Denyse, John Hugh and Bob at Bill’s

Denyse evolved in a perfect IDiote and her posts at UD always point to some interesting aspects of extra-science aspects of Intelligent Design (yep, I think that this points to everything concerning ID). The one titled When you want the approval of people whose approval you should NOT want … triggered this post.

Bob’s adventures with the Baylor administration is a sensible subject for me, especially since Vincent Fleury’s website at the University of Rennes 1 vanished ! As the incident isn’t as much advertised as Bob’s case, let me explain first.

I wrote to Fleury’s lab manager to ask if the lab endorsed Fleury’s points of view, which he present as his theory. I wanted to avoid wrongly accuse them all of scientific denialism. It wasn’t an anonymous movement. On the contrary, I wanted Fleury to know that I contacted his superiors for information. It wasn’t about shutting down the website. On the contrary, I want the thesis of Fleury to be as widely diffused as possible: first of all because I think it’s a case of Intellectual Imposture that may be appreciated enough by people amused by Sokal’s movement, quite Pivar-like I think, but also because it’s a typical case of what Jean Staune, my favorite neocreationist, digs out to make his case.

I suspect that part of the reasons why Fleury’s site was shut-down is because I and a friend of mine, systematically returned his messages to him and the lab’s manager, asking for peace of mind (the technique failed to stop the harassment). I don’t even know what she thinks about the content of the website, as she refused to comment (the lab manager). I feel responsible for this shut-down and I deplore it. I hope Fleury will learn the way to set-up a blog and republish everything and more of his stuff, which is entertaining, IMO. And I’m ready to help him, if necessary. So, it may be out of guilt that Bob’s case present a special interest for me.

In general, I’m not happy with Baylor’s decision. A simple disclaimer on Baylor’s home page that the university don’t endorse a few particular points of view of Bob should have be enough; the way Behe’s theories are rejected by his university. That’s good advertising and doesn’t leave place for critics such as John Hugh and Denyse or Billy. I’ll backup PZ Myers for academic freedom here. Not only academic, freedom of speech simply. When people are willing to display IDiocy everybody should help them do so. Now, the real problem is to make it clear that some BS shouldn’t be taken seriously by the laymen, and that should be enough.

On the other hand, Baylor’s decision built a movement quite interesting to observe. John Hugh’s reaction is quite informative of the way ID friendly lawyers present their clients cases:

To its proponents, intelligent design is nothing more than a sophisticated, comprehensive critique of the theoretical and scientific foundations of Darwinism and its progeny. In other words, the theory of evolution should be put to the test. Like Marx. Like Freud.

Now, if one calls ID sophisticated he is really incapable to understand what sophisticated is, IMO. And if he really think that the theory of evolution “must be put to the test” he is really ignorant of science; in fact, it is tested daily in several labs, and improved. Then, he is a lawyer, not a biologist; he may not be aware of what happens in biolabs.

To the opponents, intelligent design — ID — is an intellectual crime. Or so we must assume by the actions of Baylor University.

Certainly not a crime, an idiocy rather, and I would say that it’s intellectually vacuous, an intellectual vacuum, that’s it! And he can assume whatever he want, hopefully more intelligent people will assume something closer to reality. Did I said John Hugh make the case for him to be a fool? No, but he do.

As counsel for Baylor Distinguished Professor Robert J. Marks II, I was amazed and discouraged by the controversy surrounding his rather routine yet scientifically exacting Web site that was shut down by the dean of his Engineering Department. This action came after anonymous complaints, but without an opportunity for him to respond beforehand.

Now, come on, if you are really discouraged, John Hugh, get out of the controversy. Anyway, you need some vacations. Bob’s website “scientifically exacting”? Are you kidding? You must be near exhaustion and that lowers your standards.
Yep, anonymous complaints. What do you mean by anonymous? Really anonymous e-mails or that you don’t know who wrote them? The second case means that people don’t want let you know. You or Bob or Denyse. To keep peace of mind. They are sure you will tell to DaveScott, and that’s not funny anymore.

Now, John Hugh, there is something antinomic in your argument. On one hand “Darwin has intellectual shock troops gathered around him that Marx and Freud could only admire” and “praetorian guard of Darwinian orthodoxy, against which no ID question must be raised”, on the other hand “a well-known biologist and faithful believer in evolution, Professor P.Z. Meyers, has followed what Baylor has done and called for it to reverse itself”! I do know that christians prone that the left hand should ignore what the right hand is doing, but such an internal controversy may be harmful for a lawyer who at least must try to make his arguments look like if the were logical. And I wouldn’t say that atheists evolutionists are of the believer persuasion, more of the skeptical one. IDiots are believers, scientists don’t believe, they know and question what they know all day long (OK, not during coffee breaks).

John Hugh, I wouldn’t ask you to be my lawyer if I needed one; Bob, Bill you should think about that.

And this isn’t the only problem here. So, Bob “chose Baylor because of its Baptist mission and commitment to excellence” and “He must suffer the university’s insulting comments to the effect that the ensuing controversy is his fault“. Such an outstanding educator, that’s Bob, failed to see that Baylor’s Baptist mission would be incompatible with IDioties? OK, he made a mistake. I don’t give a penny to know why Baylor don’t like ID, maybe they have views on John Templeton funds and prefer “BIG BUCKS” rather than justifications why they support Billy or Bob. Hey, wait a minute! If the complaints are anonymous, what make you think, John Hugh, Denyse, Billy and Bob that they originate from people that would be “secular liberals”, the “mob bien-pensant who approved [...] that dwarf from Tehran” and not from some theists sick of Intelligent Design? You do know that the John Templeton Foundation mob people don’t like Billy and Cie, don’t you? Why you don’t mention them? You don’t do your job correctly John Hugh. And you Denyse, a journalist, unable to think about that, also?

Let me tell you one more time, as an atheist, liberal, friend of Charles Darwin: ID’s BS must be as visible as possible so it will be criticized and linked, to avoid quote mining, and help explain the logical illusions used.