1. Comment #13255 by Yorker on December 16, 2006 at 12:44 pm

A good example of how software designed by largely atheistic people, is still simple enough to be used by religites, or at least those who accept their money.

Other Comments by Yorker

2. Comment #13262 by marjoe on December 16, 2006 at 1:31 pm

The Judge Jones School of Law" is the brainchild of brilliant professional flash animator (I think of him as the "Rembrandt" of flash animation; for now he will remain anonymous until he sees the fallout from his handiwork)...

The animator is either overtly identifying himself as Evan Spiridellis (of JibJab.com; recall the "This Land" animation of Bush and Kerry in a duet) or is using blatant plagiarism to throw us off the scent. Note the overall similarity of composition, but particularly the identical style between the logos.

I truly hope that Spiridellis has not sunk this low, but what other flash animator is well known enough to fear "fallout"?

Other Comments by marjoe

3. Comment #13264 by Jared on December 16, 2006 at 1:44 pm

The funniest part is that fart noises and high squeaky voices do little to make what Judge Jones said any less devastating to the case for ID. The more inane bits of this do little to comment on the material being presented, but do much to make laughable those presenting it in this manner.

Other Comments by Jared

4. Comment #13265 by Jack Rawlinson on December 16, 2006 at 1:49 pm

Well, I must say that now the "I deny the holy spirit" videos look like the height of sophistication. So thanks for that, Dembski, you absurd dimwit.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

5. Comment #13267 by Roy_H on December 16, 2006 at 2:03 pm

How childish can you get? "I am drowning, I am clutching at straws, I will resort to the politics of the playground ner ner ner!"
Still...he could indeed have shot himself in the foot.

Other Comments by Roy_H

6. Comment #13268 by pault on December 16, 2006 at 2:04 pm

That may be the most sophmoric piece of drivel I have ever seen. I suspect that Dembski put together, he doesn't have anything else to do. It's not like he has a real job or anything. He got run out of Baylor, he couldn't seem to cut it in Louisville and now they have him in Dallas, a city where even Dembski appears intellegent.

These people have nothing to offer to the discussion so resorting to argumentum ad hominem, is all they've got.

Other Comments by pault

7. Comment #13270 by Irate Harry on December 16, 2006 at 2:22 pm

Dumbski tells his 'adolescent' constituency "...Judge Jones did you the disservice of shafting you royally. This time it's your turn to laugh at his expense. Yes, the humor is adolescent, but overwhelmingevidence.com is a site for adolescents, and you are, after all, the ones who got shafted...".

And this guy is a professor !!! You would expect some dignified language and respect for his audience. He is so bloody patronising to them. I am sure the youngsters targeted by this nutcase will not be amused. The best thing for them is to go over to the BlasphemyChallenge site and cleanse themselves.

As RD correctly observes, the fiction merchants are getting really desperate. Just keep pushing...

Other Comments by Irate Harry

8. Comment #13292 by J. Ryan on December 16, 2006 at 8:57 pm

One question: is this satire? I'm serious; it's hard to tell with my intellect-challenged brain and the general state of religious idiocy going on.

Other Comments by J. Ryan

9. Comment #13297 by Modern_Philo on December 16, 2006 at 9:51 pm

Dembski IS a loser. This is why creationist make my blood boil. This stuff is beyond ignorance, it is plagued stupidity. The little respect I have for creationist is quickly dwindling away.

Other Comments by Modern_Philo

10. Comment #13300 by Zaphod on December 16, 2006 at 9:57 pm

William A Demski is the epitome of a creationist douchebag.

Judge jones was appointed to office by President "I am a fanatical christian moron" W. Bush. He was also confirmed unanimously by the senate.

I think Judge Jones is just a honest man who wants to hold up the laws of his nation. This means that when he looked at all the evidence and testimony he noticed that ID has zero evidence and creationist con mean are trying to trick people into teaching their non-science crap in science class.

Other Comments by Zaphod

11. Comment #13308 by stereoroid on December 16, 2006 at 11:43 pm

I'm not quite getting this. Those are, as far as I can tell, real quotes from Judge Jones' judgement document. They sound as correct here as they do in the document - putting the kibosh on "Intelligent Design". The graphics and funny voice don't detract from their validity. Confused and confusing.

Other Comments by stereoroid

12. Comment #13309 by GoodbyeGodNZ on December 16, 2006 at 11:56 pm

This is just so pathetic and childish. Is it too much to think that this might be a "Death Rattle" of Intelligent Design??????

Other Comments by GoodbyeGodNZ

13. Comment #13311 by lpetrich on December 17, 2006 at 1:15 am

I concede that I found that extremely funny; I will concede that I have been guilty of some of that also, though on a lesser scale.

Duane Gish:
http://homepage.mac.com/lpetrich/Creationism/GishBullfrog.jpg
in honor of "The Bullfrog Affair", in which he has claimed that certain human proteins are closer to their bullfrog and chicken counterparts without ever telling us what they are.

Source: The Bullfrog Affair
http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bullfrog.html

Jonathan Wells:
http://homepage.mac.com/lpetrich/Creationism/WellsShrimp.jpg
in honor of him once jumping the gun and misunderstanding some research on why brine shrimp (Artemia) grow abdominal limbs and insects do not -- it's a difference in a Hox gene.

William Dembski:
http://homepage.mac.com/lpetrich/Creationism/DembskiBeaver.jpg
in honor of him once seemingly claiming that beavers intelligently design their dams. In fact, they build their dams by putting sticks and mud wherever they hear rushing water.

Source: November 2000 First Things magazine, "Conservatives, Darwin, and Design: An Exchange"
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0011/articles/exchange.html

Other Comments by lpetrich

14. Comment #13313 by Sancus on December 17, 2006 at 1:51 am

Good move on nabbing it before Dembski takes it down. It's funny for all the opposite reasons.

The front page design for this "overwhelming evidence" site practically looks paramilitary. It says, "join the OE army." And people say atheists are militant?

Other Comments by Sancus

15. Comment #13315 by Aussie on December 17, 2006 at 1:54 am

Pathetic!

Other Comments by Aussie

16. Comment #13318 by Roger Stanyard on December 17, 2006 at 2:05 am

The irony of all this is that Dembski cut and ran from the Dover trial!

The view we hold is that Dembski is a spent force who is basically trying to capitalise on what he has done - make some money, in other words.

He's well into middle age and basically has never held down a proper job. He needs the dosh.

We do appear to have a Dembski character emerging in the UK - trainee pastor David Anderson. Like Dembski he is adept at smearing but, unlike Dembski, you can't post to his blog at all. Like Dembski he has a mathematics background (1st class 1st degree from Oxford circa 2000/2001).

See him smear away at http://bcse-revealed.blogspot.com (it's a pack of lies and way out of line speculation). Unlike Dembski's, you are not allowed to post to his blog!

A couple of weeks back we pointed out on our wiki that he had never bothered to check his facts with us. He then sent a question and whinged that we were lying as he had sent a question (after we had made our claim). He looks to have been well trained in the Dembski school of double thought.

Who is funding him, we ask! He spends an inordinate amount of time on his blog and we doubt if the church he works for has two beans to put together. He's also got a wife and two children to support.

Here's an open question to you all - Why is it that a new generation of creationists has suddenly emerged out of Oxford? Richard Buggs of Truth in Science is another one of them. Have you got some kind of organised creationist mafia there?

Having looked at the Biologic Institute and the Discovery Institute, I can half understand something like this emerging from Cambridge but why Oxford? Has Howard Ahmanson been pulling the strings? (He's involved in the the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies but that's not part of the University of Oxford - it awards external degrees of the University of Wales.)

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

17. Comment #13328 by Squirrel on December 17, 2006 at 4:59 am

Yawn...how imaginative!

As for the animation: I didn't spot anything in there that following the tutorials, which come with the software, won't teach you. If you look up the folks who developed the website, you'll find that they do flash animations and appear to like their faux wooden textures. Come to think about it, "Anonymous Rembrandt's" graphics look sloppy in comparison.

Other Comments by Squirrel

18. Comment #13346 by endogenous on December 17, 2006 at 6:43 am

Guys-- I dont know whether you all know, but Judge Jones voice is none other than Dear Dembski.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1868

Hes like... Hes like a friggen Troll... Except in real life...

Other Comments by endogenous

19. Comment #13383 by Faid on December 17, 2006 at 10:46 am

Well, it's good to know that creationists have openly turned to the only form of reasoning available to them-
Repeating all arguments against them in a high-pitched, mocking voice.

"Why didn't you clean your room like you said you would?"
"Why didn't you clean your room like you mmmnyah nyah nyah?"

...Hey, it worked in elementary school, right? Oh wait.

Other Comments by Faid

20. Comment #13386 by GW on December 17, 2006 at 11:10 am

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable. -John A. Davison"

You're a loony, aren't you?

Other Comments by GW

21. Comment #13387 by Yorker on December 17, 2006 at 11:23 am

I've mentioned before that some don't read before posting, a few comments here prove it. Dembski clearly says that his voice is used throughout.

Imagine if everyone was a 'post-don't-read' visitor, it would be like...I can't resist this...TheTowerOfBabel.org

Other Comments by Yorker

22. Comment #13392 by Yorker on December 17, 2006 at 11:42 am

23. Comment #13386 by GW

You should have asked if he was a biology professor who supports ID.

Other Comments by Yorker

23. Comment #13393 by Yorker on December 17, 2006 at 11:45 am

21. Comment #13381 by John A. Davison

Your blog says you've been banned from most places, are you glad to be active here?

Other Comments by Yorker

24. Comment #13396 by Jared on December 17, 2006 at 12:12 pm

Dawkins is a charlatan? Wow, he must be one of the best flim-flam men EVER. Why, he's even fooled the University of Oxford for 30+ years into believing that he has some actual semblance of an idea about his subject. Incredible!

Thanks ever so much, John A. Davison, for liberating me from this so obviously deluded Darwinian theory! I'm equally amazed at your ability to have converted me and (I must assume) all the rest of us here without actually refuting any claims or presenting evidence. But, I mean, CLEARLY you're right. So right that you quote yourself in your signature because no one else is as right as you!

Or was that an attempt at trolling? If so, and you've been banned from all these other places, I'd have thought you'd be better at it than that by now. 0/4 stars.

Other Comments by Jared

25. Comment #13399 by endogenous on December 17, 2006 at 12:25 pm

Yorker-- No, I just skimmed Dembskis letter. I didnt expect him to admit the voice was his to Dawkins because he was not owning up to it until someone else figured it out, as noted in the link I posted.

*shrug* Its worth reemphasizing anyway.

Other Comments by endogenous

26. Comment #13401 by Jiten on December 17, 2006 at 12:35 pm

Bill Dumbski boy you've sunk low!

Other Comments by Jiten

27. Comment #13432 by iota on December 17, 2006 at 4:51 pm

So, for those not keeping score within the ID movement, that would be...

Peer-reviewed articles in legitimate scientific journals: 0

Cheesy, low-brow Flash animations: 1

Other Comments by iota

28. Comment #13433 by Douglas on December 17, 2006 at 4:54 pm

I am a Creationist. Thank you for not shooting me. However, not only am I a Creationist (of the Young Earth variety, no less), I also disagree with Dr. Dembski's use of farting noises in mocking the puppetry of Judge Jones. It is unbecoming of a Christian to stoop to "filthiness" or "coarse jesting" (which the use of farting noises in effect is). And, I expressed my problem with that use to Dr. Dembski, in what I think was the first or second reply at "Uncommon Descent" on his first thread dealing with the animation.

I mention all this here because I notice that several respondents in this thread seem to think that all Evangelical Christians, or at least Creationists, are approving of Dr. Dembski's descent into adolescent humor. I am here to say: No, that is not the case. I myself do, though, agree with everything else about the animation.


Douglas J. Bender

Other Comments by Douglas

29. Comment #13440 by macronencer on December 17, 2006 at 5:35 pm

Thank you for your support, Douglas. I don't think any reasonable person would assume that all Creationists approve of this piece of idiocy, and I expect Dembski to be ridiculed for it by evolutionists and chided for it by all fair-minded Creationists. I nearly said "right-thinking Creationists", but then I realised that's an oxymoron, of course :)

Other Comments by macronencer

30. Comment #13441 by lflcorreia on December 17, 2006 at 5:42 pm

More about this case on The Panda's Thumb blog:

Dembski as the David Seville of Information Theory

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/dembski_the_dav.html#more

Bwa ha ha!

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/bwa_ha_ha.html#more

Other Comments by lflcorreia

31. Comment #13452 by jdaigle on December 17, 2006 at 7:44 pm

This is indeed a great present from Dr. Dembski. I had forgotten just how well written the Kitzmiller decision was, and how damning to Dembski's cause. Where Dembski went wrong, I think, was in quoting the actual decision.

Honestly, if I had wanted to pick salient quotes showing how wrong the intelligent design crew was, I think I would pick the same ones! How out of touch with reality do you have to be to think that this presentation is damning of Judge Jones or of the Kitzmiller decision?

Other Comments by jdaigle

32. Comment #13465 by PhilVaz on December 17, 2006 at 10:06 pm

That's nothing. Play my I.D. Pacman

http://www.bringyou.to/games/UncommonDissent.htm

You never know, I just might be childish enough and clever enough to make a Flash response featuring Willy Dembsky with my own voice speeded up.

Phil P

Other Comments by PhilVaz

33. Comment #13490 by Diplo on December 18, 2006 at 2:21 am

Wow, is there any subject that Dembski can't debase when he tries his hand at it? Satire can be a great tool, but the first rule is it has to be witty and not just embarrassingly childish. This just screams sore loser. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Other Comments by Diplo

34. Comment #13536 by Gene Goldring on December 18, 2006 at 6:21 am

Anybody who resorts to tactics of desperation like this has to be a real loser. Dembski is a loser, and it now looks as though he KNOWS it. My guess is that he will try to take it down when he realizes how foolish it makes him look.

If Bill D has any sense, that's got to hurt coming from a brilliant man such as Richard Dawkins....lol

Other Comments by Gene Goldring

35. Comment #13547 by Squirrel on December 18, 2006 at 8:42 am

"Comment #13536
If Bill D has any sense, that's got to hurt coming from a brilliant man such as Richard Dawkins....lol"

Well...

"The motivation behind the Judge Jones School of Law

by William Dembski on December 17th, 2006 · 1 Comment

The other side is making much about my having attained yet another "new low" in being the creative force behind the Judge Jones School of Law (go to www.overwhelmingevidence.com). Just to be clear, my aim in this flash animation was not to shake up the convictions of convinced Darwinists. Rather, my aim was to render Judge Jones and his decision ridiculous in the eyes of many young people, who from here on will never take Darwinian evolution or him seriously. If the cost of accomplishing this is yet another lowering of my estimation in the eyes of PT or Richard Dawkins, that's a price I'm only too glad to pay — heck, I regard that as a benefit of the deal."
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1871

He obviously holds his target audience in high regard. "Creative force"? I thought I'd missed the punch line the first time I watched it. Turns out I'd just wrongly assumed they'd be able to come up with something just slightly more interesting.

Other Comments by Squirrel

36. Comment #13550 by Nicholas on December 18, 2006 at 9:07 am

It gets better. In that thread on the 'motivation' over at uncommon descent, there's now what purports to be a comment from William himself.

15. William Dembski // Dec 17th 2006 at 4:36 pm

Let me suggest you all read your Old Testament — Elijah taunting the prophets of Baal (and then, oh my, killling them); Micaiah the prophet telling Ahab the king to look forward to his coming death; and Jehu's respectful treatment of Queen Jezebel (throwing her out a window and letting the dogs lap up her blood). And then in the New Testament we find Paul wishing that certain Judaizers didn't just circumcise themselves but would go the whole way and castrate themselves. I see the JJSchLaw as an instrument of grace to bring Dawkins and others to their senses (if such a thing were possible). What have you done lately, dopderbeck, to jar Dawkins out of his dogmatic rampage?

Tell me it's a spoof, someone. But how has such a spoof got past their moderator?

Other Comments by Nicholas

37. Comment #13551 by Squirrel on December 18, 2006 at 10:23 am

"What have you done lately, dopderbeck, to jar Dawkins out of his dogmatic rampage?"

Research might work (If it doesn't, suck it up. Dog's just testing your faith). Obsessing about a handful of prominent proponents of evolution's opinions, on the other hand, might not.

Rather appropriate: "Le Petomane of Information Theory"
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/dembskis_rampag.html#comment-150807

Other Comments by Squirrel

38. Comment #13574 by PhilVaz on December 18, 2006 at 1:35 pm

All right all right, I'm working on it. The official response to Judge Jones School of Law, Billy Dumbski's School of Zoology and Biology (for adults)

http://www.bringyou.to/BILLY.htm

It's a start hee hee.

Phil P

Other Comments by PhilVaz

39. Comment #13579 by Squirrel on December 18, 2006 at 2:29 pm

Prof. Miller's response wins my vote:


"Dear Bill,

Thanks for the e-mail. It's great to see what sort of research the Intelligent Design movement is up to these days!

I'd like to help you with the Judge's e-mail, but since I have never had any contact with him outside the courtroom, I have no idea what his e-mail might be. I'm sure he'd be thrilled by the offer to remove "less flattering" sound effects, of course.

I do believe that I can help you with the video, though. As much as I enjoyed it, I was disappointed that it didn't include some of the more amusing events from the trial. Since you've clearly got a little extra time on your hands, why not punch it up a bit with a few more highlights?

For example, how about Bill Buckingham claiming that he never mentioned the word "creationism," and then the video clip showing him doing exactly that? (I can send you the clip if you need it). Or Mike Behe peeking out from behind a stack of 58 papers, 9 books, and a couple of textbooks saying that even this isn't enough to convince him that the immune system evolved? Or, even better, your own DC spokesman for the Discovery Institute (Mark Ryland) claiming that the DI had "never" advocated the teaching of ID in schools, followed by Richard Thompson, in his own voice, waving a copy of Steve Meyer's book which advocated exactly that? I've got that last one on a DVD if you like. You'd love it, Bill - Richard brought down the house at the American Enterprise Institute with that one.

Or, even better, how about the stuff before the trial?

Why not show the pictures of the 8 ID experts who promised the Dover Board that they would be there in court to defend them? … and then you can show 5 of the 8 running away at deposition time. I've even got a sound effects file I can send you of galloping horses, and maybe a scream or two in the background as the dreaded experts from the ACLU-friendly plaintiffs arrive?

Now that would be one heckuva animation!

Best Wishes for a Wonderful Christmas,

Ken"

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/now_thats_a_vid.html

Other Comments by Squirrel

40. Comment #13602 by peterdoubt on December 18, 2006 at 4:53 pm

pault said:
"now they have him in Dallas, a city where even Dembski appears intellegent. "

That was unecessary. I live in Dallas and we're not some backward hillbillies. Myself and my freinds are quite intelligent, thank you.

Is your city some mecca of brilliance and reason?

Other Comments by peterdoubt

41. Comment #13610 by RichardPrins on December 18, 2006 at 6:12 pm

About as good as their 'science'.

Dumbski strikes again...

Other Comments by RichardPrins

42. Comment #13637 by Nikki on December 19, 2006 at 12:20 am

Is this animation now removed, or is the fact that I can't seem to get anything, except a blank rectangle at the link, due to my technical ignorace somehow?

Other Comments by Nikki

43. Comment #13638 by Nikki on December 19, 2006 at 12:26 am

This is where I went to:-
From Bill Dembski:

"The Judge Jones School of Law" is the brainchild of brilliant professional flash animator (I think of him as the "Rembrandt" of flash animation; for now he will remain anonymous until he sees the fallout from his handiwork) as well as of me and my lovely wife Jana (who came up with the name). We present this as a Christmas gift to students everywhere. Around Christmas last year, Judge Jones did you the disservice of shafting you royally. This time it's your turn to laugh at his expense. Yes, the humor is adolescent, but overwhelmingevidence.com is a site for adolescents, and you are, after all, the ones who got shafted, having to endure the imbecility that is Darwinism at school by being forcefed this materialist ideology in the name of science."
Check it out:
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/id/JJ_school_of_law/
.
On clicking on that link, I get mothing????

Other Comments by Nikki

44. Comment #13639 by Nikki on December 19, 2006 at 12:31 am

edit: I get nothing!?
Could be punishment for my typos, I suppose.

Other Comments by Nikki

45. Comment #13672 by YankMyChain on December 19, 2006 at 4:24 am

Now that's odd, I was looking for the Bright's Recipe Exchange, and somehow ended up here, at the angry arse hole forum.

Excuse me while look for the door.

Yank

Other Comments by YankMyChain

46. Comment #13677 by Yorker on December 19, 2006 at 4:39 am

47. Comment #13672 by YankMyChain

You must be the world's crappiest typist to mix these two URL's up!

Other Comments by Yorker

47. Comment #13682 by Yorker on December 19, 2006 at 4:56 am

44. Comment #13637 by Nikki

Nikki,

The animation is still there, check your browser settings; if you have internet security set to 'High', Active X controls will be prohibited and you will get the blank screen you mention.

Try setting it to 'Medium'.

Other Comments by Yorker

48. Comment #13874 by Tremayne on December 19, 2006 at 10:51 pm

Dembski's spiteful simulacrum of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones is undoubtedly the pathologically infantile response of someone frustrated and emotionally tormented.

Other Comments by Tremayne

49. Comment #13878 by Squirrel on December 19, 2006 at 11:53 pm

Here he goes again...
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1878

Other Comments by Squirrel

50. Comment #13882 by Richard Dawkins on December 20, 2006 at 12:17 am

Dembski purports to object to our reproducing his e-mail to me above. On his website (http://www.uncommondescent.com/) he writes: "Since Richard Dawkins thinks he has the right to reprint my letters to him by posting them over the Internet (go here), I'll assume the same privilege applies to me. Let's start with this exchange from the spring of 2000 . . ." After this menacing beginning, Dembski then copies a letter which he evidently thinks is discreditable to me. It isn't, of course. It says nothing that isn't in The Blind Watchmaker, and I am delighted if Dembski, or anyone else, wants to reproduce it.

Now, let me return the favour by reproducing a 2004 e-mail from Dembski to me:

"Dear Prof. Dawkins,

I enjoyed this bit of fun in last week's Guardian. It might interest you to know that Senator Rick Santorum, who is close to President Bush, endorsed my forthcoming book The Design Revolution. It might also interest you to know that President Bush lives in the same Texas county that I do (McLennan County -- his home is about 35 miles from my home). It might futher interest you to know that my university, Baylor, today made a bid on the George W. Bush Presidential Library (for the news conference, go to www.baylortv.com).

Why might all this interest you? With the recommendations by Senator Santorum and others close to President Bush, I plan to pay him a visit at his home early next year and have a frank discussion with him about the future of science in the United States and the possibilities for public funding of intelligent design research. I expect your remarks below will help me make my case.

Thanks for all you continue to do to advance the work of intelligent design. You are an instrument in the hands of Providence however much you rail against it.

With all good wishes,
Bill Dembski"

I would be fascinated to hear the current status of Dembski's bombastic and vainglorious threat to enlist Bush's personal involvement in 'intelligent design' at his university of Baylor. Oh no, I was forgetting, Dembski's employment at Baylor seems to have come to an unfortunate end (no doubt there is some good explanation for that). Never mind, perhaps his friend Senator Rick Santorum will use his powerful influence in favour of whichever College of Bible Studies may snap Dembski up. Oh dear, silly me I was forgetting, Santorum too is out of a job, booted out of the Senate in one of the biggest upsets in Pennsylvania's electoral history. Well well, perhaps Bush himself, buoyed up by the runaway success and popularity of his presidency, will still come to the rescue? No, apparently Dembski has given up on his pathetic little power fantasy. In March 2005 he wrote: "I'm afraid with the war in Iraq and the election, I decided to postpone getting in touch with President Bush." Oh I see, yes of course.

Poor loser Demski, such delusions of grandeur, and now he has nothing better to do with his time than make farting noises over the Internet.

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins