• I’ve Been Nominated…

    As the Evolution News and Views “Censor of the Year”.  Apparently, this is the first year of the contest and I’m up against some stiff competition.  Apparently Zack Kopplin is in the running and considered by most to be leading.  Good, that’s admirable company I’m keeping.

    According to the anonymous nominator, I should be called “CoY” for only publishing about 30,000 words in my review of Meyer’s fictional novel (with a poor plot and worse characterizations) Darwin’s Doubt

    By not completing my review, I am… somehow… censoring the work of Meyer.

    Which leads me to really wonder…

    Do these idiots know what “censor” means?

    Category: Creationism

    Article by: Smilodon's Retreat

    • Nicholas J. Matzke

      Yeah, over at the DI, they love claiming on the one hand that I couldn’t have done a thorough job since I wrote my review in a day, yet they are still trying to respond to my criticisms even now six months later! Berlinski even had lots of nice things to say about me in his podcast interview, followed by various vague dismissive statements about cladistics and hypothesis testing which indicate that he’s never done it himself, and has little idea of what it involves.

      • Dave Mullenix

        IIRC, you were also accused of not having even read the book despite things like this in your review: ” The Small Shelly Fauna (SSF) gets just one (one!) mention in the book, buried in endnote 27 of Chapter 4, a whole chapter devoted to debunking the idea that the Ediacaran fauna is “ancestral” to bilaterians.”

        Sort of gives you the impression that the people calling you a liar didn’t actually read your review.

    • Congratulations!

      I suppose the nominator knows that few people, even believers, are going to wade through that turgid mess except to check out your criticisms. Thus, by not reviewing every page, you are keeping people from reading it! Yeah, that’s the ticket!

      • Dave Mullenix

        Nick M: “Yeah, over at the DI, they love claiming on the one hand that I couldn’t
        have done a thorough job since I wrote my review in a day, yet they are
        still trying to respond to my criticisms even now six months later”

        IIRC, you were also accused of not having even read the book despite things like this in your review: ” The Small Shelly Fauna (SSF) gets just one (one!) mention in the book,
        buried in endnote 27 of Chapter 4, a whole chapter devoted to debunking
        the idea that the Ediacaran fauna is “ancestral” to bilaterians.”

        Sort of gives you the impression that the people calling you a liar didn’t actually read your review.

    • It’s truly an honor just to be nominated.

    • waldteufel

      No, I’m sure they don’t know what the word “censor” means. In the bizarro world of ID, words have no real meaning. To be criticized by the posse of poseurs at the Disco Tute is a high, singular honor. Congratulations are definitely in order!

    • Doc Bill

      Hey, if you can get tickets to the awards dinner let me know, OK?

    • azportsider

      I find it deliciously ironic that a website that doesn’t allow comments has the temerity to accuse *anyone* of censorship.

    • RexTugwell

      Greetings, Unknown Scientist. Understandably enough, you didn’t link to the actual nomination. Otherwise your readers would have known that you were being made fun of and that you weren’t really singled out as a nominee. Also, apparently you’re not sharp enough to realize that you weren’t “nominated” for Censor of the Year because you censored Meyer. You were used as an example because you censored yourself. And therein lies the humor. Hope that helps.

      Anyway, thanks for the review. Everything proceeded as I had foreseen – a long, drawn out, pedantic, unfinished work. Well done. That’s why I sent you the book in the first place.

      • SmilodonsRetreat

        LOL…

        Let me ask this. Do you still think that Meyer is someone who should have written that book? Which was his problem, his lying or his horrid research?

        BTW: I note that neither you, nor any of your ID fellows have answered the simple question of “what page number does Meyer describe any of the following: 1) How to determine if something is designed or not 2) positive supporting evidence for design (with references) 3) an explanation of how design accounts for the things that he misunderstands 4) an explanation of how design works in the real world.

        Point me to the page numbers and I’ll continue. If you have a specific point, give me a page number and I’ll talk about it.

        But you must acknowledge that Meyer is either a liar or the absolute worst researcher ever. One of those must be true. Either way, there’s no possible way I can trust anything else in his book. The fact that people do trust Meyer just shows that they accept that which confirms their beliefs (true or lies) and reject that which refutes their beliefs.

        I would encourage you read my review of The Monkey’s Voyage (and the book itself) for a good example of how to actually present evidence that refutes a commonly held paradigm in science.

        • RexTugwell

          Hey, what happened to my reply?

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Nothing. It’s not in the spam queue, it’s not in the moderated list. It’s not been deleted.

            • RexTugwell

              Oh well. Probably best for the best. We’ll leave it unpublished.

            • Doc Bill

              Seconded!