions” of the kind that Jesus will come and then you’ll be sorry, atheist dog. Always the future, which will redeem the idiocies of the present.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Those DI biologists are so up to date on the latest research it is painful to hear on their podcast their list of the best papers of last year (curiously none coming from the Discovery Institute for some reason). One of the top discoveries according to them was the finding of a function for ribosomes (those oh-so mysterious thingies within cells, that had darwinists confused for years – apparently). They produce protein!
Who would have guessed?
Not only that, but when people call her on her ridiculous “predictions,” she says “I don’t have time to respond to you. It’s taki9ng valuable time away from my publishers and readers.” Of course she had time to make two posts about the crap in the first place.
Then too, about half of the “predictions” are that “random” events won’t be found to be the cause of life’s origin, of consciousness, etc.
This from the people who think that everything, including the many patterns of inheritance and change existing throughout the fossil record and organisms’ genomes, are the result of some “designer’s” whim. Dembski’s whole “case” for ID is that creativity is unpredictable.
Thus we know why there are no actual predictions which are entailed by ID on that list or any other, why they project science as studying “random” evolution, and why they think that taking down evolution is the only thing that they have to do. They actually think that the biological realm is a set of random facts decided at whim by the “designer,” and as such they cannot even begin to see how science builds upon the patterns seen throughout biology to come up with an actual causal explanation for it (they do see patterns, they just say “God did it”).
Of course, with them having no causal mechanisms (they avoid building from any known design principles and activities of observable designers, thus cutting off any hope–or threat–of prediction), they cannot make any meaningful, let alone scientific, predictions at all.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I don’t find it so much ablative as entertaining, to see what these people will come up with as a very elaborate excuse for homophobia.
I like the part where she fails to offer any excuse why humans, if we were intelligently designed, would have so many flaws in the design; she merely states it as fact.
Of course, evolution actually fits the facts much better; it predicts all of the sorts of sub-optimal, just-barely-working parts we do see in humans. Wouldn’t an intelligent designer have done a better job?
The sad thing is she’s completely undermining her argument, but she’s so brainwashed she doesn’t even realize it.
The comment of hers that I found hi-frickin-larious was this, emphasis mine:
However consciousness got started, it appeared rather suddenly and it permanently separates humans from our genetic kin, however much time researchers spend coaxing monkeys to stop relieving themselves on the keyboard and type something meaningful.
But enough about DaveScot and Uncommon Descent…
I gather Dembski sent that guy some predictions,
I gather….I gather? So she has no reason to believe, nor citations to point to (URL linking is pretty easy these days) to any actual predictions that Dembski supplied.
Most likely, Dembski ignored the post (though I challenge the author or others to refute this…unlike IDers I am willing to admit that I was errant in this hypothesis of mine)
This is simply patent dismissing of an awkward fact…that the very subject of the challenge (the reputed “expert”, since said respondent is only apparently a journalist) failed to respond at all. Nice teamwork IDers….however transparent.
Must be convenient to be able to respond to scientific inquiries without science.
1. It will never be proven that God doesn’t exist
2. It will be shown that it is impossible to disprove that Adam’s rib was used to create Eve.
3. Evolution will never be able to show that God loves you.
4. Evolution rhymes with Devilution, which has Devil as part of the word, which means it’s evil. (Now that’s solid proof there)
5. Random change will never be able to explain the randomness of change.
6. The design of the Universe enables us to be conscious which proves the Universe was designed.
7. If design were to be false, then why are oranges round – hmmmm?
8. And they still can’t explain why ice-cubes float!!
9. If everything is random then why do all humans resemble eachother?
2. No good theory will be found for a random origin of life, though there will be plenty of huffing and puffing in favour of bad ideas. All theories that exclude purpose and design fail because they leave out the key driver – the purpose that life should come into existence.
Did the Antropic Principle fall out of vogue when I wasn’t looking? (That’s actually a question to the legitimate science guys and gals out there.)
Oh wait… I forgot, she’s a religious freak who in all likelihood has never, even heard of it, and even if she did, odds are it would become ‘God’s’ universe, and now we’re suddenly sea monkeys…
Oh, that’s reassuring.
Kristine Harley, a past winner of the coveted Molly Award, and Mistress of The Amused Muse blog coined a word yesterday to describe Densyse – ” awesomedumber”. She’s not just dumb, she takes dumb to a whole new level – She is awesomedumber!
Ex: Denyse O’Leary is the most awesomedumber writer in the world.
Here is her original full post:
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2008/01/nine-predictions-if-intelligent-design.html
User “corn” takes apart her arguments.
Her response – “As for my predictions, I am simply waiting to see if they pan out. I only argue about such things with publishers.”
She is going to be waiting a long time.
Holy shit. I just thought of that bitch a little while ago…
“All theories that exclude purpose and design fail because they leave out the key driver – the purpose that life should come into existence.”
I’ll amend that to make it less circular: All theories that exclude purpose fail because they make Denyse uncomfortable.
To cover the bases, and in order not to let the IDiots determine the standards of debate (plus for any new readers of Pharyngula), I repeat part of what I posted earlier on an open thread in response to Denyse’s tawdry little list of apologies for ID:
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
“I can only do it because years of reading this crap has turned my cortex tough as leather.”
Proof Number #10: PZ’s head was designed with stupidity absorbing crumble-zones.
Over at UD O’Leery has to her knickers in a twist and has penned a veritable tirade of outrage:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-old-order-changes-amid-a-storm-of-abuse/#more-2997
She likens the fact that all the abuse she receives is a sign of atheism dying and that we are all angry as hell about it! And that we all in a tizzy because we ‘lost’ Anthony Flew (sadly the only thing lost here is Flew’s mind). So she is just the poor little messenger who happens to be on the receiving end of all this ‘persecution’.
Denyse are you reading this? Well, sit down girl and let us tell you the real reason. The real reason why she gets these comments has nothing to do with atheism dying but everything to do with the fact that she writes unmitigated RUBBISH (and she is also a HORRIBLE writer, but we’ll save that for another day).
Her latest blurb on predictions was the latest in a long line of such good-only-for-garbage polemics. I, along with several others I think, tried to nicely and reasonably point out the gaping flaws in her predictions, but none of the comments were posted. She then decided to shut down comments on the post because of ‘time management’ issues. Whatever, Denyse.
Then she complains about anonymous posters not using their real names, like real adults do. Well, I consider myself an adult and for a variety of reasons do not wish to use my real name on the Internet. Besides when one does use a name on her blog, invariably comments are never posted unless they either agree with her or are only mildly critical.
Comfort, O’Leary, and now Behe with his pandering to YECs (bacteria to cats in hundreds of years!), prove that God loves a between-the-ears vacuum.
Dembski says he has a list of predictions, but then again he says a lot of things. Personally I think he made the challenge so he could get a list of ideas without having to make any personal effort toward the matter.
I postulate that the ID folk exist on a separate brame that weakly interacts with our universe. Their universe does not have the same physical laws that ours follows, and seems to run on the fertile imaginations of the Discovery Institute.
Fun with Ray’s blog:
http://sciencethegapfiller.blogspot.com/2008/01/god-to-ray-i-make-rocky-road.html
Chayanov @ 21: I agree and was thinking the same things. Dembski was cribbing off the comments in the thread he posted. Too bad for him they were all empty of content, but then again, what did he expect?
PZ wrote: “I can only do it because years of reading this crap has turned my cortex tough as leather.”
Could this be the next stage of evolution for humans? Due to an increasing environment of stupidity on Earth, we start evolving a leather-like cortex capable of taking on the onslaught?
they’re the sort of predictions that are on a par with “i’ll get you good and proper one day, just you wait and see!”
Ric, that’s what he gets for relying on people who know even less about science than he does.
Hey, give Granny Spice some credit, willya?
No account of human evolution will show a long slow emergence from unconsciousness to semi-consciousness to consciousness
She’s predicted herself!
Emphasis added.
I hate this argument. This argument shows how absolutely self-centered and egotistical human beings can be. Does no one else find it odd that we don’t spend a lot of time wondering why lizards exists, or why birds exist, fish, flowers etc. No, we always wonder why are we here. There’s obviously something so special about our species, but I must’ve missed it. We’re rather clever little chimps but I can’t help but remember that we are indeed just apes. We’re scurrying around on a tiny little insignificant smudge of a planet in the vastness of it all, but hold the phone, we must have a purpose. Everything we’ve ever made, we made it for a reason, so we must have a reason to exist. Why is it so hard for these people to live with the fact that we are the product of billions of years of chance, mutation, and selection, and yes we are the descendants (most recently anyways) of apes.
I tend to rather like that idea. So much more so than the idea that we’re all puppets in a rather sadistic play for a god that doesn’t seem to give two shits about helping any of us, but would much rather destroy millions to prove a point about homosexuals, or prostitution, or abortion (the point being that he’s the only one allowed to kill babies, selfish bastard) or whatever the evangelicals are pissed about these days. I feel rather special actually, privileged even, knowing that I’m lucky enough to no longer be just an ape. I kind of miss being able to climb a tree as well, but all in all life is good.
We don’t need a theory for the purpose of life. That’s nothing but metaphysical and philosophical nonsense, an attached value to something that’s rather pointless to even study. We’re here, so what. It’s probably not the first time, and won’t be the last. Life is more than likely fairly common, there’s a lot of space to work with. I just wonder if they have the same nutters we do.
Those DI biologists are so up to date on the latest research it is painful to hear on their podcast their list of the best papers of last year (curiously none coming from the Discovery Institute for some reason). One of the top discoveries according to them was the finding of a function for ribosomes (those oh-so mysterious thingies within cells, that had darwinists confused for years – apparently). They produce protein!
Who would have guessed?
Well, my seventh grade daughter just finished her seventh grade “Cell Model” project. The seventh grade teachers and all the seventh grade students seem to know it!
Right. Who needs evolution when you can design Killer Robots! And “prove” your point. Mwa ha ha ha ha haa!!!
Has anybody looked to see if Denyse has a tail? I want to include her in my researchg project. I’m actually trying to get a monkey to do one on my keyboard. Think she can help? I’m trying to get a lecture done for crissake.
Every Idist should be made to read Platt’s paper “Strong Inference,” published in the journal Science back in ’64. I know scientists that require their graduate students to read and put its principles into practice. And at least one of these is a HHMI fellow, and by far is the most successful scientist that I know.
Then they might have a clue as to what constitutes a testable prediction.
Though DOL’s predictions do remind me of the Monty Python Theory of Brontosaurus sketch:
Elk: This theory which belongs to me is as follows. Ahem. Ahem. This is how
it goes. Ahem. The next thing that I am about to say is my theory.
Ahem. Ready?
(Host moans)
Elk: The Theory by A. Elk brackets Miss brackets. My theory is along the
following lines.
Host: Oh God.
Elk: All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much MUCH thicker in the middle,
and then thin again at the far end. That is the theory that I have and
which is mine, and what it is too.
Host: That’s it, is it?
Elk: Right, Chris.
Host: Well, Anne, this theory of yours seems to have hit the nail on the head.
Elk: And it’s mine.
You’re just not extending ID enough!
Obviously The Earth was intelligently designed so that the pollution (Which is also intelligently designed) will intelligently deplete the O-Zone, and intelligently kill the cancer that’s killing the Earth (i.e. us.)
On second thought… Maybe there is a God.
I’m generally against violence; however, I think euthanasia might be the best option…
Denyse wouldn’t know a clue if you gave it a firefly tail and put it in a bug jar.
I went to UD to look at her “prediction” to make sure that they were being reported as entered, and got bored rather quickly at seeing them again. So, I see that he has a post regarding Genetic Programming, and she claims that the reason that ESCr is continuing is because scientists, ahem, still need a reason to justify abortion.
That’s why people make fun of her.
The one exception: she doesn’t believe the eco-doomsayers who predict that we will destroy all life on the planet. She seems entirely unaware that a) no one claims that — what’s predicted is economic discomfort, displacement of human populations, some species going extinct and others thriving, etc.
Not no one:
(The author isn’t exactly a crank; he’s worth about $230 million resulting from his founding of Mouse Systems Corporation, Frame, Infoseek, and several other very successful companies).
Bad “no one” link above should have been http://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/Extinction.htm
Timcol wrote:
The reason she ticks me off so much is because she is a an admitted parasite. She lives off the profits of her books, and the only way her books will make profits is if there are enough uninformed ignoramuses for her to syphon off of.
The reason she doesn’t let through criticism is not because she can’t handle it- that Machiavelian whore probably knows full well everything she spouts is utter bullshit. I don’t believe for second that she’s sincere about any of it. I think it’s one hundred percent con. Why else delete the comments? Because her poor fragile ego cant take it? LOL. I don’t think so.
No, it’s about keeping her readers ignorant in order to keep the tap open.
She probably just wants to make sure it isn’t Dembski trying to sneak in comments under an assumed identity.
Seriously, I posted there and she used my name to launch into a full scale peremptory Godwin attack without bothering to address the substance of my criticism. Leni is my real name, and apparently that makes me a nazi. Who knew. I didn’t.
Anyway, the woman is clearly using the attention to make more money. Maybe we ought to help her help herself to stop sucking the resources from hard-working people who deserve to keep their money.
“The environment will prove far more resilient than eco-doomsayers believe. People forget that the Permian extinction wiped out 90% of the marine life forms on this planet.”
Well it was about 65 million years ago, and my memory aint what it used to be.
Well it was about 65 million years ago
Uh no, Permian (250 mya) != K-T (65 mya)
“I am NOT waiting for enviro-apocalypse!! – I don’t believe it will happen. There will be changes. That’s all. Not the end of the world or anything like it.”
That’s a prediction on which she can’t be proven wrong unless someone survives the end of the world!
Denyse O’Leary’s pronouncements are:
1) old,
2) often answered,
3) and barren.
Not to mention the things one worries about when small but grows to acknowledge and tolerate. Usually.
Consider them panned.
speaking of ray comfort, i’ve been posting the occassional religiously worded rebuttals to his posts on his blog. they really don’t like me there.
Truth Machine-
“Uh no, Permian (250 mya) != K-T (65 mya)”
Oh that Permian, brings back memories.
No useful theory of consciousness will demonstrate that consciousness is merely the outcome of the random firing of neurons in the brain.
Does anyone, anywhere argue that our neurons fire randomly?
My, but this stuff gets old. This is one of my pet peeves: Since when is consciousness an exusively human attribute? Does Densye exclude Neandertal and Cro-Magnon from the Consciousness Club? I think she confuses “conscious” with “intelligent enough to learn to type.” Is the family dog not aware of his surroundings or of his own thoughts and feelings? Does he not show dog-remorse when he misbehaves? Does he have no volition? Does he not recognize and love his masters? Will he not protect them against threats from unfamiliar creatures? Cdesignproponentism is nothing but sublimated narcissism. Humans are an unusually clever species, but we’re not that special.
She’s a ‘catastrophisist.’ She accepts the Permian extinction (and by it an old earth), denies the existence of transitional fossils and believes in multiple creations. Didn’t that view go out with Cuvier?? No wait, she said she did not believe in the ‘eco-doomsayers.’ When an argument collapses on itself due to sheer stupidity is this the ‘awsomedumber effect’?
To parse one ‘prediction’:
“3. Complete series of transitional fossils will not usually be found because most proposed series have never existed. Eventually, researchers will give up on ideologically driven nonsense and address the history that IS there. They will focus on discovering the mechanisms that drive sudden bursts of creativity.”
Some proposed series of transitional fossils do exist and some transitional series of fossils are found. Paleontologists will quit wasting time addressing ID, and with increased science funding, research will expand.
Give it up for PZ and his leather cortex.
A prediction she should have done is that George W. Bush won’t be reelected in 2008.
Because :
– it’s just as relevant as the ones she did
– but at least, it feels nice when you read it.
Ouch.
That was really, really, painful.
Its getting to the point where someone should get interviewed live on a big national channel (CNN, C-Span or even Fox) and simply “lose it” and yell out that the ID movement is comprised of scientifically illiterates, idiots and/or liars who are – or are funded by – religious crackpots with an agenda to send the nation back to the dark ages.
Are americans overall really so uneducated that stuff like this doesn’t just scream “BULLSHIT!” to them?
Ouch.
That was really, really, painful.
Its getting to the point where someone should get interviewed live on a big national channel (CNN, C-Span or even Fox) and simply “lose it” and yell out that the ID movement is comprised of scientifically illiterates, idiots and/or liars who are – or are funded by – religious crackpots with an agenda to send the nation back to the dark ages.
Are americans overall really so uneducated that stuff like this doesn’t just scream “BULLSHIT!” to them?