IDiot Seeks Evo-Diva
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.