Comment #48149

Posted by GuyJ on September 14, 2005 8:14 PM (e)

fyi takes 6 hits to destroy the think tank.

Comment #48150

Posted by Geral Corasjo on September 14, 2005 8:18 PM (e)

OMG! I DIED!

What a shame :| Pandas > DI Tank

The pandas do always win.

Comment #48152

Posted by knowledgenow on September 14, 2005 8:45 PM (e)

Inspired by Dembski’s “word games” with Dawkins’s quotes, and by Dembski’s self indulging censorship, I slipped in a comment
here and here.

It pained me to write it. But just ignore the content and read only the capitalized letters.

If this is the guy heading efforts to find evidence of intelligent design, what does it say if he cannot detect my simple yet somewhat hidden intelligent design?

Comment #48153

Posted by anti-darwinist on September 14, 2005 8:46 PM (e)

Indeed, the pandas represent the shallowness of ID critics, such as you PZ, who use the same arguments and insult Dembski by calling him Dumbski. It’s sad to know that universities are supporting close minded people like you!

Comment #48156

Posted by PvM on September 14, 2005 8:51 PM (e)

Wow, there is more science in this flash game than in most of Dembski’s work combined.
Seems that Dembski may have too much time on his hands for his own good…

Comment #48157

Posted by PZ Myers on September 14, 2005 8:54 PM (e)

I don’t think I’ve ever called Dembski “Dumbski”.

Comment #48158

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on September 14, 2005 8:57 PM (e)

Indeed, the pandas represent the shallowness of ID critics, such as you PZ, who use the same arguments and insult Dembski by calling him Dumbski. It’s sad to know that universities are supporting close minded people like you!

Well, dude, in a couple weeks, you’ll get to tell it all to the judge.

Good luck with that.

(snicker) (giggle)

Comment #48163

Posted by bill on September 14, 2005 9:11 PM (e)

I currently have the high score of 29.

I confess, I have called Dembski “Dumbski.” However, anyone who keeps promoting the bilge that Dembski pumps out deserves the moniker.

Comment #48164

Posted by Traffic Demon on September 14, 2005 9:22 PM (e)

He may be an idiot, but the game’s fun. Got up to 10k before being overwhelmed by the superiority of the pandas. Got to do something to kill time before watching him get Waterloo’d on Comedy Central.

Dumbski! It’s still funny!

Comment #48168

Posted by shiva on September 14, 2005 9:51 PM (e)

BillD would dearly love PT’rs to call him D**bski or D******ki or some such thing. That would help him pose as a martyr for the cause of “intellectual freedom”, “true science” etc. Unfortunately most scientists haven’t heard of this balloon of hot air. The few scientists who have had to “debate” him have turned him inside out and hung him out to dry. The only attention he receives these days is either from creepers and crawlers who bleat the praises of their “dear great leader”, or the ones over here who find him an object of unending ridicule. So it looks like some fellow crank or quack passed the meme around about ‘evilutionists’ calling Dembski = D***ski. That got the quack crowd going once again to defend their ‘dear great leader’.

Comment #48169

Posted by bill on September 14, 2005 9:52 PM (e)

Traffic Demon,

Liar! 29 is the high score and it’s MINE! 29 is a prime number. I was on the phone with G. Gonzalez and he told me 29 was a Cosmic Number and that I was a Privileged Planet Person.

You, liar Demon, are not with your non-prime number 10,000.

May pandas infest your dreams!

Comment #48176

Posted by Traffic Demon on September 14, 2005 10:15 PM (e)

bill,

10,000 is indeed a prime number. It is a product that can only be obtained by multiplying one by fortyvee, which I just made up…. I swear that I had something both intelligible and witty to insert in that mutated ellipsis, but Back in Black just came on, and I got distracted laughing at stupid people. Let’s just mutually agree not only that I just used a redundancy, but that 10,000 is prime and that pandas really do look good in tuxedos. I await your humble concession.

Comment #48184

Posted by Knowledgenow on September 14, 2005 10:35 PM (e)

Alas, I have been censored. Darn you Dumbski, and your ability to read! : (

Comment #48185

Posted by donna on September 14, 2005 10:42 PM (e)

But..but…NO FAIR! The pandas keep… evolving!

Comment #48187

Posted by Craig T on September 14, 2005 10:57 PM (e)

I’ll skip the panda game and stick to the Flying Spaghetti Monster game at
http://www.venganza.org/games/index.htm

Comment #48192

Posted by Sean Foley on September 14, 2005 11:29 PM (e)

“No, we don’t have any results. No, we don’t even have a research program. By the way, have you seen our video game?”

Comment #48194

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on September 14, 2005 11:34 PM (e)

Dembski updates his original post with

Dembski wrote:

UPDATE: Paul Myers has just posted at The Panda’s Thumb a short note about Panda-Monium titled “I think we’re getting under someone’s skin” (go here). Presumably he means my skin. Get a life, Paul. No, I’m not upset with you and the members of your select little club. I’m laughing at you. And I will continue to laugh at you.

Select little club? You mean how anyone is allowed to post here while Dembski silences anyone at his blog who isn’t one of his little sycophants? I’m not sure how he can criticise Paul for having a ‘select’ little club considering we don’t really have much of a selection criteria for entering this club to begin with.

In any event, the game is actually moderately amusing although just like the aliens from Space Invaders, the pandas do always win no matter how much pseudoscientific nonsense I shoot at them. Possibly Dembski is making an admission that inevitably ID will meet its waterloo, just on the wrong side that he intended. I wonder if the next game to come from Uncommon descent game studios will be Dawinia Waterloo 2000, where the goal is to make Darwinism suffer a waterloo with the fewest number of waterloo claims possible…

Comment #48195

Posted by revp on September 14, 2005 11:36 PM (e)

William Dembski wrote:

UPDATE: Paul Myers has just posted at The Panda’s Thumb a short note about Panda-Monium titled “I think we’re getting under someone’s skin” (go here). Presumably he means my skin. Get a life, Paul. No, I’m not upset with you and the members of your select little club. I’m laughing at you. And I will continue to laugh at you.

Yeah guys, so you can go take your select little club where anybody can post replies anonymously without registering and shove it where Dembski shoves all posts to his blog that don’t fall in lock-step with his point-of-view!

And another thing, I … ooh, I’m feeling a little … what’s …

CHANNELING DEMBSKI

Hahaha yeah Paul, like, totally get a life, or whatever. I’m like seriously laughing at you right now, and there’s like nothing you can do about it. I bet that totally burns your ass, or whatever. Hahaha [<— more of me totally laughing at you. ROFLCOPTER!]

P.S. Please note that the fact that I had to go out of my way to post an update to my post, pointing out your post, in no way reflects on your point that you are getting under my skin. At all. *scratch, scratch*

Comment #48196

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on September 14, 2005 11:39 PM (e)

I wonder if you can score a 59 or has it been factored out of the game?

Comment #48197

Posted by revp on September 14, 2005 11:39 PM (e)

And Joseph O’Donnell beats me to it. I even refreshed!

Comment #48198

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on September 14, 2005 11:47 PM (e)

Yes, I win at the internets!!!

Comment #48214

Posted by Mathew on September 15, 2005 6:37 AM (e)

From Knowledgenow’s very own blaugh, in his own words:

“Lately I’ve been having these intense fantasies about my new roommates. It’s dark and I can’t find my bed so I climb into the nearest one. Next thing I know I wake up all wet and sticky. What do you think it means?”

Know your crictics mr Dembski !

Comment #48218

Posted by Ben on September 15, 2005 8:14 AM (e)

UPDATE: Paul Myers has just posted at The Panda’s Thumb a short note about Panda-Monium titled “I think we’re getting under someone’s skin” (go here). Presumably he means my skin. Get a life, Paul. No, I’m not upset with you and the members of your select little club. I’m laughing at you. And I will continue to laugh at you.

“Select little club” = All of Europe, Canada, the sane/non-Christian fundamentalist parts of the USA, and anywhere else that doesn’t consider evolution a vast conspiracy by evil immoral Satanic atheists?

“And I willl continue to laugh at you”….while most of the world laughs back at you.

Comment #48229

Posted by PatrickS on September 15, 2005 10:10 AM (e)

There is most definitely a metaphor involved. The fundamentalists (ie. ID’ers) are attempting to create martyrs out of themselves. They can tell the world they are being “persecuted” for their beliefs and thus, justify their intellectually lazy denomination’s existence. For them, ID is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s actually quite simple, it’s the demise of a false religion. They’ve been worshiping a false god all their lives and are too conceited to realize it. But, it’s up to them to figure it out for themselves. I just wish they’d leave science out of it. The true God of man wants man to pursue science vigorously and to trust that which we discover to be true.! It’s no more complicated than that.

Comment #48232

Posted by PatrickS on September 15, 2005 10:18 AM (e)

Select little club” = ….….…. the sane/non-Christian fundamentalist parts of the USA,

The fundamentalist crowd may not be as big people think, and it may not contain the members that many perceive. I would caution everyone as to not assume too much, but rather to listen closely.

Comment #48236

Posted by Les Lane on September 15, 2005 10:30 AM (e)

Why does Dembski bother with pandas. Shouldn’t he be clarifying scrotums?

Comment #48239

Posted by Moses on September 15, 2005 11:20 AM (e)

Comment #48153

Posted by anti-darwinist on September 14, 2005 08:46 PM (e) (s)

Indeed, the pandas represent the shallowness of ID critics, such as you PZ, who use the same arguments and insult Dembski by calling him Dumbski. It’s sad to know that universities are supporting close minded people like you!

So, in other words, after suffering the slings and arrows of jack***es like you, Dembski, et.al., PZ Myers, who is a very, very nice guy and very, very smart guy (and according to my wife, smart even relative to the population of graduate students my wife’s been around in her life) is just supposed to keep taking your daily slings and arrows of being immoral, unethical, evil, responsible for the collapse of Western Civilzation, hurricanes, natural disasters and every other jack-a-ninny thing that is dumped on him directly or indirectly by your kind of neo-luddites/neo-creationists and “just be nice.”

Dawin’s been going strong for about 150 years. Dembski takes creationism, which has been failing for the same time period, and dyes it a new color. It’s the same ill-fitting, low-quality, poorly-tailored garment that has been falling apart for over well over 100 years. He just dyes it a new color.

Then, in his “new” suit, Dembski (and his little friends) goes after Myers, et.al, and helps whip up a new batch of witch burners. And even as his “new” suit falls apart around him, Dembski continues to harrass Myers, et.al. And, to make things worse, runs and hides, like a cowardly bully meeting an actual tough guy, everytime he’s challenged to put-up-or-shut-up and whines to his posse (you and the rest of the lightweights) about that “mean ol’ Myers.”

You self-righteous ***clowns make me ill. It’s people like you that got me to first question Christianity and lead to my rejecting all primitive tribal superstitions. Not “Darwinists.” You, and your hate-based, intollerent religious practices.

Comment #48242

Posted by PZ Myers on September 15, 2005 11:28 AM (e)

Do I know your wife, Moses? Is her name Zipporah?

Comment #48243

Posted by PZ Myers on September 15, 2005 11:30 AM (e)

Oh, and Les…clarified scrota would be an interesting article of courtship display, I would think. A truly honest demonstration that the package ain’t empty.

Comment #48244

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on September 15, 2005 11:31 AM (e)

Why does Dembski bother with pandas. Shouldn’t he be clarifying scrotums?

Yeah, there’s a potential blog name of note: “The Clarified Scrotum”.

Any takers?

Comment #48245

Posted by PvM on September 15, 2005 11:38 AM (e)

Dembski wrote:

UPDATE: Paul Myers has just posted at The Panda’s Thumb a short note about Panda-Monium titled “I think we’re getting under someone’s skin” (go here). Presumably he means my skin. Get a life, Paul. No, I’m not upset with you and the members of your select little club. I’m laughing at you. And I will continue to laugh at you.

“Select little club” translation: Those doing real science :-)

I am fascinated how much of a perceived threat Panda’s Thumb has become to ID and especially the DI. I knew that the truth must hurt, never realized it was this painful

Comment #48256

Posted by Donald M on September 15, 2005 12:02 PM (e)

Patrick S write: “There is most definitely a metaphor involved. The fundamentalists (ie. ID’ers) are attempting to create martyrs out of themselves. They can tell the world they are being “persecuted” for their beliefs and thus, justify their intellectually lazy denomination’s existence. For them, ID is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s actually quite simple, it’s the demise of a false religion. They’ve been worshiping a false god all their lives and are too conceited to realize it. But, it’s up to them to figure it out for themselves. I just wish they’d leave science out of it. The true God of man wants man to pursue science vigorously and to trust that which we discover to be true.! It’s no more complicated than that.”

There’s a diatribe of falsehood if I ever saw one. “IDeeerrrs” (strange abbreviation) are not, that’s n-o-t, fundamentalists. As IDPs (intelligent Design proponents) come from many different religious and non-religious backgrounds, you would be hard pressed to tell us which religion IDPs are “fundamentalist” about. And, you’d be hard pressed to tell us which “false god” they’ve been worshipping.

But it is interesting to note that you know exactly what the “true” God wants from us poor humans. Perhaps you could share how you come by that knowledge? Claims of knowing exactly what the “true” God wants of humans sounds pretty fundamentalist to me!!

Comment #48259

Posted by IAMB, FCD on September 15, 2005 12:05 PM (e)

About the game:

On the title screen, does anyone else think Dembski looks a little like a middle-aged version of this guy in a brand new orange suit?

Shouldn’t he look more like this?

Just a thought.

Comment #48272

Posted by DrFrank on September 15, 2005 12:37 PM (e)

Donald M:
As IDPs (intelligent Design proponents) come from many different religious and non-religious backgrounds, you would be hard pressed to tell us which religion IDPs are “fundamentalist” about. And, you’d be hard pressed to tell us which “false god” they’ve been worshipping.

OK, I’ll bite - I’d be interested to know the names of any PhD-level scientists, especially biologists, who support ID that aren’t fairly staunch Christians (and if you name Dawkins I’m just going to start laughing). Certainly, all the ones I’ve looked up from the classic DI list of 400 scientists have been found to have very specific, and similar, beliefs.

We certainly all know that Dembski and Behe, the poster children for ID (and what an attractive poster that would be), are both Christian. Furthermore, as far as I can see, Dembski and Behe effectively are ID, as they’re the only ones that have produced anything that is remotely testable.

Comment #48278

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on September 15, 2005 12:58 PM (e)

Donald M wrote:

There’s a diatribe of falsehood if I ever saw one. “IDeeerrrs” (strange abbreviation) are not, that’s n-o-t, fundamentalists. As IDPs (intelligent Design proponents) come from many different religious and non-religious backgrounds,

Glad to see you are embracing your fellow IDPs the Raelians, the atheistic science fiction cult which believes intelligent design was done not by God but by space aliens.

you would be hard pressed to tell us which religion IDPs are “fundamentalist” about. And, you’d be hard pressed to tell us which “false god” they’ve been worshipping.

As I said, in the case of the Raelians, it’s space aliens. In the case of any Moonie IDPs, such as Jonathan Wells, it would be Jesus Christ’s younger brother, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

It’s a big tent indeed.

Comment #48279

Posted by Moses on September 15, 2005 1:08 PM (e)

Comment #48242

Posted by PZ Myers on September 15, 2005 11:28 AM (e) (s)

Do I know your wife, Moses? Is her name Zipporah?

:lol: No.

Oregon. First name begins with a “D,” maiden name begins with an “S.” Please don’t use it if you get an “ah-ha” moment. I don’t want the ID equivalent of the Fred Phelps brigade on me or my wife.

As for me, I no longer use my name on the internet as there are too many nut jobs just waiting to do their nut stuff. Something I learned the hard way, after a sports argument went awry in 1999. My professional website was hacked, spammed and otherwise seiged by a small group of internet nut-case losers who decided to make a giant mess of it. So I use Moses, who was my great-grandfather, and has been dead for close to 40 years. I figure, they can hack him all they want - dead men tell no bytes.

Comment #48281

Posted by Moses on September 15, 2005 1:10 PM (e)

Oh, I answered the second question first. Yes, you know my wife. No, Zipporah isn’t her name.

Comment #48308

Posted by Gary Hurd on September 15, 2005 5:21 PM (e)

Gee, I only got to 2900. I guess I’ll have to convert. Does Dembski have to teach at that Bible College?

I guess that is the Discovery Institute is paying a major chunk of your ticket, you should be attractive to most any school. Well, unless you are a jerk and nobody likes you.

I wouldn’t know personally, since nobody ever offered to pay my way. ;-}

Comment #48310

Posted by Gary Hurd on September 15, 2005 5:27 PM (e)

I don’t think I’ve ever called Dembski “Dumbski”.

I have not either, as best I can recall. I think I called him Dimwitski once though. Actually that was the nickname of a college friend named Dimcowski, so it felt like plagerism.

Comment #48315

Posted by PZ Myers on September 15, 2005 5:43 PM (e)

Oh, of course I know DS! Tell her “hi” from me, and I hope all is going well.

Comment #48357

Posted by Henry J on September 15, 2005 8:03 PM (e)

Re “The pandas keep… evolving!”

Yeah, but they’re still pandas! ;)

Henry

Comment #48360

Posted by Gary Hurd on September 15, 2005 8:11 PM (e)

“The pandas keep… evolving!”

Ah, but there are no transitional pandas to birds!

Comment #48362

Posted by William Dembski on September 15, 2005 8:30 PM (e)

You guys are pathetic! Knock it off please. You’ll burn in hell for all of those remarks you’ve made. Soon God will reveal his true self and you will be in awe while descending into hell.

Comment #48376

Posted by Charles Darwin on September 15, 2005 9:23 PM (e)

Would you guys leave poor old Bill alone. Why do you continue to defend my case 150 years after my death? Don’t you know that my theory is outdated and redundant in most of the scientific literature? For crying out loud, whatever happened to academic freedom? I sometimes wish I never proposed my theory. All I’ve done is made a religion followed by blind fanatics who constantly extrapolate evidences that isn’t there.

Sincerely,
Charlie D.

PS-I think ID makes more sense anyways!

Comment #48377

Posted by T.H Huxley on September 15, 2005 9:25 PM (e)

I couldn’t agree anymore, Charlie boy!

Comment #48378

Posted by T.H Huxley on September 15, 2005 9:25 PM (e)

I couldn’t agree anymore, Charlie boy!

Comment #48380

Posted by G.G Simpson on September 15, 2005 9:27 PM (e)

Me two!

Comment #48381

Posted by Stephen J. Gould on September 15, 2005 9:31 PM (e)

Me three!

Comment #48382

Posted by Adolf Hitler on September 15, 2005 9:36 PM (e)

I used the theory of evolution to kill 6 million jews. Thanks Charlie!

Comment #48384

Posted by Y E C on September 15, 2005 10:03 PM (e)

LEAVE DARWIN ALONE!!!!!

Comment #48387

Posted by steve on September 15, 2005 10:13 PM (e)

I reiterate my vote for a registration system here at PT

Comment #48390

Posted by Henry J on September 15, 2005 10:23 PM (e)

Is this thread gonna require an exorcism?

Henry

Comment #48393

Posted by Ginger Yellow on September 15, 2005 10:37 PM (e)

“I used the theory of evolution to kill 6 million jews”

And there I was thinking you used the coercive power of a fascist state with a large industrial base, slave labour and a whole shitload of Zyklon B. Silly me. This “theory of evolution” sounds like powerful stuff. Does the Pentagon know about it?

Comment #48394

Posted by sciguy on September 15, 2005 11:05 PM (e)

Did anyone notice that the level three panda had a cross on its chest?
So is the DI now suggesting that they want to kill the Divine Creater or his representaitives?

That just don’t seem so Christian Bill.

Bill should laugh after all this select group is only the majority of scientist in the world. What could we know.

Comment #48396

Posted by God on September 15, 2005 11:23 PM (e)

OK, I’ll bite - I’d be interested to know the names of any PhD-level scientists, especially biologists, who support ID that aren’t fairly staunch Christians (and if you name Dawkins I’m just going to start laughing). Certainly, all the ones I’ve looked up from the classic DI list of 400 scientists have been found to have very specific, and similar, beliefs.

- I can think of one, David Berlinski, who claims that his only religion is “Having a good time.”

Comment #48402

Posted by skip on September 16, 2005 12:36 AM (e)

So that’s the secret research program the DI has been doing? A video game? I guess they can cite that in Dover.

Comment #48404

Posted by Skip on September 16, 2005 12:38 AM (e)

No, I hate to say God is wrong, but Berlinski is on record during a debate on Firing Line around 1996 saying he does not support intelligent design. He just seems to have a beef with evolution.

Comment #48409

Posted by DrFrank on September 16, 2005 5:34 AM (e)

Checking the DI site, it does indeed claim Berlinkski as a “senior fellow”, although whether this is an honorary title I do not know. I wonder if Berlinkski comes around to the DI for wine and cigars.

He’s also the author of a book on the history and failure of astrology called The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky: perhaps he’s hanging around the most popular current pseudo-science so that he can write a new book on ID along similar lines ;) Plus, we all know that Princeton is fairly strong on pseudo-science as a whole lol (I’m thinking of PEAR, here)

And yes, I couldn’t find anything describing him as a staunch Christian, so he may well be the token non-religious IDist. On the other hand, he is obviously a mathematician rather than a biologist, but how he hasn’t torn Dembski’s work apart is beyond me.

Comment #48441

Posted by JAllen on September 16, 2005 10:22 AM (e)

sciguy wrote:

Did anyone notice that the level three panda had a cross on its chest?

The level 1 panda is just a plain ol’ panda
Level 2 is a panda in a tuxedo - I think a reference to “creationism in a cheap tuxedo”
Level 3 is a panda in crusader armor - because “Darwinism” is a religion and the pandas are defending the “faith”
Level 4 is a heavily bandaged panda with crutches - because WAD is putting them through the vice, of course. (There is no need for the misspelling of his last name, WAD is accurate on several levels)
Level 5 is a panda wearing glasses and has rings or closed hooks for hands (test tube holders?) - not sure what this one is supposed to be, if test tube holders, then it must be a comment on the foolishness of pursuing science in the lab.
Level 6 seems to be the same as 5, I’ve only made it once - the pandas keep winning.

Comment #48447

Posted by Arden Chatfield on September 16, 2005 11:19 AM (e)

My god! It’s full of pandas!!!

Comment #48450

Posted by skip on September 16, 2005 11:41 AM (e)

Re: Berlinski:

Get a copy of the tape (correction: it took place in 97, not 96). As I said, it was a Firing Line debate over creationism, with Michael Behe, Phil Johnson, David Berlinski and William Buckley on one side, Kenneth R. Miller, Eugenie Scott, Michael Ruse, and Barry Lynn on the other.

At one point Berlinski is in the hot seat when someone, I can’t remember who, says something about “to those who support intelligent design,” and Berlinski replies quite clearly, “I don’t”, even causing the questionaire to say, “Well, to those who do.”

I am not claiming this to be an exact transcript, but I have seen the tape many times and think it is quite accurate.

As for being a DI Fellow, yeah, well, pretty soon they’ll be getting desperate enough to compile lists of “high school cheerleaders who doubt Darwinism.”

Comment #48459

Posted by JAllen on September 16, 2005 12:40 PM (e)

skip wrote:

At one point Berlinski is in the hot seat when someone, I can’t remember who, says something about “to those who support intelligent design,” and Berlinski replies quite clearly, “I don’t”

Transcript

KM = Kenneth Miller
DB = David Berlinksi

KM: Once again, to someone who advocates – another question – to someone who advocates intelligent design.

DB: I don’t.

KM: The fact – To someone who advocates intelligent design, does the sequence of these organisms in the fossil record simply mean, that the intelligent designer was incompetent – he kept making things and they went extinct. Or that he was restless – I’ll try this, I’ll try that, I’ll try the other thing. Or does it mean, that in fact these organisms are related with descent – by descent with modification?

DB: I have no idea. I mean it’s not a question I’m prepared to answer one way or another. I don’t see why I’m obliged to answer that. I’m coming here under the large tent of objurgation. I find scientific flaws with the Darwinian theory, I don’t have a replacement.

KM: Okay, the point that I think is extremely significant, is in this case one side argued from authentic evidence, and the other side said it’s not enough to convince me. And I think that’s a good way to end the discussion.

Comment #48463

Posted by Arden Chatfield on September 16, 2005 1:00 PM (e)

DB: I have no idea. I mean it’s not a question I’m prepared to answer one way or another. I don’t see why I’m obliged to answer that. I’m coming here under the large tent of objurgation. I find scientific flaws with the Darwinian theory, I don’t have a replacement.

An admirable example of how big the big tent of intelligent design is – it even includes people who don’t believe in intelligent design.

Comment #48475

Posted by PatrickS on September 16, 2005 2:02 PM (e)

Donald M wrote:
There’s a diatribe of falsehood if I ever saw one. “IDeeerrrs” (strange abbreviation) are not, that’s n-o-t, fundamentalists. As IDPs (intelligent Design proponents) come from many different religious and non-religious backgrounds,

Go ahead and poke fun of my abbreviations, you have nothing of substance to say. When it comes down to it, it IS fundamentalist christians that believe the wizardry espoused by ID. I acknowledge the fact that members of other denominations have gotten behind the ID train. I know some people that have fallen for the ID smoke screen. When you tell them the truth, that ID is really creationism revisited all over again, they reject it. You are only fooling yourself. This is going to bite fundamentalist christians in the ass. It IS the end of fundamentalist Christianity. That is precisely what the debate is all about.

Comment #48483

Posted by PatrickS on September 16, 2005 2:41 PM (e)

Donald M wrote:But it is interesting to note that you know exactly what the “true” God wants from us poor humans. Perhaps you could share how you come by that knowledge? Claims of knowing exactly what the “true” God wants of humans sounds pretty fundamentalist to me!!

You are the one that used the term “poor” humans. It’s a shame you feel that way about God’s greatest creation. I assure you, I am NOT a fundamentalist christian in the sense that you know. As far as knowing what God wants from me, I simply use the mind HE/SHE/IT gave me. Some people let others do their thinking for them. Like going to some magic show church on Sunday and listening to a preacher that makes them feel good about themselves. That’s fine! They are free to believe whatever they want. Please, keep their beliefs out of the science classroom. What I find most interesting is the fact that this discussion has boiled down to a discussion about religion when ID purports to NOT be about religion. Do you find it interesting as well?

Comment #48487

Posted by PatrickS on September 16, 2005 2:54 PM (e)

Dembski wrote:You guys are pathetic! Knock it off please. You’ll burn in hell for all of those remarks you’ve made. Soon God will reveal his true self and you will be in awe while descending into hell.

Awe, the truth of the matter comes out at last from the horse’s mouth! Intelligent Design IS about sneaking fundamentalist christianity into the classroom and coercing students in the public school system to believe as they do. That is no better than Islam! The Islamic religion states that all people must believe as they do. Are you starting to get it yet?

Comment #48489

Posted by Arden Chatfield on September 16, 2005 3:01 PM (e)

Awe, the truth of the matter comes out at last from the horse’s mouth! Intelligent Design IS about sneaking fundamentalist christianity into the classroom and coercing students in the public school system to believe as they do. That is no better than Islam! The Islamic religion states that all people must believe as they do. Are you starting to get it yet?

Umm…I think that’s someone pretending to be Mr. D…

least, I hope so.

Comment #48491

Posted by PatrickS on September 16, 2005 3:13 PM (e)

Umm…I think that’s someone pretending to be Mr. D…

least, I hope so.

Silly me! But you never know. Keep in mind, this is the same crowd that believes the earth is only 5000 years old.

Comment #48502

Posted by Matt Zellman on September 16, 2005 3:52 PM (e)

JAllen wrote:

The level 1 panda is just a plain ol’ panda
Level 2 is a panda in a tuxedo - I think a reference to “creationism in a cheap tuxedo”
Level 3 is a panda in crusader armor - because “Darwinism” is a religion and the pandas are defending the “faith”
Level 4 is a heavily bandaged panda with crutches - because WAD is putting them through the vice, of course. (There is no need for the misspelling of his last name, WAD is accurate on several levels)
Level 5 is a panda wearing glasses and has rings or closed hooks for hands (test tube holders?) - not sure what this one is supposed to be, if test tube holders, then it must be a comment on the foolishness of pursuing science in the lab.
Level 6 seems to be the same as 5, I’ve only made it once - the pandas keep winning.

If you turn up the sound, the pandas spout sarcasm at you… in the form of quotations from scientists criticizing the concept of ID. The quotations help to confirm the suspicions listed:
Level 1: “Who designed the designer?”
Level 2: “Intelligent Design is just Creationism in a cheap tuxedo.”
Level 3: “Intelligent Design is an attempt by the Religious Right to establish a theocracy! OH NO!”
Level 4: “Bad design means no design.”
Level 5: “Intelligent Design has never been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Never!”

After that, there’s nothing new. Apparently, these five quotations are the ones that require sarcastic repeating for their rebuttal. Take note people ;-)

Comment #48512

Posted by buddha on September 16, 2005 4:56 PM (e)

Matt Zellman wrote:

Level 1: “Who designed the designer?”

It’s better than that: “Who designed the designer? Heh heh heh heh!” ;-)

FWIW, The number of pandas on each level is 8 + 2n. The pandas that first appear on level n require n hits (including hitting the ground) to kill. The basic scores for each species of panda is 10, 20, 50, 100 and 170. The basic score is multiplied by the current level for each kill. The “Think Tank” can take six hits.

The maximum total score possible at each level is 100, 580, 2680, 9080, 24380, 44780, 70960, 103600, 143380, 190980 (first ten levels).

My highest score is 59750 at level 9.

Comment #48513

Posted by William Dembski on September 16, 2005 4:57 PM (e)

One other thing for you pandas, if you come to my website and post your evolutionary lies there, I will automatically remove your post and boot you permanently. I am no longer going to play games with you. Leave us alone, please. That’s all we ask for.

Comment #48521

Posted by Arden Chatfield on September 16, 2005 5:11 PM (e)

One other thing for you pandas, if you come to my website and post your evolutionary lies there, I will automatically remove your post and boot you permanently.

Hey Bill. How they hanging.

Anyway, um, now Bill, the thing about it is, we already know you do this.

I am no longer going to play games with you.

But you make such great games! Dang.

Y’all come back now, hear?

Comment #48523

Posted by SteveF on September 16, 2005 5:26 PM (e)

One other thing for you pandas, if you come to my website and post your evolutionary lies there, I will automatically remove your post and boot you permanently. I am no longer going to play games with you. Leave us alone, please. That’s all we ask for.

Would I be right in thinking that this is a parody by somebody pretending to be the Isaac Newton of information theory?

If not, then….…….

Comment #48525

Posted by caerbannog on September 16, 2005 5:28 PM (e)

One other thing for you pandas, if you come to my website and post your evolutionary lies there, I will automatically remove your post and boot you permanently. I am no longer going to play games with you. Leave us alone, please. That’s all we ask for.

Dr. Dembski,

I would like to let you know that even though I may not be welcome at your blog-site, I would never want to see you booted from The Panda’s Thumb. I, for one, always look forward to reading your posts here, no matter how you much you would like to keep folks like me muzzled over at your place.

Sincerely, another devious evilutionist.

Comment #48553

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on September 16, 2005 9:41 PM (e)

William Dembski wrote:

One other thing for you pandas, if you come to my website and post your evolutionary lies there, I will automatically remove your post and boot you permanently. I am no longer going to play games with you. Leave us alone, please. That’s all we ask for.

[Assuming this is Dembski, I have a feeling it might be someone sock puppeting him]

Which is rather odd, because as you were demanding that the 38 Nobel Laureates write a rebuttal to ID (which of course, has already been done rather well anyway) I was wondering why would anyone bother. It’s not like you actually bother to answer your critics anyway, as you demonstrate repeatedly with your numerous little rants against anyone who does take the time to castrate your ‘maths’.

As for posting at your website, it’s pretty clear that all it’s about is collecting sycophants and that ID once again, fails to be able to debate like their tagline “teach the controversy” says. At least we here will always allow those with an opposing view to post and respond. Then again, unlike ID, we don’t have anything to be afraid of because the science is on our side.

Comment #48554

Posted by Red Mann on September 16, 2005 9:43 PM (e)

“Level 5 is a panda wearing glasses and has rings or closed hooks for hands (test tube holders?) - not sure what this one is supposed to be, if test tube holders, then it must be a comment on the foolishness of pursuing science in the lab. “

Maybe they’re Pirate hooks?

RAmen

Comment #48557

Posted by steve on September 16, 2005 11:07 PM (e)

Was that really William Dembski? With all the pseudonyms going around, I bet it’s not. The ambiguity is a good argument for a registration system.

Comment #48558

Posted by Admin on September 16, 2005 11:28 PM (e)

The IP address from which the “William Dembski” and “Adolph Hitler” posts came has been locked out of the system. It does not correspond to the IP address previously used by William Dembski when posting here.

Comment #48562

Posted by Henry J on September 16, 2005 11:57 PM (e)

Re “Maybe they’re Pirate hooks?”

Or maybe their thumbs evolved?

Henry

Comment #48566

Posted by SEF on September 17, 2005 4:48 AM (e)

WAD is accurate on several levels

Is that with “wad” being some obscure (to me) American slang or just the usual soft padding or stuffing?

Comment #48568

Posted by Bing on September 17, 2005 6:33 AM (e)

Dembski wrote in his post about the NCSE speaking schedule:

Several things things should impress you about this page. First, the number of talks to atheist organizations; second, the number of talks paid for by university biology departments;

2 questions Bill.

1: If ID is truly science and not grounded in religion, who cares to whom and where your opponents speak? Whether an organization is identified by you as “atheist” is immaterial if the substance of the talk is takes no stand on religion and instead focuses on science.

2: What is the problem with university biology departments for a talk that is about advanced biological topics? Again, for topics covering science and not religion, which is the appropriate venue and audience?

Would you expect Sycophant Sal to welcome Dr. Scott with open arms and an open mind to this IDEA Club (Christians only)?

Comment #48571

Posted by Louis on September 17, 2005 7:15 AM (e)

I am rather amused by the game. All of the pandas’ comments are bloody good points. The panda comments on levels 1 and 5 are good points about how poor the philosophy and “science” (they haven’t done any so the scare quotes stand) of ID creationism are. The panda comments on levels 2 and 3 are simple observable facts about ID (observe the recycling of creationist nonsense and that wonderous Wedge document). However, the panda comment on level 4 is the worst one. It’s a poor caricature of the point actually being made. The soundbite is inadequate to describe the argument.

My point is this, the intent of the game is obviously to lampoon the comments of thumbites and show Dembski and the DI as an heroic defender in the face of an overwhelming onslaught. The game author’s opinion of the onslaught is also clear. However, the irony is that the pandas’ comments are actually devastating to ID! What I thought when I saw the game was “what a moron!” simply whoever wrote the game and chose what the pandas were saying doesn’t realising how the panda comments expose ID up for what it is.

Ah but it’s said so often that creationism is almost indistinguishable from any extreme parody of it. This game shows that not only do these nutballs possess no ability for self examination, but also that irony is yet another alien concept to them.

Comment #48664

Posted by Henry J on September 17, 2005 5:55 PM (e)

Re “Is that with “wad” being some obscure (to me) American slang or just the usual soft padding or stuffing?”

The letters “WAD” are Dembski’s initials.

Henry

Comment #48670

Posted by SEF on September 17, 2005 6:17 PM (e)

I know that part of it, Henry. What I don’t know is what that then means to you (and Dembski) which makes the initials undesirable or amusingly accurate.

Comment #48682

Posted by hetero erectus on September 17, 2005 7:50 PM (e)

I actually enjoyed wasting a couple of minutes playing this game and thought it was, uhm, cute. Seems it could have been created for a ID or pro-evolution web site.

I have a theory (laymans sense of the word) about this game. Maybe its just a tactic by wad in the google wars to ring up more hits for his web site.

wad: Look how the interest in ID has grown! My google scores have soared compared to those the dogmatic evolutionists!

I don’t think this is something a pro-science site would stoop to but I would not put it past the (hopefully) dieing ID movement. Now how can I play again without upping his hit count?

Hey! Its just a theory (laymans sense of the word)!

Keep up the good fight!

Comment #48683

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on September 17, 2005 8:13 PM (e)

Skip writes”
At one point Berlinski is in the hot seat when someone, I can’t remember who, says something about “to those who support intelligent design,” and Berlinski replies quite clearly, “I don’t”, even causing the questionaire to say, “Well, to those who do.”

I am not claiming this to be an exact transcript, but I have seen the tape many times and think it is quite accurate.”

However, I do have the official transcript, I ordered it.

Ken Miller made the statement “to those who support intelligent design” to which Berlinski indeed chimed in “I don’t”

For those who have a copy of the transcript, the exchange occurse just beofre the end.

Comment #48695

Posted by Greg on September 18, 2005 2:24 AM (e)

SEF,

If you’re not prudish, see entry 1 of the Urban Dictionary definition of “wad”.

I believe this is what JAllen means when he/she says “WAD” is “accurate on several levels”.

Comment #49202

Posted by PhilVaz on September 22, 2005 1:59 PM (e)

Has anyone mentioned SPORE? The evolution game coming out for Xbox-360 by the makers of The Sims.

http://spore.ea.com

Phil P