Of Dogs and Dissent — Free Fire Zone

Before we launch into our next Intellectual Free Fire Zone, we must bring a couple of matters to your attention.

First — and most important — we found an intelligently designed Smart Dog Toilet. If you visit that link you’ll need to scroll down to the fifth item — the INUBOX Smart Dog Toilet, about which they say — with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Now there’s a smart way for your dog to go to the bathroom indoors. INUBOX is able to capture, process, and even contain dog waste right inside your home. Totally odorless, the intelligent design [Hee hee!] detects when your dog steps on the platform and if there’s any waste left behind. As soon as your dog is done, the door closes and INUBOX begins a 1-minute cleaning cycle.

The next item of interest is the latest post by ol’ Hambo: 1,000 Scientists Sign Up to Dissent from Darwin. This one is really remarkable.

The Discovery Institute’s Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a sad little list we’ve mentioned several times before, but this year their total finally reached 1,000 — see The Discoveroids Are Gaining Momentum. Although it’s far less than 1% of the scientists in the world (and many of the Discoveroids’ signatories aren’t actually scientists), that nice round number is having some kind of public relations effect. WorldNetDaily posted about it — see WND Likes ‘Dissent from Darwinism’ — and now Hambo.

However, unlike WND, Hambo isn’t in totally drool mode. He actually seems to understand some of the weaknesses in the Discoveroids’ “Dissent” statement. Well, at least he realizes that those who sign it probably aren’t his kind of creationist. He says:

Now it is important to understand that many of these scientists, while rejecting the idea that evolution is primarily powered by natural selection and mutations, still believe evolution — just a different form of it. Or they believe more research into evolutionary ideas needs to be done in order to discover what mechanism does power evolution.

Anyway, it’s time for another Intellectual Free Fire Zone. We’re open for the discussion of pretty much anything — science, politics, economics, whatever — as long as it’s tasteful and interesting. But beware of the profanity filters.

Okay, the comments are open. Have at it, dear reader.

Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

16 responses to “Of Dogs and Dissent — Free Fire Zone

  1. NASA was wrong. It said that the Ultima Thule object was round, and now they are admitting that it is flat. How much longer before they will admit that they were wrong about the shape of the Earth.
    And all of the sheep will flip flop on the latest orders!

  2. If only they’d bothered to consult the bible before pontificating on ultima thule. It’s well known that it has all the answers, although I have to admit I could do with some assistance as I’ve been struggling to find the exact passage that discusses deep space extra planetary objects

  3. “Hambo isn’t in totally drool mode”
    Fortunately that’s more than compensated by his Dutch counterparts:


    – Darwin, Vaarwel!

    De wetenschappers, afkomstig van over de hele wereld, zetten hun handtekening onder de verklaring A Scientific Descent from Darwinism op de website Dissentfromdarwin.org. Deze verklaring is een initiatief uit 2001 van de Amerikaanse intelligentdesignorganisatie Discovery Institute, als reactie op de wijdverbreide claim dat geen enkele echte wetenschapper twijfelt aan het neodarwinisme. Sindsdien groeide het aantal ondertekenaars gestaag, tot duizend deze week.

    – Darwin, Goodbye!

    The scientists, from all over the world,signed the statement A Scientific Descent from Darwinism on the site Dissentfromdarwin.org. This statement is an initiative from 2001, coming from the American ID-organization Discotute as a reaction to the overabundant claim that no single real scientist doubts neodarwinism. Since then the number of signers steadily grew, until it passed 1000 this week.


  4. Back to the topic of things for dogs.
    When we get fully automatic cars, without drivers, will dogs be able to use them? Can dogs be trained to summon a car so they can ride with their head out the window, all on their own?

  5. https://logos.nl/onherleidbare-complexiteit-een-schaap-in-wolvenvacht-of-hoe-schijn-bedriegt-deel-1/

    – Thierry Backeljau en Kurt Jordaens gaven hun anticreationistische artikel een titel met een duidelijke boodschap. Het moest de biologiedocenten ingepeperd worden: onherleidbare complexiteit = intelligent design = creationisme = onwetenschap. De auteurs zijn wetenschapper van onverdachte snit. Men zou verwachten dat het artikel ook van goede kwaliteit is. Zo zal de gemiddelde docent het bij oppervlakkige beschouwing ook wel hebben ervaren.

    – TB and KJ gave their anticreationist article a title with a crystalclear message. It had to be rubbed into the faces of biology teachers: irreducible complexity = ID = creationism = nonscience. The authors are unquestionably scientists One would expect that the article is also of good quality. The average teacher will have accepted it that way too.

    – Backeljau gebruikt de definitie van Behe om een stropopredenering op te zetten. Er wordt een structuur bedacht waarvan gezegd wordt dat het een onherleidbaar complexe structuur is en vervolgens wordt aangetoond dat de betreffende structuur door natuurlijke oorzaken kan zijn ontstaan en dus niet onherleidbaar complex is.

    – TB uses Behe’s definition [of IC – FrankB] to erect a strawman. He invents a structure and says that it’s an IC one. Then he demonstrates that said structure can have natural causes and hence is not IC.

    Complaint: TB uses an example not used by Behe. The latter talks about functionality and in the example all functionality is maintained, so according to Behe’s definition it’s not IC.
    Before the author talks about the IC mousetrap. That’s quite funny, because years ago it has been shown that it’s not IC either. It can be found on Wikipedia; perhaps the Dutch author can’t read English.
    Please pay attention to the picture at the end of the article – it seems to me that removing one stone makes the bridge lose it’s functionality indeed.

  6. The third one is the best, because it at one hand refutes a hypothesis our SC had hold dear for a long time:

    “We always delight in reporting about the discovery of new extra-solar planets, because their existence shatters the primitive universe described in Genesis.”

    Of course our dear SC being alert as always already had pointed out a few weeks ago that YECers are busy waking up.


    The article on Logos.nl is largely uninteresting – they summarize an article which, if you are interested, should read in it’s original:


    Click a flag for another language.
    For this site it’s the two last sentences that matter.

    – Deze stofschijven wijzen op een recent ontstaan. Als ze al vele miljoenen jaren oud zouden zijn, zou het gas en stof door de ster en planeten verstoord en opgeslokt zijn.

    – These dustdiscs point at a recent origin. Had they been millions of years old, the gas and the dust would have been disturbed and swallowed by the star and planets.

    Time to repeat: you simply can’t beat creacrap.

  7. Finally I found this “analysis” of the wellknown Cosmological Argument.


    – 1.Things exist.
    2.It is possible for those things to not exist.
    3.Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
    * 1.Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
    4.There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
    * 1.An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence.
    2* .Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
    5.Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
    6.The uncaused cause must be God.

    The author recognizes the equally wellknown problem: “….. then God would need a cause,”
    The rebuttal is baffling:

    “The correct issue would be all things that came into existence must have a cause. God did not come into existence. God has always existed.”
    So the apologist postulates that god has always existed to conclude that god exists! Irrefutable logic.
    Needless to say that it’s yet another creationist outfit.

  8. @FrankB
    “An infinite series of causes”
    Anyone who wants to pontificate on infinite series ought first to study the mathematics of infinity. An infinite series can have a first and a last, both, neither, or one or the other.

  9. Following the critically acclaimed “Discovery Institute Plenary Sessions Honoring Incredibly Topical Subjects,” and close on the heels of the groundbreaking “Annual Summer Seminar Hosting Amazing Teachers and Students,” my marketing team has taken a crack at the DI’s signature achievement, the Dissent from Darwinism list.

    Now, it’s still being put in front of focus groups, and has been leaked in a few key markets and demographics, so there might be some refining needed. But we all feel that “Courageous Individuals Rejecting the Consensus on Life & Evolution, Jointly Enhancing Research and Knowledge” has the potential to be something really special.

  10. Those are all great acronyms, Mark Germano, but what should we call our proposed list of scientists who dissent from all forms of creationism? Unlike the Discoveroids’ list that took almost 20 years to get 1,000 signatures, ours would get over 100,000 signers the first week. But it needs a good name.

  11. Wait, they’re acronyms? I’ll have to look in to that.

  12. Bambi could add the intelligent dog poop disposer to the gift shop at tha Ark. Noah would have loved it instead of shovels……Ruff , ruff

  13. Bambi is either a super secret double probation intel operative within the Hambo organization at the ark OR spellcheck on my phone changed Hambo to Bambi on my first comment on SCs blog post.
    sigh ……But I prefer the hot operative in the gift shop named Bambi instead of the spellcheck explanation. Computers are wonderful aren’t they.

  14. Spell check switched it up for you again. Let me fix it. “Bambi is either a super secret double penetration intel operative within the Hambo organization….”