Dembski Students: 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites - HERE

[H3LL]

Dembski students, place any or all of your 10 posts of 2,000 words (undergrad) or 3,000 words (masters) here.

If the JREF is not "hostile" towards your misinformation, lies and pollution of scientific understanding, I sure am.

Just so you know, you only have approx. 4 days to get your work in.

From here:

http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm

Quote:

AP410 This is the undegrad course. You have three things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 40% of your grade); (2) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 40% of your grade); (3) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 2,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).

AP510 This is the masters course. You have four things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 30% of your grade); (2) write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God -- for instructions, see below (20% of your grade); (3) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 30% of your grade); (4) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 3,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).

- My bold.


This certainly goes some way to explain posts I have seen from IDiots.

It never occurred to me to do a word count.



For everyone else that has at least a tenuous grasp on reality, the above document is so full-of-it to almost beggar belief. (Pun intended).

If you have a bucket large enough there is the main site: WILLIAM A. DEMBSKI

Any words of encouragement perhaps can be directed to Dembski:
His WHOIS info:

Registrant:
William Dembski
538 Post Oak Lane
Riesel, TX 76682
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: DESIGNINFERENCE.COM
Created on: 02-Jul-01
Expires on: 02-Jul-11
Last Updated on: 02-Jul-09

Administrative Contact:
Dembski, William wdembski@designinference.com
538 Post Oak Lane
Riesel, TX 76682
United States
2548962188

Technical Contact:
Dembski, William wdembski@designinference.com
538 Post Oak Lane
Riesel, TX 76682
United States
2548962188

.

[Aepervius]

It is an interesting take on a cursus. "get our course, but to get our diploma you have to make propaganda on web site not accepting our claim". Really , the anti science crowd will always surprise me by the height of IDiocy they reach.

[Beerina]

Effing sticky this! ZOMFGPWNS!!!!11!

[catbasket]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Really , the anti science crowd will always surprise me by the height of IDiocy they reach.

I thought I was immune to surprise at their antics, but 20% for trolling?!

[Rat]

Now on Slashdot, so a lot of people will be on the lookout for these posts everywhere now.

[Pink Booties]

Credit for trolling a website. I do not effing believe.

[Wowbagger]

I would welcome such posts. I made a special thread for them, a long time ago, in fact:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124232

Not only would they get their credits, but that debate would be an easy win for them!

[Apathia]

"Trolling?"
This goes back to Jesus.
Mark 1:17 "I will make you fishers of men."

The spam of the earth, even!

[Pink Booties]

The fishers of men have pulled up a lot of slimy carp since then...

"spam of the earth",

[Eos of the Eons]

OMFSM.

What are the main arguments they are using?

Can we make them lose marks for effectively debunking them? *wishful thinking*

[ParrotPirate]

Originally Posted by Magnifico2.0

The fishers of men have pulled up a lot of slimy carp since then...

"spam of the earth",

Actually,carp would be closer to spam of the sea.

[rocketdodger]

This is possibly some pretty shady stuff.

Replies to the slashdot posting suggest that the goal of this isn't actually educational but rather to purposefully put students in a position where they will be attacked by "hostiles," thereby reinforcing an "us vs. them" attitude.

That is pretty deplorable, and the sad thing is, it is probably correct.

[porch]

On the bright side, there will probably be a handful of students that will come to reject ID due to this very exercise. Kind of like when the CoS planted members at alt.religion.scientology to troll and patrol. Some people earnestly seek the truth, but have been misled, and all it takes for them to move forward is the removal of the barrier to information.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally Posted by porch

On the bright side, there will probably be a handful of students that will come to reject ID due to this very exercise. Kind of like when the CoS planted members at alt.religion.scientology to troll and patrol. Some people earnestly seek the truth, but have been misled, and all it takes for them to move forward is the removal of the barrier to information.

Sounds good. Debunk nicely. I know that is hard for me...

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons

OMFSM.

What are the main arguments they are using?

Can we make them lose marks for effectively debunking them? *wishful thinking*

I doubt it, since their professor's arguments have all been effectively debunked but he's still teaching them.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons

Sounds good. Debunk nicely. I know that is hard for me...

Nice debunkers finish last.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by godless dave

I doubt it, since their professor's arguments have all been effectively debunked but he's still teaching them.

But he's not teaching the debunking, so his students are only getting half the story. (If you prefer, they're being lied to.) They can't learn and understand what they've never been exposed to.

In that sense, there's a very real risk some of them will learn what a craptacular mess ID is when and if they actually read the responses to the posts they make.

[Glockjaw]

Expecting these students to come here and try to defend themselves is kinda like the people at the MIT time travel convention waiting for time travelers.

It seems most logical that they would come to this forum since it proves to be most skeptical. Similar to time travelers going back to the convention. But, its still highly unlikely.

[Wowbagger]

I suspect Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Meyers will probably get hit with a lot of this.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by catbasket

I thought I was immune to surprise at their antics, but 20% for trolling?!

So presumably if they have taken the course and are not convinced that ID is true they are less likely to pass the course.

And this is what they want to introduce to public schools?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Magnifico2.0

The fishers of men have pulled up a lot of slimy carp since then...

"spam of the earth",

I think you misspelled a word there.

[FireGarden]

I'd say "bring 'em on", but the phrase has lost some of its lustre.

Quote:

(2) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 40% of your grade);

ID has theological significance? Who'd have thought?

[westprog]

I wonder what the "Critical Thinking" course is like. I get the impression that anyone who hands in a paper saying "This is where Dawkins gets it right" won't get an A, necessarily.

At least Dembski seems to be abandoning his attempt to be a mathematician.

[Simon39759]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

I'd say "bring 'em on", but the phrase has lost some of its lustre.



ID has theological significance? Who'd have thought?

Somebody should save that document. I know the risk of a Dover-bis are low, but that'll be yet another argument for the rational side.

[X]

I notice Dembski doesn't ask for the replies made to the pro-ID posts.

Heaven forfend a little real science from creeping into the class, huh?

[ChrisC]

This probably won't be popular, but since refuting pro-ID posts is boring and pointless due to repetition and stupidity, I suggest just deleting them. A link to the post is required, so why bother helping these people with their homework? I say kill the posts immediately unless they add something interesting to the pot (not likely). Sure, they'll go around talking about how the evolutionists are just censoring them because they know ID is true, but so what? These people are completely FOS and will always find some reason that they're being picked on by the science meanies. Let them put up their own boards and spam them for credits.

[H3LL]

Deleting the posts is a particularly pernicious form of censorship and one widely practised on many theist and woo woo sites.

I, for one, would be strongly against such a practice.

I'm not even very keen on the ignore feature popular with many members (scroll wheels work just fine).

Further more, we now have one more tool to identify the cause of some IDiotic posts and I'm all for them being available for public scrutiny. Maybe some will be exposed for exactly what they are - Who knows.

Thunderf00t, with his ongoing exposure of PCS, appreciates the value of ID being exposed as the lunacy it obviously is. I think he is right and IMHO, if posts appear as suggested in the OP....

Bring it on ...

As they say.

[Simon39759]

I agree with H3LL. Censure is loathsome.
Let's look at their post, see if they have anything of value in them (unlikely, I'd say, but who knows?) and, then, answer to them.
Somebody might even learn something in the process...

[ChrisC]

I understand and respect the position of just leaving them, especially in the face of similar behaviour by "the other guys". I also choose the scroll wheel over the ignore button. That's why I would never push for the idea. In fact, I agree that the pro-ID posts may even continue to have value as an illustration.

Removing or editing posts on private boards that have very questionable motives and nothing to add is common and sometimes useful - spammers, pointless gibberish, OT, people breaking forum rules, etc.. If there's something new in there, that's a learning opportunity. Let's have it out. But when it's the same thing over and over, what's the point in keeping it around? Perhaps replacing the post with a link to same discussion elsewhere on the board would be just as useful? Learning opportunity remains and, hopefully, no credit for spamming (this bothers the hell out of me).

On the other hand, I'm looking at this strictly from a selfish perspective. It's possible that the person making the pro-ID post will learn something new from a rehash. Probably somewhat more likely that a spectator will. There's also the problem of determining what isn't worth keeping around. I'm not willing to make that call, so it's unfair and undesirable to ask others to do it. It goes against my beliefs.

Honestly, my OP was written more out of frustration than anything else. I have a hard time agreeing with myself on certain points, so I withdraw my suggestion. I'll keep doing what I've always done and scroll on by...

[Simon39759]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

I understand and respect the position of just leaving them, especially in the face of similar behaviour by "the other guys". I also choose the scroll wheel over the ignore button. That's why I would never push for the idea. In fact, I agree that the pro-ID posts may even continue to have value as an illustration.
Removing or editing posts on private boards that have very questionable motives and nothing to add is common and sometimes useful - spammers, pointless gibberish, OT, people breaking forum rules, etc.. If there's something new in there, that's a learning opportunity. Let's have it out. But when it's the same thing over and over, what's the point in keeping it around? Perhaps replacing the post with a link to same discussion elsewhere on the board would be just as useful? Learning opportunity remains and, hopefully, no credit for spamming (this bothers the hell out of me).
On the other hand, I'm looking at this strictly from a selfish perspective. It's possible that the person making the pro-ID post will learn something new from a rehash. Probably somewhat more likely that a spectator will. There's also the problem of determining what isn't worth keeping around. I'm not willing to make that call, so it's unfair and undesirable to ask others to do it. It goes against my beliefs.
Honestly, my OP was written more out of frustration than anything else. I have a hard time agreeing with myself on certain points, so I withdraw my suggestion. I'll keep doing what I've always done and scroll on by...

Meh; if you look at the syllabus, it says nothing of adressing, or even reading, let alone refuting the other side's argument. Nothing about having a conversation or a debate.
Just plain; hit there, drop your crap and report back. So, there is not incentive for the students to keep an open-mind or try to learn anything.
The reason why that is is open to debate.

Anyway, if it becomes to bothersome, and/or foster a habit of hit and run from the students, we could always get a special thread stickied and move the posts there. That way, we could keep the rest of the fora safe from the spill without resorting to censorship.

[Audible Click]

20% for trolling..I'm stunned.

[RoboTimbo]

Not that surprising. Don't some of them include that in their job description?

[Wowbagger]

No. We shouldn't delete the posts. We should not be afraid to take on the challenge of responding to them, even if it is just a link to a previously-made response to a similar argument!

This is our moment to show them what evolutionary thinking is capable of! How it encourages us to solve real scientific problems, and to grow new knowledge about life.

They may come with enthusiastic vigor, and lots of energy for arguing. But, if they should read our responses, they may realize that they will never be able to compete on actual empirical grounds, when it really matters.

[boloboffin]

Perhaps we could apply to be approved as a suitably hostile website? Is there a form we could fill out?

[Dunstan]

Um, ok, here goes:

Dawinism is a theory in crisis. This is why the evolutionists refuse to teach the controversy, and Expel! from academia anyone who dares to question the Darwinist materialist worldview. The Theory of Evolution doesn't explain the Big Bang. And it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And it smells funny. Oh, and all those fossils were planted there by the devil. Praise Jesu... uh, I mean, the Intelligent Designer. Whoever He might be. [wink, wink]

I can haz A now?

[H3LL]

Originally Posted by Simon39759

Meh; if you look at the syllabus, it says nothing of adressing, or even reading, let alone refuting the other side's argument. Nothing about having a conversation or a debate.
Just plain; hit there, drop your crap and report back. .....

Quite so, it seems.

I think there is a slim chance the dropee or IDiot-crapper would gain anything to disturb their existing dogmatic stance and indoctrination even if (big if) they bothered to read a response - but it could happen.

The greater value, as mentioned above, is for others that may be sitting on the fence and stumble upon their words and subsequent rational comments.

Posts on the JREF have a habit of turning up on Google quite quickly and responses to IDiots and other crap we get here are very important for that reason.

I don't believe that many members could continue to battle against the same old garbage over and over and over and over and over again without the hope that somewhere, sometime, someone will learn something and change.

It's those opportunities and the 'E' in JREF that keeps so many rational members contributing, IMHO.

I also think it is the great strength of sites like the JREF and other similar ones.

[H3LL]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

I can haz A now?

No!

1,927 words too short. (Winks excluded)

F

[Kritikos]

Originally Posted by westprog

I wonder what the "Critical Thinking" course is like.

Just read the syllabus (PDF) -- it's good for a few laughs. Here are some gems:

Quote:

Course Description:

How do we get people to believe things? This course examines the means by which we convince ourselves and others that something is true. Of special interest here are the pitfalls to logical thinking that prevent us from coming to the truth.

I'm pretty sure that the last sentence contains a typographical error, and that Dembski meant "pitfalls of logical thinking that prevent us from coming to the truth" -- where "the truth" means, of course, not the findings of rational inquiry, but what has been predetermined by religious authorities.

Quote:

Course Objective:

The goal of this course is to help students become adept at making a persuasive case for the truth of the Christian worldview.

Christian critical thinking -- there you have it.

Originally Posted by westprog

At least Dembski seems to be abandoning his attempt to be a mathematician.

Don't forget his attempt to be a philosopher.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Dawinism is a theory in crisis.

From the point of view of someone who only understands a Creationist strawman, then it would appear to look that way, yes. That is why it important to study how and why professional scientists utilize the actual theory in their work....

...at least that is how I would begin my response, if that was a real troll.