Thursday, December 06, 2007

EXPELLED: For an review??

Wow. So, Billy Dembski is having a bit of a seizure over at Uncommon Descent right now. Um… ummmm… I feel stupid even writing this.

Um, Dembski is freaking out... because someone wrote a negative review of 'Design of Life’ at


John Kwok, one of Amazons Top 50 reviewers, had the audacity to call Creationist Crap crap, and Dembski would have none of it. He even hauled out the Prize Pig argument I got from slack-jawed yokles that refused to believe Behe screwed up: “OMFG MAH BOOK IS THE GUD U SO DIDN’T READ IT!”

Um, Billy, I haven’t read your book. I haven’t even seen a table of contents. And I bet a bottle of single malt scotch I can tell everyone exactly what you and Moonie-Man Wells wrote. Ahem:

  • Quote mines. Lots and lots of quote mines. More from Dawkins, the better. Scientists know evilution is wrong, but wont admit it.
  • Pubjacks. Lots and lots of pubjacks.
  • The word ‘Darwinists’ is used ~1,000 times.
  • Fossil record is incomplete. There should be transitional fossils, but there arent any.
  • Genetics supports design
  • Junk DNA
  • Pictures that were originally supposed to be from ‘The Inner Life of a Cell’, but Harvard told them no.
  • The word ‘paradigm’ is used ~25 times.
  • Lots of stuff about Materialism being evil—Certainly something about Nazis, including pictures from concentration camps.
  • No testable predictions from ID Creationism.
Time will tell if my predictions are true, however, lets play Dembskis game. Fine, Kwok didn’t read ‘Design.’ What about his review was inaccurate? Inappropriate? Warranted Billy D sending his sycophants over to Amazon to demand Kwoks review be taken down? Yeah, Kwoks review has been taken down. The only ones left are by Casey and other DI tools (more on that in a moment). Like I told Dembski at OU, “So much for both sides.”

What a pathetic, insecure, wet rat.

Who is he to start bitching about Amazon reviews anyway? Seriously, did Dembski sustain a major brain injury as a child that prevents him from retaining memories? Lets get in the Tardis again, but lets just go back to 2003:
1.0 out of 5 stars Who Are They Kidding?, December 22, 2003
By A Customer
Prometheus Press is one of the most militantly atheistic and ideologically driven presses around. And yet it purports that the following description of the book represents an unbiased assessment of Perakh's work: "This thoughtful and incisive critique from a veteran scientist genuinely concerned about the integrity of the scientific enterprise wastes no diplomacy on those who would see its purpose twisted to ideological ends." If there are ideological ends on the intelligent design side, there are no less ideological ends on the anti-design side, for which Perakh has now become a champion. Perakh's analyses of Behe, Johnson, and Dembski are in each instance defective. If simply by reading Perakh, you think he has decisively demolished intelligent design, you need to read the primary literature. Especially recommended here are John Campbell and Steve Meyer's _Darwinism, Design, and Public Education_ as well as Dembski's _The Design Revolution_, which answers many of Perakh's concerns.
Yes, that ‘anonymous’ review which was basically an ad for Dembskis book, was written by… Dembski. And he posted it a few places, including on ‘Creationism's Trojan Horse’, under various names. Wow! That’s some book review! Covers multiple books! So much for ‘BUT U DIDN’T RED MAH BUK!’ as a defense.

I was also rather interested to find what reviews of ‘Design’ Dembski approves of. One was written by Donald Ewert. Yes, the same Ewert that won my ‘Crappiest Creationist Presentation EVAH!’ award. Im sorry, what *exactly* in Ewerts review demonstrates that Ewert read ‘Design’? Its just a coagulation of ID sound bites: ‘paradigm shift’ ‘complex and intricate mechanisms’ ‘methodological materialism’ ‘quantum mechanics’ blah blah blaaaaah **VOMIT**

Dembski is such a big man. Big and strong. When surrounded by people telling him how big and strong he is.


John Kwoks review—just in case it doesn’t get put back up:
On December 20, 2005 Federal Judge John E. Jones, a Republican jurist appointed by President George W. Bush rendered this decision:

"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

"Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

"With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Two years have elapsed since Judge Jones issued this historic verdict. A decision which was, without question, a staggering blow to both the Discovery Institute's Intelligent Design advocates, and to many others, who, regrettably, still harbor ample, rather disingenuous, pretensions to asserting the scientific validity of an idea that was soundly rejected once before, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and deserves its widespread current repudiation by modern scientists, especially from those who are professional evolutionary biologists (If you don't believe my claims, then please read the many ludicrous, often hysterical, comments posted by Intelligent Design advocates (who truly deserve British paleontologist Richard Fortey's perjorative nickname, IDiot) and other creationists at the product page for Dr. Michael Behe's "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits to Darwinism", often relying upon vituperative attacks on supporters of evolution, and in, general, on reason itself.). However, the conservative Discovery Institute, and its fellow intellectual travelers in the Intelligent Design and creationist movements are in a total state of denial, still refusing to admit their devastating debacle at the hands of a Republican Federal jurist. The most recent example of the Discovery Institute's ongoing delusional state is this very textbook co-authored by Discovery Institute Senior Fellows William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells, who, in spite of their impressive academic credentials, have not published anything that would be regarded as valid mainstream science by their peers in the scientific community for nearly a decade and a half. Their book is the widely anticipated sequel to the earlier Intelligent Design creationist textbook "Of Pandas and People", whose "evolutionary" history was one of the important pieces of evidence used by plaintiff attorneys against both the Dover Area School District and Intelligent Design advocates during the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial. It can also be seen - and I believe quite correctly - as the Discovery Institute's last ditch effort at grasping at intellectual straws, by urging high school educators to "Teach the Controversy" - which this textbook emphasizes with respect to contemporary evolutionary theory - instead of trying to explain why Intelligent Design deserves ample, serious consideration as a valid alternative in attempting to explain the origins, history and current complexity of Planet Earth's biodiversity. Indeed, it should be regarded as a valiant, yet hopelessly inane, effort by two Fundamentalist Protestant Christian-oriented "scholars" who remain quite determined - almost to the point of religious fanaticism as seen from the likes of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda brethren - to seeing their narrow, tormented version of a Christian origin myth taught alongside genuine science in North American science classrooms and elsewhere around the globe.

This new textbook doesn't even try to defend Intelligent Design's pretense of being a better alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory in discussing the origins and history of life on Planet Earth. Nor does it demonstrate that it is valid science, but instead, stresses the current "controversies" with respect to our understanding of evolutionary biology, with topics ranging from those pertaining to the fossil record to evolutionary developmental biology; the latter known popularly as "evo-devo". Indeed, in private e-mail correspondence with both Dembski and Behe, I have received no definitive statements from either, indicating that Intelligent Design is truly, a compelling, scientifically more valid, alternative than contemporary evolutionary theory in explaining the origins and history of life on Planet Earth. Instead, the best response I received from them was this, quoting from Dembski, " Intelligent Design raises questions". It does indeed, but not those that he alludes to in his prolific writing, simply because he, Wells, Behe, Minnich, Gonzalez, and their fellow Intelligent Design advocates, have had more than fifteen years to make their case within the mainstream scientific community, and have failed miserably, not just once, but again and again (Much to my amazement, Philip Johnson, the spiritual "godfather" of the Intelligent Design "movement", has conceded recently that Intelligent Design is not yet a valid scientific theory.). I asked both Dembski and Behe these questions: "Where are Intelligent Design's testable hypotheses? Where are the productive scientific research programs inspired by Intelligent Design? Where are Intelligent Design's peer-reviewed scientific papers published in such eminent mainstream scientific journals such as Nature, Science, Paleobiology, Cladistics, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Evolution, American Naturalist, among others?" The replies I received were only deafening silence from both. So much for Intelligent Design's pretensions for being a valid scientific theory, right?

Dembski tries to make a persuasive case on behalf of Intelligent Design, using the same probabilistic models he developed for his "No Free Lunch" and "Explanatory Filter" concepts; the very models that have been harshly criticized by his former Ph. D. dissertation advisor at the University of Chicago, who is now a highly respected mathematician teaching at a prominent Canadian university (Incidentally, three times I have asked Dembski - who has a M. S. degree in statistics from the University of Illinois, Chicago - a basic statistics question which he couldn't answer, both twice, in person, after the 2002 American Museum of Natural History Intelligent Design debate, and, recently, in private e-mail correspondence: "How do you calculate the confidence limits for the Explanatory Filter?" Three times he hasn't provided me with any answer but a deafening, stony silence.). I wonder what the current president of the University of Chicago, distinguished mathematician Robert Zimmer - who is a prominent alumnus of my prestigious New York City public high school - thinks of Dembski's "research", especially when Zimmer has taught mathematics at the University of Chicago for decades, except for a relatively brief stint as the provost of Brown University (my undergraduate alma mater); it's quite possible that Zimmer served as a member of Dembski's doctoral dissertation committee in mathematics. Since Dembski's concepts are fundamentally, just metaphysical, pseudoscientific, religious nonsense, it seems that a more appropriate usage of his fine literary talents would be writing a textbook on Klingon Cosmology; a potentially lucrative suggestion that he has rejected (For reasons which I have noted elsewhere, here at, I believe that there is substantially more evidence in support of Klingon Cosmology than there is for Intelligent Design.).

Two years ago I attended an alumni gathering in the auditorium of my high school alma mater, New York City's prestigious Stuyvesant High School (Many regard Stuyvesant as America's premier high school devoted to the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. Its many prominent alumni include distinguished scientists, mathematicians, engineers and doctors, including four Nobel Prize-winning scientists and an economist; the most of any high school in the United States; with the notable exception of arch rival Bronx High School of Science's seven Nobel Prize-winning alumni in physics. Barely three percent pass of those taking the annual competitive, quite rigorous, entrance examination for the nearly 800 places available in the following year's freshman class; an acceptance rate that is substantially lower than gaining admission to Harvard University's undergraduate college.). Stuyvesant's current principal, Mr. Stanley Teitel, pledged that Intelligent Design would never be taught at Stuyvesant, as long as he served as its principal; a pledge made by Mr. Teitel during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial (Mr. Teitel has taught physics at Stuyvesant since the mid 1980s, and still teaches one course of senior-level physics to a class comprised of entering freshmen.). Why did Mr. Teitel make this pledge? The answer is obvious. Unlike Dembski, Wells, Behe, and their Discovery Institute colleagues, Mr. Teitel recognizes that Intelligent Design is unscientific.

In my review of British filmmaker Matthew Chapman's hilarious, yet profound, eyewitness account of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, I concluded with these remarks, which, upon reflection, are an appropriate ending for my review of this latest example of mendacious intellectual pornography - which is how I regard Intelligent Design - being disseminated by the Discovery Institute:

"I concur with Ken Miller's observation that introducing Intelligent Design into science classrooms would be a `science stopper'. It would conflate most students' understanding of what exactly is the difference between religious faith and science, though I suppose that some truly gifted students, like those attending prominent American high schools such as Alexandria, Virginia's Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Tchnology, and New York City's Bronx High School of Science and Stuyvesant High School, might readily understand and appreciate these distinctions. And yet I am inclined to agree more with the harsh view articulated by distinguished British paleontologist Richard Fortey in his essay published in the January 30, 2007 issue of the British newspaper Telegraph, contending that it is an absolute waste of time arguing with Intelligent Design advocates, and that they ought to be dismissed as `IDiots'; by extension, so would be the teaching of Intelligent Design alongside evolution in a science classroom. I would rather see talented students from Thomas Jefferson, Bronx Science and Stuyvesant engage themselves fruitfully in genuine scientific research of the highest caliber, than in trying to understand the metaphysical, religious nonsense known as Intelligent Design and other flavors of creationism. I think, in hindsight, so would Charles Darwin."


Glend said...

Thanks for the Kwok review. It's not really all that great, other than in putting Dembski's and Wells's book into perspective, but at least it's not from some paid shill.

How Amazon could even think to tear that down, while people working for the DI count as "readers" who "reviewed" the book, I can't fathom. I wonder if any of the positive reviews came from someone who bought his own book, or who didn't read it before it "came out." And yes, I suspect most were done as part of their salaried duties.

Sure, Amazon can't really prevent those kinds of reviews, or the votes from those and other shills. But they could at least leave alone the almost certainly unpaid-for reviews by actual readers (though he likely didn't read that book), so that it wouldn't be the case that every review there was orchestrated--which is certainly a possibility (other than the recent Irons review).

Glen Davidson

Forthekids said...

This really *has* to be said...

You have got to be the most hateful, foul mouthed, frothing bitch in the biosphere.

There. I feel better now regardless of the beating I'm going to take for stating the obvious. Most unfortunately, I’m voicing this observation directly after reprimanding Sal for not being more considerate to Darwinists, but I simply cannot read this horrific display of seething hatred without commenting on it.

Thanks for listening, and God bless...

Tyler DiPietro said...

"You have got to be the most hateful, foul mouthed, frothing bitch in the biosphere."

What's not to love? Perhaps it's not to your liking that not every woman is a toothless, servile waste of space (like certain other ones I can think of). It must suck to be you.

CJ said...

I have to confess a serious case of plagiarism from my side.

I have just decided to gave my "review" of billy's book on Amazon by quoting your blog entry in full, including your insert of John Kwok's review.

Amazing that amazon is so eager to bend over for the wet rat.

My apologies again at plagiarizing your work. I am however curious to see how amazon would react to sufficient criticism and activism against their flaccid capitulation to those who are eager to criticize but can't stand criticism themselves.

Glend said...

but I simply cannot read this horrific display of seething hatred without commenting on it.

Not to mention that you can't go without adding to it, without, naturally, in the slightest addressing the calumny that provokes ERV to call a spade a spade.

Of course, in your world, calling a spade a silver spoon is not only permitted, but virtually de rigeur. You need to learn what dishonesty means to those who insist on honesty.

Glen Davidson

Ken Salter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pleco said...

Fuck Philip Johnson and fuck all his clones....

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Thom said...

This really *has* to be said...

You have got to be the most hateful, foul mouthed, frothing bitch in the biosphere.


I guess if she made you quit blogging, she's pretty much one the "debate" hasn't she?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...


This really *has* to be said...

You have got to be the most hateful, foul mouthed, frothing bitch in the biosphere.

You hypocrite.

Remember this from your own site ?
I consider this weblog an extension of my living room in cyberspace. If you enter a comment that I wouldn't find acceptable in my living room, I'm likely to boot both you and your comment. Fair warning, OK?

I think, that, by your own rules, ERV can boot your ass out of here. Thing is, if she does, you'll go back to your little blog and complain about more persecution.

Speaking of persecution, here is the real reason that Guillermo Gonzalez didn't get tenure: He didn't put out for his University. ID was only a small factor. Deal with it.

You act like you care so much about how people are persecuted in science, do you? Then what do you say about Cris Comer being forced out of her job for inviting Dr. Forrest to speak?

Get this through your head. Read the Dover transcripts. Read up on the thorough refutations of the ID books on Panda's Thumb, etc.

The singular reason that ID has been tossed from the scientific circles is that it's claims do not stand up under scrutiny!

Any time that ID is examined, checked out, and its propenents cross-examined (as happens in trials, peer-review, internet debates) ID loses. You people have yet to do any work to show what ID would predict and tests to actually back it up. Compare that with the over 150 years that evolution has been around.

It's not like that little cartoon you have on your site where the scientist actually sees "made by God" under the microscope.

It seems you can't seem to remember that ID is trying to pass itself off as secular, and non-religious. That was one of the points the TMLC and ID people tried to pass off in the Dover trial. Fortunately, people like Buckingham, etc. were no smarter than you and gave the game away. (Well, that, and the Wedge Document that Forrest showed the judge)!

While we're at it, let's look at another cartoon on your site: this one which blatently lies.

"We decide what's scientific, you shut up and nod your head". Outright lie. Do you want to know what scientistis actually say? Put up or shut up.

From that link:
You may want to compare this with my version of the year in ID. Once again, notice that there is no mention of a single peer-reviewed article offering either (a) positive evidence for design, (b) a method to unambiguously detect design, or (c) a theory of how the Designer did the designing. Now that would have been a "top development".

Read and learn something

ERV said...

lol@reynold-- blogger hates everyone, formatting is impossible in these comments

cj-- My only request is that you take it down if I ask :)

Glen-- I think it IS a good review. Dembski has not released anything since Dover, and 'Design' is the sequel to 'Pandas'. It is VERY important that a school board member who thinks 'Design' is a *safe* alternative for their school knows that their decision to adopt this book will lead their district into another Dover. Though I agree, that if you dont know this, his comments about Dover/schools could seem superfluous.

Tyler/Thom/pleco-- Meh, its a complement. Atheists might be afraid of peanut butter and bananas, but Fundies are scared shitless of young, happy, healthy, intelligent atheists. We must be 'seething' and 'hateful'. We just GOTTA be!
FtK and I have been over this, but maybe ID adversely effects ones memory (points at Dembski again).

Bill said...

Well, ERV, I'd rather be hateful, foul-mouthed, frothing smart (like you!) than thick-as-two-planks stoopid like some people we *coughFtKcough* know.

Wet rat.

Wonderful! You must have seen Dembski in his famous sweater. It's even Norwegian wharf rat grey.

Glend said...

Glen-- I think it IS a good review. Dembski has not released anything since Dover, and 'Design' is the sequel to 'Pandas'. It is VERY important that a school board member who thinks 'Design' is a *safe* alternative for their school knows that their decision to adopt this book will lead their district into another Dover. Though I agree, that if you dont know this, his comments about Dover/schools could seem superfluous.

I was thinking more on the order of Amazon's perspective, which presumably revolves around dealing with the specifics (not that the IDiots did). And I did include a major caveat, "...other than in putting Dembski's and Wells's book into perspective...."

And sure, that really is what's important overall. One could probably just put in the same reviews that exist for "Design Inference," with the same rot from the IDists, and same the telling arguments against ID from the pro-science side, and it would make little difference except for some names.

They're just going through the motions, recycling the same bad arguments and lying accusations that have become dangerously monotonous to those who wish to maintain science's integrity. And as such, Kwok's review hardly needed exposure to the specific forms of their tiresome cant in order to discuss what's really wrong with the book, nor to make the usual yet unanswered charges against that nonsense.

But I doubt that Amazon looks at it that way--after all, they do want to sell BS as much as they wish to sell the arguments against that BS. Indeed, for them a trumped-up "controversy" is simply a win-win situation.

Glen Davidson

Anonymous said...


Meh, its a complement. Atheists might be afraid of peanut butter and bananas, but Fundies are scared shitless of young, happy, healthy, intelligent atheists. We must be 'seething' and 'hateful'. We just GOTTA be!
FtK and I have been over this, but maybe ID adversely effects ones memory (points at Dembski again).

Actually, atheists don't need to be scared of the banana argument.

Mind you, when you read the link, you find that Comfort is apparently going back on his renunciation of it.

Not that it matters; the banana argument was stupid anyway: it was human selective breeding; not god that made it the way it is today. Comfort should instead try to find a way to explain why the coconut or the pineapple are not such easy, friendly foods to eat, like the banana is.

Brett said...

Long post, but good though. Youre right, of course, about the hypocrisy of the IDers especially Dembski. His "review" stunt was just rediculous.

Blake Stacey said...

OK, Denyse O'Leary called me an "ill-tempered illiterate", but Abbie is now the "most hateful, foul mouthed, frothing bitch in the biosphere." I think she wins.

Unless the profile of the critic factors into this contest. . . ?

Tyler DiPietro said...

"Atheists might be afraid of peanut butter and bananas..."

Actually, I think overall I was more frightened by the repressed homoeroticism of the banana clip. Not because I have ill-will toward gays or anything, but because they honestly don't seem to think anyone noticed...

Sunny said...

You have got to be the most hateful, foul mouthed, frothing bitch in the biosphere.

Which is why she's awesome. I wish I got the ovaries to take you IDiots on without breaking a sweat.

By the way I love that Amazon review you posted. I too am a Stuyvesant Alum, and it's glad to hear that this pseudoscience bullshit will not be taught in my alma mater. EVER.

Doppelganger said...

I had my review of Sarfati's book taken down twice.

I just kept re-submitting it and it is still there.

But how... pathetic that they will lobby to have critical reviews removed.

Their antics smack of Big Brother, and the more politicla clout they think they have, the worse it gets.

James F. McGrath said...

I said in jest on my blog that FTK is really Christopher Hitchens pretending to be an irrational Christian behaving in unchristian ways to discredit Christianity. I'm only slightly surprised how many people found it plausible. I guess it is hard to believe that someone could do so much to discredit Christianity and really, truly believe that she is spreading the Gospel. It is as though she doesn't realize that, while Christopher Hitchens is largely preaching to the choir, people like FTK actually drive away people who might, if they encountered intelligent, educated, well-informed Christians like Ken Miller or Francis Collins, might not have anything against it.

As a Christian, all I can say is that no system of thought, nor any scientific conclusion, should be judged on the basis of the human beings in any tradition who do evil in its name. I can also say that those who have studied Christianity and know what it teaches about the importance of things like truth will support ERV and the scientists over pseudochristians like FTK.

Jack said...

"You have got to be the most hateful, foul mouthed, frothing bitch in the biosphere."

And thank Eris for her.

Intelligent Design Creationism has been discussed on its merits and found sorely lacking. No one can honestly consider it a legitimate scientific endeavor. The fact that it is still being pushed so deceitfully means there are only two possible responses.

The first is to laugh at the supporters. Whether they are too willfully uneducated to realize that they are mouthing nonsense or they are too ethically challenged to care. In either case, mocking laughter is warranted.

The second is the type of public derision our gonzo biologist hostess does so well. We should be angry that these dishonest intellectual midgets are trying to destroy our country's educational system. Why do they hate America so much?

The ID movement has sown nothing but ignorance and lies, now they are reaping laughter and scorn. The Goddess is just.

Art said...

I liked Kwok's "review." Sure, he hadn't read Dembski's new book, but he didn't pretend to have done so. Kwok had cogent comments giving a background of the debate, than anyone considering buying the book ought to know about, including his own exchanges with Dembski.

Amazon went way wrong in deleting that very useful commentary.

-- HalfMooner

Art said...

"forthekids": First, don't come for my kids! If you know what's good for you, you'll stay the fuck away from them.

I would love to be considered "the most hateful, foul mouthed, frothing son-of-a-bitch in the biosphere" by IDiot peckerwoods like yourself, you nasty, spirit-haunted, anti-rational moron.
You throw out such hatred simply because twice recently Abbie has delivered wounds to the moronic ID Creationist simps whose pimply arses you love to kiss. Better come up with a lot more insults, for a lot more people, because the downfall of you and your lying heroes is beginning to accelerate.

Dover. Live with it, be-atch.

-- HalfMooner

Tyler DiPietro said...

I think it's fair to say, at this point, that Abbie has the ID hate machine in high gear against her. I don't blame em', she's kicked so much ass in these last few months that their kids are gonna inherit a colon deficit. It's at least clear at this point that FtK is bitter over it. Such things bring a smile to my face.

Gary said...

Is it too soon to start with the Abbie For President campaign?


John said...

You have got to be the most hateful, foul mouthed, frothing bitch in the biosphere.

First, the idea of that statement coming from someone with a blog called "Reasonable Kansans"...the irony, she gave me a cramp.

Secondly, she is not. She's not even close to Violent Acres. Really, that woman don't leave kansas much, does she.

Anonymous said...

Heh. Speaking of "Expelled" and all the whining that the IDists have been doing lately; get a load of this

And here's the scientist's side:

But on Nov. 17, Hahn asked him to resign, pointing out in the letter that Abraham should have known of evolution's centrality to the project because it was evident from the job advertisement and grant proposal.

". . . You have indicated that you do not recognize the concept of biological evolution and you would not agree to include a full discussion of the evolutionary implications and interpretations of our research in any co-authored publications resulting from this work," Hahn wrote in the letter, which the commission provided to the Globe. "This position is incompatible with the work as proposed to NIH and with my own vision of how it should be carried out and interpreted."

The commission [the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination] dismissed his complaint earlier this year. The commission said Abraham was terminated because his request not to work on evolutionary aspects of the project would be challenging for Woods Hole because the research was based on evolutionary theories.

How much you want to bet that AIG and/or the DI are going to jump on this?

Rev. BigDumbChimp said...

And my internet crush deepens...

No, not you FtK. You're a wet noodle who wouldn't see the ocean if you were stranded on Giligan's island by yourself.

Malcolm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Malcolm said...

Ftk: "You have got to be the most hateful, foul mouthed, frothing bitch in the biosphere."

Hateful? Foul mouthed? Naah. I don't see any. And I'd take "frothing bitch" and "horrific display of seething hatred" as simple projection.

Ftk, I almost feel your pain. It must be devastating seeing a graduate student expose your heroes for the dishonest hypocritical charlatans they are. But the rational response to that would be to re-examine your own position, not to leak out all over the place.

Anonymous said...

Over on SFN, Halfmooner just posted this article of a Florida Education official who sent out emails from her personal account to try to get other people to oppose that state's science standards, apparently because they included evolution. She did not get canned.

No "expulsion" there.

Esko Heimonen said...

I think here Dembski has taught us by his example:

If only all reviewers behaved like this.

monado said...

Nah, if FTK were Christopher Hitchens the writing would be better.

Besides, I think CH would show amused contempt, not seething hatred of his/her own.

drosophila-chromosomes said...

This is great. It didn't take long for the anti-ID crowd to swamp the ratings. It's almost like Darwinian selection for review strength. The 1 star reviews are winning...

Jay said...

ERV, did you hear that Kwok's review was reinstated?

You know why? Because Kwok posted this in the comments section:

"Dear Bill:

You have until NOON EST tomorrow to have reinstate my review of the "The Design of Life". If you do not, then I will write to Dr. Robert Zimmer (Stuyvesant HS '64), formerly Provost, Brown University, and currently, President, University of Chicago, to insist that he initiate a course of action that will result in having you stripped of your 1988 Ph. D. degree in Mathematics for an ongoing series of actions - of which this is but the latest - which demonstrate that you lack the moral turpitude to retain possession of this degree.

You should also be aware that I have bcc'd copies of this e-mail to two reporters from prominent USA newspapers : The New York Times and The Washington Post. I have also bcc'd a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and a fourth journalist as well.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok"

He also wrote this:
"Dear Jedidiah,

Bill D. asked to delete my review. So I decided to issue him an ultimatum to have it restored by NOON EST the following day (see either two in tents' post or especially mine for the text of the ultimatum) or else suffer the consequences. The Discovery Institute fascist had no choice but to comply with my ultimatum.

Best regards,


see his comment here (click)


Dumbeski = Kwok's PwNz0rD!