Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Breaking News: Denyse O'Leary Has a New Blog!

Denyse "Buy My Book" O'Leary has started a new blog. That makes four altogether. What's the new one all about? It's about a new book she's going to write on the multiverse [Today at Colliding Universes].

Oh well, look on the bright side. Now she'll be posting the same IDiot article four times so your chances of accidentally missing it are very slim.


  1. post-darwinist, mindful hack, colliding universes, uncommon descent, design of life, the ID report, and overwhelming evidence...that's 7

  2. Does she hold the record for lowest ThingsToSay/BlogsToSayItOn quotient?

    (Probably not, but all the other likely competitors that I can think of are mentally ill).

  3. What's funny is that lately several of her blogs just contain references to other blogs - in fact the last SEVEN posts on post-darwinist are just that - "Today at", or "Over at"...

    The silly woman has created quite a little web...of course I can't wait until her blogs get into some kind of recursive loop...

    And is it me, but her cutsie-wutsie writing style is just so grating. Is she writing for adults or 13 year olds? Can't she write straightforwardly and seriously for a change without all the sneering and snarkiness? In fact her latest blog in UD (that's write advertising another blog...) is barely comprehensible (even DaveScot has criticized her "writing skills")

    As has been said before, ID could not have a better spokesperson...

  4. Sorry, I've realized that in my previous post that I had inadvertently insulted 13-year olds. Most of them are way too intelligent and savvy to be taken in by O'Leary's intellectually dishonest claptrap...

  5. (Adds additional domain to mental 'don't bother' list...)

  6. Since several of O'Leary's blogs no longer allow comments, are they still technically blogs?

    Apparently she no longer allows comments because a) there were too many abusive comments b) something to the with the Human Rights Commission and worrying about offending something (Larry - what's your take on this?)

    To me this is one of the distinguishing features of the ID community vs. the skeptical community. The latter is comfortable with a free-for-all no-holds barred discussion (look at PZ's site), whereas in the world of ID, everything is carefully vetted, controlled and censored. That tells me everything I need to know about them.

  7. Seems she does a Salvador and hack physics. Before I agree with AJ Milne I should [sigh!] make a token review.

    - Apparently the universe is fine-tuned for life. Funny, as we can only live in such a small volume of it.

    - Multiverses were invented to explain finetuning for life. Not exactly, they may have been invented to explain observed finetuning, whether compatible with life or not, but they also result naturally from theories like string theory and observed inflation.

    - So naturally she finds a physicist that attacks both those theories. For example, by claiming that what we can self-consistency imagine is enough for possible multiverses, allowing magic!

    Funny, that is what follows from philosophical multiverses. In those that have natural laws what looks like magic in one may be physics in another, but individual self-consistency isn't the criteria but global self-consistency. No science destroying irregular unlawful "poofs".

    Or by claiming that since string theory isn't properly constrained yet, the wild estimate of "all possible solutions" is analogous to division by zero (an impossible solution). Um, yeah...

    - Philosopher Anthony Flew and crackpot movie "What the bleep do we know?" are reliable sources on multiverse physics.

    - The "Pioneer anomaly" is devastating for gravity. Funny, as recently a better thermal model cut the anomaly down with ~ 1/3. But if you believe in gods, surely you can believe that new physics are the expected solution here...

    Oops! Seems like a massiv conclusion: no AuntID™ physics.

  8. Since several of O'Leary's blogs no longer allow comments, are they still technically blogs?

    Technically blogs, webb-logs, yes AFAIU. But you would need to be an interesting author to visit them...

  9. Btw, seems RB Mann will be O'Leary's physicist expert. Figures, since according to Wabash Center Internet Guide to Religion Mann leads a course on Science and Religion: Transcendent Themes, where Intelligent Design has as much time as Evolution and the Origin of Life, and:

    Intelligent Design

    Continuing with the previous class, further implications of evolution will be discussed. Natural theology and Paley's argument from design will be compared with methodological naturalism and the notion of a blind watchmaker. Recent ideas on incorporating intelligent design into biology will be discussed.

    RB Mann has been a speaker at a Metanexus conference on Science and Religion in Context.

  10. The problem with the fine-tuning argument is that it is circular: if your start with the premise that humanity is an accident (we exist because the universe happens to be what it is just like a volume of water takes the shape of the hole it's in) then the conclusion of the argument does not follow - so to avoid this non sequitur you have to start with the premise that humanity is NOT an accident, which is itself a theologically-friendly assumption which makes the argument circular.

    In other words, you have to start with the assumption that humanity has a cretor to get to the conclusion that humanity was created.

    Robert M.

  11. She's a woman on a mission to destroy modern science.