It’s official: I’m an enemy of Intelligent Design
It must suck to be Denyse O’Leary. I mean really, really suck. Denyse has her granny panties in a knot about how some of us “Darwinists” are mean to her.
Looking at the big picture over the past seven years (when I first started to take the intelligent design controversy seriously), one item stands out: The behaviour of the promoters of Darwinian evolution.
It is exactly what one might predict of people who think they don’t have a good case.
That’s right, Denyse. We mock Intelligent Design because we secretly know that evolution is a house of cards that will come crumbling down as soon as Michael Behe publishes Darwin’s Black Box William Dembski sets up shop in the Baylor’s Michael Polanyi Center Judge Jones rules that Intelligent design is science the new issue of Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design is published William Dembski and Robert Marks set up the Evolutionary Informatics Lab Micheal Behe publishes The Edge of Evolution William Dembski and Johnathan Wells publish The Design of Life Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is released in theaters.
I’m sorry, Denyse. What was that about somebody not having a case?
Is it any wonder that people mock Intelligent Design? William A. Dembski - the supposed “Isaac Newton of Information Theory” - actually posted the following headline at his blog, Uncommon Descent:
Denyse writes for a blog that gets taken in by urban legends. Her overlord, William Dembski, reacted to Baylor putting the kibosh on his non-existent lab by publishing the phone numbers of Baylor’s Board of Regents. When the Weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O’Leary and Friends consciously attempts humor, it is so painfully unfunny that even their normally sycophantic readers roll their eyes in disgust. Intelligent Design’s Next Big Thing isn’t a research paper, it’s a fucking movie. A fucking movie narrated by a former game show host and speech writer for Nixon. A fucking movie whose promoters are bribing churches to go see said fucking movie. And worst of all, Uncommon Descent thinks putting Denyse O’Leary’s name on their blog will attract readers.
And she wonders why we mock?
It’s not as if Intelligent Design is producing any actual science for anyone to refute. When one of them tries, it’s not a pretty sight to see. Face it: there’s no media conspiracy to mock Intelligent Design. Such a thing would be superfluous at this point. Intelligent Design has become like 200 clowns getting out of a Volkswagen Beetle and simultaneously slipping on banana peels, then simultaneously falling face-first into 200 piles of dog shit. Are we supposed to marvel at the timing and precision required to pull off such a feat?
No, we’re supposed to laugh.
I’m running out of naming options for these increasingly sick people. I started out a month ago with Church Burners. Then I had to add Ebola Boys. Church Burning Ebola Boys. Now what - Church Burning Baby Butchering Ebola Boys? That’s too long. Too unwieldy. Any suggestions would be appreciated. (Source: 
February 4th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! The mocking comes not from having a poor argument. The mocking comes from dealing with people who cannot understand the definition of words, ignore facts and use twisted logic.
Let us use an analogy. You know yous basic math. You know the difference between addition and multiplication. You run across a person who argues that 2X3=5. You point out that the person is mistaken. You show why 2X3=6. The person cries foul and refuses to listen to to proof. Some people after a while will start to mock the math denier because it is obvious that knowledge is of no importance to this person. In fact this denial of fact just might show that there is some kind of problem with this person.
It may not be the most mature action but, damn, sometimes one has to laugh.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Ah! Thank you for the walk down ID Memory Lane!
The ACLU / Praying Marines scam that they fell for is still my favorite.
Perhaps Denyse could be comforted by reciting this mantra:
“ID is a crock, therefore we mock”.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:24 am
Of course ID’s next big thing isn’t a research paper, that would imply that they actually did research. ID isn’t an appeal to knowledge, it’s an appeal to emotion, that’s why they work the way they do. They appeal to the people who are most open to nonsensical claims, the religious. They appeal to the lowest common denominator, they make ridiculous claims, pretend they have evidence (but never present it) and stage cheap attacks on sciences they know nothing about.
I’m not sure why anyone is surprised that ID and it’s asshat proponents like Denyse O’Leary, work the way they do. We should be laughing, right in their faces.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Ummm, the appropriate analogy involves 200 clowns, 300 piles of dog shit. See it’s funnier that way. Good post.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
daud pharian valhall lychnic continuingly alicyclic alisma thermotank
Rock-on.8k.com
http://www.signalwatch.com/