Denialists’ Deck of Cards: Consumers Want It, Or They Don’t Know What They Want

The spectacle manifests itself as an enormous positivity, out of reach and beyond dispute. All it says is: “Everything that appears is good; whatever is good will appear.” – Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle

i-9d936ebcbb671ac98c18d0fb1b4e58c6-4s.jpeg You’ve argued that consumer education can set individuals free. Now argue that because something exists, people must want it. After all, the market is perfect, and even if it produces a seemly odious product, it’s not really a problem. On the other hand, if consumers start making choices that the denialist doesn’t like, the denialist will say that individuals don’t really know what they want. i-4c97633fd541b43d1718e227370307bb-5h.jpeg

So, whether you go with consumers want it or consumers do not know what they want, you conclude with the “no problem” chorus.

i-24f3928018e4a410ca06a6d0a4839de9-5c.jpg

Continue reading “Denialists’ Deck of Cards: Consumers Want It, Or They Don’t Know What They Want”

Who’s the bigger liability for ID?

I thought Michael Egnor was the DI’s biggest liability for stupid arguments. Now I’m thinking based on Aferensis’ posts that it’s probably Dave Scot based on his suggestion that “All the hominid fossils we have wouldn’t fill a single coffin.”

But my favorite part of how embarrassing he is for humanity is how people, sometimes inadvertently, make predictions about his stupidity.
Continue reading “Who’s the bigger liability for ID?”

Denialists’ Deck of Cards: The 4 of Diamonds, “Consumer Freedom”

i-fdadf3f4eafaf88a43c4ba0f2ec49117-4d.jpg Given that there is consumer education, any attempt to limit the practices in questions threaten consumer freedom. Denialists will assume that people are perfectly rational and in possession of all relevant information. Thus, individuals choose the problem being addressed, and to limit it frustrates consumer freedom, because they like the problem or harm at issue.

This reminds me of a joke I once heard…

Dembski misses the point as always with his recent post describing why the vertebrate eye is again evidence of design. You see, the big bad Darwinists used the structure of the eye, which has its photoreceptors in the back behind all the layers of the retina, as evidence that our eye isn’t designed, because what kind of designer would have the light pass all the way through the layers of the retina to reach the receptor cells?

I’m interested in talking about these cranks today because I think this argument is one that exposes the fundamentally deceptive nature of the DI and proponents of the ID movement.
Continue reading “This reminds me of a joke I once heard…”

Denialists’ Deck of Cards: The Second Hand, Consumer Education

Okay, you’ve tried denying that the problem exists, you’ve tried to trivialize the problem, and you’ve even argued that the problem causes so harm, so it isn’t a problem. Obviously, this no harm thing begins to have diminishing returns. What’s next?
Continue reading “Denialists’ Deck of Cards: The Second Hand, Consumer Education”

Adult Stem Cell Nonsense

For this Friday afternoon I thought I’d rehash a previous post from denialism.com on adult stem cells and those that hype results inappropriately to disparage embryonic stem (ES) cells. It all started with an exciting JAMA article about using autologous stem cell transplants to help treat type I diabetics who still had some capacity to produce insulin. The problem is that the adult stem cell hypers, like Wesley Smith (you guys remember him right? Senior fellow of DI etc.) will jump on any article that says “adult stem cells” and blather on and on about there are no ES cell cures – so why study them?
Continue reading “Adult Stem Cell Nonsense”

Comment policy

I’m turning on moderation since the 9/11 truthers have shown up and desire to show me how they’re not cranks by hijacking threads and linking their conspiracy sites.

Sorry about that. But I don’t think it’s a valuable use of time to argue with cranks. I also won’t accept comments that are just drive-by trollings, or thread hijacks.

If my commenters want to take them on, that’s fine, but I have a limited tolerance for futile endeavors.

After the weekend (Chris and I don’t blog much on Saturday and Sunday) when I can monitor things more closely I’ll take moderation off.