IDiot Seeks Evo-Diva
UPDATED: This is how Dembski replies to his commenters.
Valkhorn & EJ Klone: GilDodgen got it. Apparently neither of you did. With Dennett and Dawkins hawking Darwinism and thoroughly alienating the unwashed middle, the comparison seems apt. Tiggy: If you want my technical work, go to www.designinference.com. As I indicated a long time ago, this blog is my playground. When I have a moment, I’ll be booting all three of you.
Yikes! Testy! Don't argue with Wild Bill on his playground.
----
Ahhh, Bill Dembski, now I know what goes on in that devious little brain of yours! Sometimes.
UPDATED: Anytime you want to see what goes on in my nasty little brain, check here. If you dare.
He thinks that "Darwinists" aren't sexy enough and should recruit another anorexic blond (not Ann Coulter this time) to market our, er, product, as if it were a fucking car. (No, I'm not linking to the Dembster. You all know where he is.)
That's right, his latest post on Uncommonly Dense calls upon us to model ourselves after Paris Hilton's latest commercial (and features a repulsive car ad of some flabby-ass dude in a string swimsuit that he oh-so-wittily says represents the advocates for sound science education).
Well, that's an enlightened view of female "participation in science," I must say. It's for sure that this wasn't written by UD's helpmeet Denyse O'Leary, whose role is apparently confined to lighting lanterns in the shed.
And to think that Dembski turned down my $1000 bet. Well, actually, he just never replied to my list of terms. But I know somebody who is totally getting a reality belly-gram in ten years, and it doesn't have to be from me. Although it would be funny if it was. (I'll be 51--holy shit! But hell, he'll be even older.)
About that bet--there's something that Dembski said to me that has made me ponder it ever since. At first I took it seriously, but now I think it was a form of reverse psychology: "Dawkins' Selfish Gene is not where you want to put your money." I took it to heart and didn't include The Selfish Gene in my demands--and I have to admit I was little scared that he actually replied to lil' ole me at all--but now I wonder if he wanted me to bet on Dawkins' theory, or if he didn't want me to? I mean, all this "advice"--was he being a nice guy to me, or a manipulative shit?
I'm not going to make Richard Dawkins the object of a bet--I find that idea distasteful, and disrespectful to a man that I have come to admire very much--but I do wonder about Dembski and his Selfish Gene fixation. He blogs a lot about it--and about Dawkins. Is he really convinced that Dawkins' thesis is headed for the trash heap, or is he scared?
As I said in my e-mail to Dembski, I don't know if he is conniving or profoundly naive. In reality, he's probably a little of both, but which where, I still can't figure out.
Valkhorn & EJ Klone: GilDodgen got it. Apparently neither of you did. With Dennett and Dawkins hawking Darwinism and thoroughly alienating the unwashed middle, the comparison seems apt. Tiggy: If you want my technical work, go to www.designinference.com. As I indicated a long time ago, this blog is my playground. When I have a moment, I’ll be booting all three of you.
Yikes! Testy! Don't argue with Wild Bill on his playground.
----
Ahhh, Bill Dembski, now I know what goes on in that devious little brain of yours! Sometimes.
UPDATED: Anytime you want to see what goes on in my nasty little brain, check here. If you dare.
He thinks that "Darwinists" aren't sexy enough and should recruit another anorexic blond (not Ann Coulter this time) to market our, er, product, as if it were a fucking car. (No, I'm not linking to the Dembster. You all know where he is.)
That's right, his latest post on Uncommonly Dense calls upon us to model ourselves after Paris Hilton's latest commercial (and features a repulsive car ad of some flabby-ass dude in a string swimsuit that he oh-so-wittily says represents the advocates for sound science education).
Well, that's an enlightened view of female "participation in science," I must say. It's for sure that this wasn't written by UD's helpmeet Denyse O'Leary, whose role is apparently confined to lighting lanterns in the shed.
And to think that Dembski turned down my $1000 bet. Well, actually, he just never replied to my list of terms. But I know somebody who is totally getting a reality belly-gram in ten years, and it doesn't have to be from me. Although it would be funny if it was. (I'll be 51--holy shit! But hell, he'll be even older.)
About that bet--there's something that Dembski said to me that has made me ponder it ever since. At first I took it seriously, but now I think it was a form of reverse psychology: "Dawkins' Selfish Gene is not where you want to put your money." I took it to heart and didn't include The Selfish Gene in my demands--and I have to admit I was little scared that he actually replied to lil' ole me at all--but now I wonder if he wanted me to bet on Dawkins' theory, or if he didn't want me to? I mean, all this "advice"--was he being a nice guy to me, or a manipulative shit?
I'm not going to make Richard Dawkins the object of a bet--I find that idea distasteful, and disrespectful to a man that I have come to admire very much--but I do wonder about Dembski and his Selfish Gene fixation. He blogs a lot about it--and about Dawkins. Is he really convinced that Dawkins' thesis is headed for the trash heap, or is he scared?
As I said in my e-mail to Dembski, I don't know if he is conniving or profoundly naive. In reality, he's probably a little of both, but which where, I still can't figure out.
posted by Kristine | Tuesday, August 22, 2006
6 Comments:
Is he really convinced that Dawkins' thesis is headed for the trash heap, or is he scared?
I doubt it's even that nuanced. I think Dembski is just mad because Dawkins was mean to him by proxy.
It's probably just another facet of Dembski's "it's all about me" worldview.
But how was Dawkins "mean to him" by proxy? By writing a book? By being an evolutionary biologist, as Dembski's father was? I've often wondered about that, and if Dembski is rebelling against someone that he won't admit could be a father figure to him.
Dembski & Co. pick on Dawkins' looks a lot, too, calling him "foppish" and crap like that. Wha? I'm not going there, but all I can say is, maybe Dembski should title his autobiography The Selfish Keen! Ha.
I still wonder about that "advice" he gave me though--maybe I should have picked his brain a little about that instead of just blind-siding him because I felt pressure to be smart in the situation. I can't help but be curious...
Oooh. I didn't know that Dembski's father was an evolutionary biologist. That changes things. It certainly makes your "rebel with out a clue" theory quite a bit more tenable than my "mean old Richie hurt wittle Billy's feelings" idea.
Woo-hoo! Re-evaluating theories based on new evidence! Yay, science!
Oh, and I also love the multiple phobias implied by the "foppish" comment, with its not-so-subtle implication that all English men are gay.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
(Oops, my original reply had a bad linky.)
Well, a Biology professor, anyway.
Gay! Dawkins is married to arguably one of the most gorgeous women in the world. Although I hear that Dembski's wife is awfully attractive too, so I don't know what the "fop" issue is about. I wish Dembski & Co. would just drop it, because I'm damn sick of it.
BTW, I signed up for that Galapagos cruise with Dawkins and Paul Kurtz next year, so maybe when I finally meet him I can pick Dawkins' brain on the issue--assuming he cares--which he may not. He seems confused by the whole I.D./creationism thing here in America, whereas while I hate it I'm not terribly surprised by it.
Well, the Europeans got rid of most of this crap hundreds of years ago. Maybe you've seen it, but for a pretty good idea of what the Church of England is like, check out Eddie Izzard's Dress to Kill.
Post a Comment
<< Home