Ok. Now I’m seriously pissed off. What a miserable way to ruin god-damned april fools day.
Good Math/Bad Math
The beauty of math; the humor of stupidity.
Ok. Now I’m seriously pissed off. What a miserable way to ruin god-damned april fools day.
Why? I thought the header image was particularly nice, and bears closer inspection on at least a couple points. . . .
Feh. There are plenty of people that really are as stupid as that guy was pretending to be.
The URL of that page deserves some close examination. The real Discovery Institute’s “Evolution News” site is at evolutionnews.org, but you link to evolutionnews.net. I leave the rest to you.
No worries, MCC. Whether this was an elaborate hoax by the Discovery institute or a
“hoaxed hoax” by the Darwinian liberation front (in which case Egnor was sincere), his erroneous views were lauded and defended vigorously by unapologetic IDers at UD and elsewhere. And I seriously doubt those rank and file folks were in on the gag. So whatever the case turns out to be, the fact that a parody of an anti-evolutionist is indistinguishable from the real thing by *either* side of the aisle speaks volumes.
A coulpe of WHOIS queries show that:
– evolutionnews.net has been registered by Wesley Elsberry
– Elsberry’s listed email address is @inia.cls.org
– the name servers for evolutionnews.net ar in the joker.com domain
– cls.org is registered by Marc Nowell
– a Google search for Marc Nowell and Wesley Elsberry show them connected to pandasthumb.rog
So, I’d say it’s a «hoaxed hoax», and Dr. Egnor has not been playing tricks… sigh.
Re: Blake Stacey… I’d say three points. gur rlrcngpu, gur fhogvgyr, naq gur anzr bs gur vafgvghgr.
lol
MCC, you have nothing over which to be upset. Enjoy the ride. So what if you didn’t know the Egnore stuff was a hoax? It’s obvious that the Discovery institute fooled *its own acolytes* on the substantive issue, not you.
If you try, for a long time, very hard not to exclude people from your coalition even when their arguments are *really* nutty, the last thing you do is start such an elaborate satire. Otherwise, you will have to explain a lot to the nuts afterwards.
For me, it seems far more plausible that some people at science blogs and/or Panda’s thumb are having a really good time with us.
Are you in this scheme or not, MCC? I would rather like to think that you have your hand in this 😉
As Blake Stacey says, take a good look at that header image. And read the text at the bottom, too. Then compare the url with where you end up if you click on the “previous post” link.
I managed to avoid being duped, since, for some reason, I correctly doubted the DI would do something like that. (Naturally, it’s a losing bet for just about anything else.)
But regardless of the number of levels of leg-pulling, it’s still funny. Can’t tell the difference between the DI and real parody sites.
Funny thought experiment: Get a bunch of ‘newborn skeptics’ to go the DI and praise it under the (allegedly) mistaken impression that they were a parody of the ID crowd, including specific praise for ‘masterfully done’ parodies of Creationist fallacies.
If you examine the source of the page on evolutionnews.net, there’s an html comment saying “” (and another spot that says “Posted on April 1, 2007 12:19 AM”.) Looks definitive to me — I say MCC’s in on it.
Bah! GM/BM’s comment code is broken — my message looked fine in the preview. Try again:
If you examine the source of the page on evolutionnews.net, there’s an html comment saying “<!– Disclaimer: This is a parody and in no way connected to the Discovery Institute.–>” (and another spot that says “Posted <!–by Miohael Eqncr–> on April 1, 2007 12:19 AM”.) Looks definitive to me — I say MCC’s in on it.
If you cannot tell sincerity from parody, how can you believe there ever is sincerity?
Credit where credit belongs to. I got this from PZ:
>>
Actually, Reed Cartwright gets most of the credit, with contributions/nitpicking/gripes from the backchannel crew at the Panda’s Thumb.
>>
These guys lightened up my evening.
I have two observations: (1) that one should have seen this as a bit of fakery since no one at the DI has demonstrated any evidence of a sense of humor that they are aware of (apologies to Tommy Lee Jones), and (2) has anyone considered that the entire DI is an elaborate hoax, since everything produced so far has been so insanely comical to anyone with a living brain cell?
Ok, yeah, I admit it. I was in on the joke 🙂
Gotta admit, it was a good’un. Definitely fooled a fair number of people. I’m still waiting to see the reaction from the DI folks, if they acknowledge it at all.
I hate the modern world. Some people are so stupid that it’s impossible to tell what’s real and what’s parody even after they’ve admitted it.
The Simpsons said it best:
I’m bad at guessing who is behind an April Fool’s jest – but this time I saw the url and was reminded of this comment . Of course that meant I figured Wesley did it, and I didn’t even think of blaming (lauding? 🙂 Reed or MCC .
Excuse me, here. Let’s see if I understand this correctly.
(1) Egnor says admittedly stupid things.
(2) You say they are stupid.
(3) He says that you should have known better.
Exactly why should you have known better?
He has been consistently stupid in his comments.
In fact, he STILL persists with stupid comments, only less consistently.
Egnor==
====
Intelligent Design theorists embrace evolutionary science and its implications for modern biology and medicine. Common descent is a fine working hypothesis; natural selection can produce some limited forms of information; it would be foolish to deny these. We, as ID theorists, simply recognize one additional fact about our Universe that the Church of Darwin refuses to: when all else fails, laughter is still the best medicine.
=====
Paul Nelson and others at the Discovery Institute are young-earth creationists. The Discovery Institute consistently espouses a “Big Tent” with which to house all forms of anti-evolutionary philosophy. Pete Skell has consistently claimed that modern evolutionary theory is not necessary to the understanding of biological sciences. So it is blatantly NOT TRUE that ID proponents “embrace evolutionary science” or even common descent.
In the past DI’s attempts at laughter have included a stuffed Darwin doll in a vice and fart noises superimposed on Judge Jones from Dover v. Kitzmiller.
All Egnor has really done is say that everything he said in the past is ridiculous. For all I know THAT may be the April Fool joke.
I feel pretty confident that creationists, including ID proponents (who ARE creationists) will in the future echo the exact same sentiments that Egnor has already said. Perhaps, as we get more information from Egnor we will be able to quote him as saying that even an IDiot believes it is “foolish to deny these”.
Cheers,
Darwin’s Beagle
Darwin’s Beagle said: “All Egnor has really done is say that everything he said in the past is ridiculous.”
Err, Beagle – no he hasn’t. Read some of the comments above a trifle more closely.
Definitely worth a chuckle, and *very* well done stylistically.
Wow,
Liked the eye patch!
Only spotted it by doing a “blink comparison” between the two banners.
Which means that this is not a joke being revealed by DI but a joke on DI.
Complicated.
Regards,
Mark
Cogita Tute – A Sceptical Blog;
http://web.mac.com/theedonfamily/iWeb/Site/Blog/Blog.html
Truth In Science: Revealed – Exposing Creationists in the UK;
http://truthinsciencerevealed.blogspot.com
MCC wrote:
>>
Ok, yeah, I admit it. I was in on the joke 🙂
>>
Ha, I knew it! The tone of your blog post sounded suspiciously over the top to me. Then I realized the date.
So.. given this admission of being part of an ironic parody, are you about to tell us that Gary Osborn is in fact one of your own creations?
MarkH:
Sorry, no… Gary is absolutely for real.
Which reminds me, I should check up on him. Nothing like revisiting old cranks to see if they’ve come up with anything new.
I made a comment on a Pharyngula thread, and at n-Category Cafe, trying to explain where ID goes wrong philosophically, which, with Mark CC’s permission I’d like to re-post here, with a spelling error corrected.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/we_should_have_known_betteregn.php
Comments:
[truncated]
#59
The most visible and absurd use of Scientism (see 6b,6d) invading curricula is Intelligent Design.
I have a 2nd order Philosophical (not 1st order Scientific) analysis in the terms of my 100+ page paper on Axiomatizations of Occam’s Razor, out of which 2 published conference papers have been excerpted so far.
This follows up on a conversation I had on the question: “Is Intelligent Design a SIMPLER theory than Darwinian Natural Selection and/or the Neodarwinian synthesis?”
Let me put this in the context of Alan Baker’s
brilliant survey of the Philosophy of Simplicity: “A
distinction is often made between two fundamentally
distinct senses of simplicity: syntactic simplicity
(roughly, the number and complexity of hypotheses),
and ontological simplicity (roughly, the number and
complexity of things postulated).[3] These two facets
of simplicity are often referred to as elegance and
parsimony respectively….”
(1) Intelligent Design hypothesizes one new entity:
GOD (although it sneakily avoids saying so
explicitly);
(2) In return for “multiplying entities” in apparent
violation of Occam’s Razor, it claims to reduce other
entities, such as Natural Selection as a cause-effect
system, and the actual mechanism of Heredity (which
Darwin was forced to postulate, not knowing of Mendel, let alone of later-doscovered DNA, etc.);
(3) Intelligent Design is TOO simple, in that it has
zero explanatory power and is only falsifiable at the
fringes;
(4) The hypothesis of the existence of God, despite
many clever arguments over the millennia (i.e. the
Ontological Argument, etc.) is NOT a falsifiable
hypothesis until, hypopthetically, once has died and
entered Heaven or Hell, by which time it is rather too late to publish.
(5) Intelligent Design has Syntactic Simplicity
(roughly, the number and complexity of hypotheses),
and can be stated and explained in many fewer words in a school curriculum, and in fact, is syntacically too simple to be useful outside of the realm of politics and propoganda; but KISS principles (Keep It Simple, Stupid) account for some of its appeal;
(6) hence I state that Intelligent Design (and other
theological systems of causation) are:
(a) Ontologically Quantitatively Parsimonious if and
only if one accepts that the introduction of the God
entity results in eliminating at least one other
entity; [definition: “Ontological Parsimony
Perhaps the most common formulation of the ontological form of Occam’s Razor is the following: ‘Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity'”];
(b) Scientism, i.e. pretending to be Science, for
persuasive effect; hence giving the appearance of, but not the value of, Naturalistic Justifications of
Simplicity.
(c) Pseudorationalism, pretending to apply
Justifications via Principles of Rationality, claiming that it is irrational to hypothesize structure coming randomly from chaos [paradox: there may be no non-circular answer to “why should one be rational?];
(d) Mere “Intrinsic Value” Justifications, smuggled
under scientism, i.e. depending on the psychological
position that it is intrinsically justifiable to
believe in God;
(e) an attempt at Metaphysical Justifications [i.e.
One approach to justifying simplicity principles is to embed such principles in some more general
metaphysical framework], not in itself a bad idea;
(f) most deeply, in the words of Baker, “Theological
Justifications: The post-medieval period coincided
with a gradual transition from theology to science as
the predominant means of revealing the workings of
nature. In many cases, espoused principles of
parsimony continued to wear their theological origins
on their sleeves, as with Leibniz’s thesis that God
has created the best and most complete of all possible worlds…”;
(g) dependent on A Priori Justifications of
Simplicity, (which work only if one a priori accepts
God).
My paper, as a long Word document, is available on request. The recent mathematical results on Minimum Description Length are important, not widely known outside of Information Theory, let alone the Philosphy of Science, Philosophy of Biology, and Philosophy of Mathematics.
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | April 1, 2007 01:57 PM
JVP, I’d love to read your full paper.
“(e) an attempt at Metaphysical Justifications [i.e.
One approach to justifying simplicity principles is to embed such principles in some more general
metaphysical framework], not in itself a bad idea;”
The most rationally valid definition of “God” isn’t a scientific postulate or hypothesis at all (nor does it postulate any divine anthropomorphism). The most rationally valid definition of “God” is merely an axiom of existence … in fact, it’s the axiom of axioms, equivalent to asserting that “existence exists.” Clearly, this is what St. Anselm was actually expressing in his ontological, a priori “proof” of God (though one can’t actually “prove” an axiom, hence my quotation marks): “God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” What can be greater than existence itself? If there were a God, would “he” be greater than all of existence? Clearly not, for “he” would “himself” exist (no personal God could create himself). At best, then, any truly ultimate being would in fact be Being (note the capital “B”) itself; a truly ultimate “God” would at best EQUAL existence.
If IDists would thoroughly and honestly examine their fundamental assumptions they’d recognize what they’re doing and correct it. And to argue details of scientific theory with them, though a valid and important effort, doesn’t seem to get at the above core philosophical assumption (the existence/God confusion) directly enough.
Now on the other hand, it’s conceivable that sooner or later we may indeed discover strong evidence for some sort of “personal creator” of our particular universe (say, a message hidden in pi, a la Sagan’s novel “Contact,” for instance). Hence, ID is a potentially rational hypothesis that doesn’t necessarily equal fundamentalist religious creationism. But even such a discovery would only suggest a designer of *our particular universe,* not an ultimate designer of all possible universes (i.e., a designer of existence itself). Since nothing is even conceivably greater than existence, no such proof of a truly omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent reality is possible outside of the axiom of axioms “existence exists.”
In other words, as many philosophers have asserted: no one being is God; only Being itself (note again the capital “B”) is “God.” All potential others are but beings like us (no matter how beyond us they may be in evolution or science).
Norm:
(1) I shall get to your fiction. Busy, here.
(2) I’ll email you the 100+ page paper, when I find the appropriate diskette. Thanks for asking.
(3) “Now on the other hand, it’s conceivable that sooner or later we may indeed discover strong evidence for some sort of “personal creator” of our particular universe (say, a message hidden in pi, a la Sagan’s novel “Contact,” for instance). Hence, ID is a potentially rational hypothesis that doesn’t necessarily equal fundamentalist religious creationism. But even such a discovery would only suggest a designer of *our particular universe,* not an ultimate designer of all possible universes (i.e., a designer of existence itself).”
Pi is not what one measures in all possible universes as the ratio of circumference to diameter of a circle. However, as with e and sqrt(2) and other constants almost unavaidable in abstract math, they are defined in many possible universes. So “a graphic of a circle as a message in pi” as Carl Sagan more specifically suggests in “Contact” would strongly support “an ultimate designer of all possible universes.”
If hidden in, say, the ratio of proton mass to electron mass (or some other very accurately measurable physical constant) was ASCII for “Fiat Lux” — that would support a “‘personal creator’ of our particular universe.” This is a modernization of the old question of what one would believe if the stars in the sky apparently moved into constellations spelling: “I AM THY GOD!”
A really hard-core atheist would say “big deal, very advanced extraterrestrial civilization, of no theological significance.”
Or Bertrand Russell (I paraphrase) being asked: “What would you say to God if you died and found yourself in Heaven at the Throne of God?”
Russell: “I still don’t believe in You!”
The distinction between God and existence is even more important if any being like the biblical “God” actually exists, because the God/existence distinction relegates any such biblical “God” to mere superbeing status, and he, she, or it would therefore be subject to existence and hence capable of error and many other foibles inherent to any and all subjective and limited consciousnesses.
So, on behalf of all suffering beings, if I die and find myself face to face with a biblical “God” superbeing, I’ll have many, many questions of a MORAL nature to ask he, she, or it.
Er, a grammatical correction: “I’ll have many, many questions of a MORAL nature to ask him, her, or it.”
Attention future jokesters, play fairly like these guys did:
1) They did not use the same header image.
2) The letter wasn’t actually signed.