Sewage by any other name would smell just as putrid

William Dembski doesn’t think the way you or I do. When we encounter a problem in biological science, we try to think of experiments and observations that would help us resolve the question: Dembski thinks of public relations and commercial opportunities. Thoughts from Kansas catches him admitting that ID has experienced a setback, and what does he think of? Broadcasting infomercials, and a commercial venture to sell ID-themed toys. (Those are Josh’s comments in brackets below.)

For some time now I’ve been wanting to complement Darwinalia, Inc. [apparently to be stupid plush toys or something] with an ID-based success and motivation course (complete with infomercials). I had been thinking about something like “Designed for Success” or “Designed to Flourish.” But the more I thought about it, especially with intelligent design taking the hits it has lately [my emphasis], it’s time simply to co-opt the language of evolution and interpret it in an ID-friendly way (in this vein, recall my post about intelligent evolution on this blog some months back—go here). Yes, ID is itself evolving! I was able to procure (.com and .org were unfortunately taken) and expect to start another corporation once Darwinalia, Inc. is fully up and running.

And of course, one step is rebranding. Creationism got renamed to “Intelligent Design” to smuggle it into the schools, (and we now know how well that worked) so now Dembski is thinking about renaming it again.

I therefore offer the following proposal if ID gets outlawed from our public schools: retitle it Intelligent Evolution (IE). … [H]ey, it would still be evolution, and evolution can be taught in schools. In fact, I think I’ll title my next book Intelligent Evolution: The Mindful Deviation of Evolutionary Pathways. Perhaps this book has already been written.

“Intelligent Evolution”? Dembski really doesn’t get it, does he? The game should be about finding evidence and backing up your claims, not rummaging around to find the catchiest slogan.

I do think we need to keep those words of Dembski’s around for the next trial, though. Whatever label the Discovery Institute comes up with, we now have the admission of one of their foremost proponents that he’s consciously trying to merely retitle creationism. Again.

Friday Random Ten: Death and Monkeys edition

I’ve got to inaugurate the new site with a Friday Random Ten, don’t I?

My Generation Patti Smith
Ghost Riders On The Storm California Guitar Trio
Women’s Prison Loretta Lynn
Coming in from the cold The Delgados
Noctuary Bonobo
Evolution Ayumi Hamasaki
Death Is Not The End (With Nick Cave) PJ Harvey
Walk Through My Door Gaelic Storm
Lord, Fix Me Madison Prayer Band
Leave My Monkey Alone Warren Zevon

Department of Provocative Imagery

OK, that settles it. I’m in the wrong research field.

They found breasts moved in a 3D figure of eight and that uncontrolled movement strained fragile tissues and ligaments.

The study suggested as a woman runs a mile, her breasts bounced 135 meters.

The report found each breast moved independently of the body by an average of 9cm for every step taken on the treadmill.

With the average breast weighing between 200 and 300 grams, this movement puts great stress on the breast’s fragile support structure—the outer skin and connective tissues known as Cooper’s ligaments.

I suspect the analysis was…mesmerizing.

The wording was a little unfortunate—I pictured the subject dribbling a pair like basketballs as she runs.

(via Matt Dowling)

You wanna see arrogance? Look to a creationist

Ohio State Board of Education has an ID lesson plan on the books. Ohio Citizens for Science has been fighting it, but at a recent meeting, the Board voted to maintain it’s anti-science position.

A friend sent this scan from the Columbus Dispatch. It does show the ignorance, the contempt, and the arrogance of the creationists.

Richard E. Baker, a member of the State Board of Education, displays his apparent lack of interest in arguments for changing the state’s science standards being put forth by fellow board member Martha W. Wise. Baker, who later voted to maintain the current standards, did not speak during yesterday’s afternoon session, choosing instead to read the newspaper throughout.

This Richard E. Baker:

“Richard Baker, an avowed creationist and vice president of the OBE,
disagrees. ….Baker accused the scientific community of wasting time
debating the plan. “We spend all this malarkey and baloney when 99 percent
of all the people who are taught this have nothing to do with the rest of
their lives. These scientists, they don’t care about wasting their own time
or anybody else’s time. In business we don’t waste time. To me, [the lesson]
is not a big deal.” According to Baker, the real reason scientists want to
do away with the lesson plan is, as he said to a group of scientists at a
board meeting concerning the lesson plan, “[They] think [they] know
everything. [They’re] just a bunch of paranoid, egotistical scientists
afraid of people finding out [they] don’t know anything.””

That’s a man who does not belong on the Board of Education.