Home » Intelligent Design » Cambridge House Press (not to be confused with Cambridge University Press) publishes adolescent critique of ID

Cambridge House Press (not to be confused with Cambridge University Press) publishes adolescent critique of ID

Barrett Brown and Jon P. Alston, who appear only recently to have entered puberty judging by their obsession with sex, have just published Flock of Dodos: Behind Modern Creationism, Intelligent Design, & The Easter Bunny (Cambridge House Press, 2007). I would like to share with you some quotes. The book is full of stuff like this ,which I trust we can use to advantage:

On ID proponents:

“This will not be a polite book. Politeness is wasted on the dishonest, who will always take advantage of any well-intended concession, and the leaders of the so-called “Intelligent Design” movement, as we shall see, are so incredibly dishonest that they could cause a veteran heroin addict to blush — not of any moral objection on the pat of the addict, but rather out of embarrassment that anyone could be so darned bad at lying. … And the heroin addicts are the ‘prime movers,’ so to speak, behind Intelligent Design — they lie to others when they find it convenient, and speak truth only to each other. For the sake of clarity, let’s call these two hypothetical heroin addicts, ‘William Dembski’ and ‘Michael Behe.’” (pgs. 13, 16)

On creationists:

“Yahweh does indeed have a well-established tendency to test the faith of his followers, and discrediting the holy attempts of his most pious adherents to establish a young earth would certainly constitute why Henry Morris and his son John are such disingenuous, pudding-brained goofballs; Yahweh could do nothing more to discredit the creationist movement by creating its most well-known proponents, if not in His own image, then in the image of some moderately retarded, would-be con artist. Heck, I wouldn’t put it past him.” (pg. 75)

On Bonobo sex:

“In the beginning, there was the Logos, a term meaning “word,” derived from the Greeks and used by early Christians to indicate the Divine Word, or the mind of God made manifest. … The mind of God called for man to exist, and thus the Logos compels man to exist …And for some reason or another, the mind of God also called for female bonobo chimpanzees to settle disputes by rubbing their respective vaginas together to the point of orgasm. And so the Logos caused this to be the case, possibly while giggling, assuming that the Logos is indeed capable of giggling, which it most likely is not. (pg. 78)

On Dembski and Christianity:

“We’re going to have a lot of fun going through Dembski’s book, which should have been titled, A Smart Ass Wet Dream or something like that. But that’s not what it’s called. It’s called Intelligent Design, and it’s full of Christian theology. Now there’s a good metaphor.” (pg. 79-80)

“Dembski once wrote, ‘Predictive prophecies in Scripture are instances of specified complexity and signal information inputted by God as part of his sovereign activity within Creation.” So you know, get ready for all those murderous pseudo-locusts. I suggest wearing long sleeves. And I’m sure the world’s astronomers will be interested to see all those stars fall to Earth, as predicted in the Book of Revelations. I wonder if Dembski is aware that a single star is many orders of magnitude larger than our planet, and that the first start to ‘fall’ would destroy all life on earth before it even managed to ‘land.’ Gee, if I didn’t know better, I’d say the Book of Revelations was written by someone who had no fucking idea what he was talking about. ‘Instances of specified complexity and signal information inputted by God.’ Christ, what a piece of work.” (pg. 145)

This book takes the level invective, namecalling, and sexual obsession (while abnegating intellectual content) among our Darwinist critics to a new low. But the important question here is, can they go still lower? I’d like to encourage P. Z. Myers to try his hand at a full-length book treatment of ID.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

21 Responses to Cambridge House Press (not to be confused with Cambridge University Press) publishes adolescent critique of ID

  1. Deiphobes should love it. What puzzles me is the prayer at the end of the quote:

    Christ, what a piece of work.

    Perhaps it’s not a prayer, but an endorsement.

  2. And I’m sure the world’s astronomers will be interested to see all those stars fall to Earth, as predicted in the Book of Revelations. I wonder if Dembski is aware that a single star is many orders of magnitude larger than our planet, and that the first start to ‘fall’ would destroy all life on earth before it even managed to ‘land.’

    What a moron. I guess he has never heard of the term “meteor” as in “shooting star.”

  3. 3

    What is Cambridge House Press? I can’t find anything on them. Are they in anyway associated with CUP?

    Russell

  4. It’s always quite amusing and indeed amazing to witness the incredibly ignorant and uncouth statements made by atheists.

    When they have nothing left but imprecations, bitterness, perversions and “threatenings and slaughter” to spit, they’re pretty much washed up.

    He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak.
    —Michel de Montaigne

    In this case “command” should be replaced by “ad hominem” and “vulgarity”.

    Statements made by these 2 are proof that “There’s nothing wrong with having nothing to say—unless you insist on saying it”.

    Who are the authors? : Barrett Brown? This poor fribble is a National Lampoon veteran. Nuff’ said.

    Jon P. Alston, Ph.D – is a professor of sociology at Texas A&M university.

    Alston also published some books on business (guess that qualifies him) plus “The Scientific Case Against Scientific Creationism” which the pub. describes … “Few persons have read so closely the writings of scientific creationists to show how anti-scientific anti-evolutionists become when they criticize the fact of evolution.” That’s good for a hearty LOL.

    Alston is not a scientist… but as a licensed psychologist it is clear that he needs to get his head examined by one more competent than himself.

    Neither he nor Brown are mature enough to have real jobs. Of course Brown doesn’t.

    My suggestion – “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
    – Napoleon Bonaparte

  5. “He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak.”

    Well said. I used to frequent the talk.origins newsgroup, and noticed that serial responses to a posted article, or an essay type submission would often come across as humorous quips, many just one-liners, and mostly lacking content. Since I was serious regarding the issues, I could never abide the seeming endless drivel that would often emanate in a thread, but I guess that’s just me. Not that I don’t appreciate humor, I guess it’s just that beyond a certain point, it fails to amuse.

    I’ve often pictured Michael Shermer as perfect for Comedy Central, since his fast patter and sillygisms would make good fodder, especially to a campus crowd. But wait, these guys take the cake for what I would classify as ‘debasement humor’, which would fit that venue, but for which I have little respect.

    As one authority stated, “Humor is the experience of incongruity.” Another definition might be painting common scenarios with some truth, along with the absurd mixed in. In the Ev/ID realm, some would classify the so-called ‘truisms’ as the dogma being proffered by science, along with the characterizations of religion and the emerging study of ID as constituting the bizarre. I view it as the other way around.

    But as Borne stated, “It’s always quite amusing and indeed amazing to witness the incredibly ignorant and uncouth statements made by atheists.” Wonder why it is then, that I’m not laughing …

  6. What a moron. I guess he has never heard of the term “meteor” as in “shooting star.”

    Indeed, Jehu, or how a missile would appear to a person from the Imperial Roman period.

  7. Wow. It’s like ignorance got together with stupidity and wrote a book. This is a perfect example of what we’ve tossed around here before, namely, that devotion to materialism combined with unwavering faith in Darwinian mechanisms can actually destroy the ability to think. Hey, at least they’re going down with the ship.

  8. “Gee, if I didn’t know better, I’d say the Book of Revelations was written by someone who had no f***ing idea what he was talking about.”

    Hmm, once again the valiant crusaders for atheism “science” risk life and limb to attack Islam Christianity. I hope for their sake all the Islamic Christian extremists don’t read their book.

  9. oh well, strike-through didn’t work for me.

  10. Man, if this is put into the Science section and Barnes and Noble I’ll be ticked.

    It is hard enough wading through the garbage now.

  11. With regard to these authors’ take on Revelation, C. S. Lewis wrote that if you don’t know how to read a book written for grown-ups, then you should leave well enough alone.

    Some time back I wrote that it can be used to advantage that the other side thinks we’re such morons. Let me hasten to add that the preponderance of morons on the other side can also be used to advantage.

  12. 12

    bork,
    Perhaps it should be placed next to Ann Coulter’s recent diatribe against evolution. They would seem to share a similar deficit of intellectual rigor.

    Michael

  13. Bork,

    It’ll probably be required reading in primary schools over here in England.

  14. Perhaps it should be placed next to Ann Coulter’s recent diatribe against evolution.

    You fail to see the difference. When Ann Coulter appears crude it’s usually because she’s quoting someone she’s criticizing.

  15. “And I’m sure the world’s astronomers will be interested to see all those stars fall to Earth, as predicted in the Book of Revelations.”

    It’s amazing that two authors with postgraduate degrees, and numerous editors who are paid to check for errors, could fail to understand even the most basic rules of reading and interpretation. First of all, it’s Revelation, not Revelations. More importantly, apocalyptic writing uses metaphors and symbols, and the use of falling stars and other heavenly bodies in the book of Revelation (as well as throughout the Bible) is a very common picture of the collapse of a government (city or nation), not a prediction of Vega or Polaris slamming into New York. This is basic hermeneutics.

  16. I would rather they have a section for it separate from pure science. Most of these book’s have titles the nearly instantaneously force their opinion on you (ex. God Delusion). This is not cool for me; sometimes I want to leave the philosophical/religious/science realm and play in one field or the other. I don’t see these books in the Christianity/religion section, mainly just the science section.

    I wonder where the field of science is going when a lot of popular science books are trash. Funny, books on Panspermia go over without a hitch.

    And funny that we hear complaints about Coulter’s book published in 2006, yet Dawkin’s book the Blind Watchmaker published in ’04 goes over without a hitch. This book wasn’t science either, it was about how he interprets evolution and it’s meaning.

    All I want is this stuff to go somewhere else. Most of this “Science books” have no science. It would be different if there was something “true”, as in I don’t need to have some presupposition to make it true.

  17. angryoldfatman said:
    Indeed, Jehu, or how a missile would appear to a person from the Imperial Roman period.

    Some have speculated that to a first century person, a missile in flight might look very much like a torch, or a lamp. (Rev 8:10)

  18. The introduction of this book has caused the world’s IQ to drop.

    Brown and Alston should be held responsible for “global dumbing”.

  19. I think everybody is being too harsh on these authors.

    It just isn’t proper to make fun of people who are obviously suffering some sort of serious neurological impairment like this.

    Cut them some slack. Just because the 20 watts or so their brain puts out would be put to better use lighting a room doesn’t mean we should make fun of them.

  20. 20

    You fail to see the difference. When Ann Coulter appears crude it’s usually because she’s quoting someone she’s criticizing.

    Like recently when she called John Edwards a crude word for homosexual (and as she did Al Gore a while back) or when she called two Clinton supporters a crude word for prostitute?

  21. Like recently when she called John Edwards a crude word for homosexual

    That was crude. OTOH, that wasn’t in any of her books.

    or when she called two Clinton supporters a crude word for prostitute?

    She called a couple of political types whores? Mercy, can my ears stand it.

Leave a Reply