There's No Science Like No Science…

Posted on November 14, 2006 by Abacquer

I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your [Intelligent Design] position as I do for my Darwinian position.” [Intelligent Design] is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not [Intelligent Design]'s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If [Intelligent Design] is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with [Irreducibly Complex] systems that is what [Intelligent Design] is discovering.

– William Dembski

I just had to share that gem from William Dembski, high priest of the Intelligent Design/Creationist cult. In this one quote (made by Dembski on a message board) the man painstakingly crafts a torpedo and then shoots Intelligent Design (ID) with it.

Dembski is not stupid. He knows full well that if it isn't testable, it isn't science–science does not work that way. And yet here he just flat out says that it won't be tested. Look at the circular insanity of his logic. It basically boils down to

If ID is correct, it makes no sense to try and connect the dots. Therefore we won't try and connect the dots.

To which the obvious response is, if you don't try and connect the dots, how do you know if ID is correct? “Not a mechanistic theory”… Jesus… it's not a theory at all! In order for it to be a theory it has to have been tested!

Note also the double standard. He accepts fundamental discontinuities in ID, because those discontinuities are caught by the God-safety-net. Oh man, I can't explain how we got from here to there… ummm… oh I know! GOD DID IT! Phew, that was a close one.

But he (like all other Creationists) rejects real science because of discontinuities in the evidence. This overlooks the fact that no matter how much evidence one amasses there will always be some discontinuities. It's impossible for us to have a fossil for every species that ever existed, but that doesn't invalidate evolution. Yet this is exactly what the Creationists demand. And exactly what they refuse to provide themselves… they're not going to connect the dots for us, because they are operating with the God-training-wheels, and thus their “theory” can never fall down. From an earlier quote on the same message board:

…Give a sustained argument in your own words of how some [Irreducibly Complex] system of the sort that I or Mike Behe cites came about…

Here Dembski demands an explanation from an opponent of ID–explain how such-and-such evolved. Why? If Creationism doesn't have to connect the dots, why should Science? Because that's what Science does. It actually figures stuff out instead of making stuff up. But Dembski accuses scientists of the latter. Despite the fact that there is a towering mountain of evidence to support evolution through natural selection, the moment a scientist can't explain fully how we got from A to B, and says that we've seen enough transitions of the A to B sort to safely say that A evolved to B, Dembski pounces… as if that is somehow evidence for a designer.

It's been said before, and the Creationists still don't get it. Disproving Evolution is not Proving Intelligent Design. Will these wackos ever just go away?

Hot? Check! Fresh? Check! Crispy? Check! Stupid?

Posted on November 14, 2006 by Abacquer

If this article were ever linked to from FARK, the given title would be something along the lines of “Having Solved All Other Problems, Chuck Discusses French Fry Containers”. I can't help it… sometimes I see stuff and it just eats at my brain and I need to get it out (the stuff, not my brain). Burger King recently redesigned the cardboard container they serve fries in. One has to wonder who thought the public would give a shit, and further, how many millions went into this project. Here's the new “FRYPOD” (bet Apple computer LOVES that name) unfolded:

There are two amazing new innovations in the Frypod, as near as I can tell. First, it is more rounded than the old fry containers and therefore fits in a cup-holder in your car. This neglects the obvious fact that your cupholder is probably holding the drink you just fucking bought!

The other major new ground broken by the Frypod is the Crisp-O-Matic fry preservation system which consists of two holes punched in the sides of the fry container. It's not really new ground actually, many fry containers have had openings near the bottom. The blurb printed on the back of the fry container, for those of us with lives so pathetic that we might actually read it, says that the holes are special vents which keep the fries hot and crispy.

Now I'm no genius, but how does having a hole near the bottom of the container help keep the fries hot? They're not on fire, so it's not like they need to be fed oxygen to keep them hot, and in fact if you buy fries that turn out to be on fire I strongly suggest you plug up the Crisp-O-Matic. I'm not going to go to Burger King's site and read about this because I can't stand it as it is, and thinking it is stupid is helping me get through the day. I figure, the fries are hot, and hot air rises, so adding vents at the bottom lets cool air in at the bottom and helps cool your fries down, not keep them hot.

The crispy part, I buy. The fries have moisture in them, and if they are all crammed down into the container, that hot moisture can get trapped down there and turn the fries squishy. With a vent the air can cycle and keep your fries from getting soggy. And as an added advantage, the crud inside your cupholders can fall into your Frypod more easily.

But my favorite part is the quality control checklist printed on the side. They're french fries for Pete's sake! Of course they're hot, fresh, and crispy. If they weren't you'd have brought them back and asked for hot, fresh, and crispy fries. Unless you were in the goddamned drive through, but that's a whole other story.

But why a checklist? Do they actually think we believe someone tried our fries and ran down the checklist before they gave them to us? Fresh? Yep. Hot? Yep. Crispy? Oop! Not crispy, I can't authorize these fries for public consumption. Quick Otis, fry up another batch.

You might entertain this fantasy right up until the time you realize that the checkboxes are all preprinted with checks in them. What the fuck does that mean? Do they think we're so stupid that this preprinted checklist makes us feel better about the quality of our fries? Somebody down at the print shop assures me that my fries are hot, fresh, and crispy, and boy don't I feel great knowing that. A pre-checked checklist basically says “don't bother checking”. To the consumer, it says one thing and one thing only: we don't give a shit about your fucking fries… eat 'em and shut up.

What I want is to get the guy who came up with the idea of a pre-checked checklist and get him to work with the SAT people. Seriously, a pre-checked SAT test would really let the pressure off highschool students trying to get in to college, and think of what it would do to the average test scores. America would become a land of geniuses overnight.

Apparently I'm not the only blogger with so much time on his hands he's actually talking about how Burger King packages their fries: