The next edition of the Tangled Bank will be held at Grey Thumb.blog on Wednesday, 18 Jan 2006. Send in those links to wonderful science writing to email@example.com,
me by Tuesday evening.
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 www.evolveyourself.net (.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.
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|
|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|
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)