Show me the Money!
by Steve PetermannHere's an interesting stat. A quick count of posts on ARN comes to about 135,000 posts over 5 years. At an average of 10 minutes (probably very low) to create a post and an average hourly rate of $50 per hour (probably very low for mostly professionals including overhead/benefits etc.) that adds up to about $1,125,000 spent arguing intelligent design just on ARN. Note, this does not include the time spent reading posts which would probably at least double the cost. At approximately $2,250,000 spent just on ARN there must be something very important to people going on. Just think, if the Darwinists had just ignored the IDists and instead got paid for that time, they'd all be rich. Sounds like ID is a growth industry. Where does one buy stock in all this? 
July 8th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
Steve,
Yes, it's amazing isn't it? All those posts, so much time…
I am one of the very earliest posters at ARN, starting back in March, 2000 and have amassed about 210 or so posts. What really astounds me is the fact that the very highest level posters at ARN are predominantly anti-ID in their outlook. So many of them have put up literally thousands of posts per year. At your conservative 10 minutes per post, one thousand posts take 167 hours of work per year. If you double it for the really enthusiastic anti-IDers, that's 333 hours. Double it again for the time spent reading other people's posts and you get 666 hours (an interesting number).
A full time job of 40 hours per week for 48 weeks of the year is 1920 hours, so it appears that many avid anti-ID posters have what amounts to a part-time profession. Maybe it's full time when you consider that most of them are also posting on other sites: Panda's Thumb, the various Talk-dot sites, Infidels, etc.
What kind of life do these people have? Are they getting paid? In an ARN thread I once asked "Lizard" (Liz Craig of Kansas Citizens for Science) if she was getting paid for her daily work bashing ID at ARN and elsewhere. The tone of her denial made me suspect that she was. For others however, I suppose it must be either that they are independently wealthy with way too much time on their hands, or that they are in the grips of a fanatical materialist cult. Remember that number 666 above!
I have this vision of baggy-eyed Dawkins worshippers hunched over their keyboards with a ticking hand dripping sweat over their mouse as they compulsively post the same comments again and again and again all day and late into the night, every night. Perhaps one of these sad creatures will finally get the monkey off their back and start a 12 step support group for his fellow sufferers.
Stu
Comment by Stuart Harris — July 8, 2005 @ 3:30 pm
July 8th, 2005 at 3:49 pm
Hey Stu,
LOL! Nice post. I hope Douglas doesn't see the 666 stuff. Then he'd really get motivated.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 8, 2005 @ 3:49 pm
July 8th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
Steve,
If you divide my 210 ARN posts by 7 (the seven signs in the Gospel of John) you get 30. Divide that by 10 (the controversial Ten Commandments) and you get 3, the Trinity. And, my posts have been made over a five year period — the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses, the Torah.
Yikes! I'm a Christian so I better stop posting at ARN to maintain my "perfect number"!
I'll have to admit that not ALL the compulsive posters at ARN are anti-IDers.
At 10 minutes each, my 210 posts only amount to 35 hours. Double it for reading others and that's less than two weeks of full time labor. I'm a man who can handle his passions. Sadly for others it appears that one post is too many and a million ain't enough. None of them will admit it though! As they say "denial isn't just a river in Egypt".
The problem must be faced and admitted. "Hello, I'm The Pixie, and I'm an ARNoholic."
Stu
Comment by Stuart Harris — July 8, 2005 @ 4:37 pm
July 8th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
Stu,
Hey I think I smell an "ARN Code" in the offing. Go for it.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 8, 2005 @ 5:09 pm
July 8th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
Ms. Craig's salary is comparable to Mr. Harris's.
Comment by edarrell — July 8, 2005 @ 5:29 pm
July 8th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Here's another interesting statistic: If one takes the 10,000 papers/year published supporting or explaining evolution over the past 14 years, and if one assumes 500 hours in preparation for each (which may be conservative — hey, it's a swag), one gets 5 million man hours in research under the evolution paradigm.
Now, if one takes the two papers on intelligent design published in nominally peer-reviewed journals, one gets 1,000 hours of work over the same 14 years. Put another way, that's about 71 hours of work each year on advancing intelligent design, versus 5 million hours advancing evolution.
At the above suggested $50/hour, that means intelligent design advocates have put just over $3,500 a year into proving their ideas, while evolution students put $250 million a year into research.
Just one more indication that ID is either incredibly sterile, or that ID advocates are wasting way too much time talking to school boards when they should be in their labs doing real work.
Comment by edarrell — July 8, 2005 @ 5:34 pm
July 8th, 2005 at 5:37 pm
Oops. I failed to multiply the 5 million hours of evolution work by the 14 years.
Oh, heck, why embarrass the ID guys any more. Do your own math, if you really want to be boggled.
Comment by edarrell — July 8, 2005 @ 5:37 pm
July 9th, 2005 at 12:22 am
Ed:
Where did you get your 10000 number?
Define "the evolution paradigm?"
Comment by MikeGene — July 9, 2005 @ 12:22 am
July 10th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
Here I agree with Mike Gene; 10,000 is a piper's dream. There must be (well) over a million papers and books about '(the) evolution (paradigm)' in circulation, including translations and originals in languages other than English, around the world. The idea of 'explaining evolution' is ridiculous in such a context.
Here's a short sample of books on evolution: Evolution and Anthropology (1959), The Evolution of an Evolutionist (1975), Evolution as a Religion (1985), Evolution: an Evolving Theory (1993), Evolution and Biocomputation (1995), Freedom Evolves (2003), Evolution: the Disguised Friend of Faith? (2004), add to those books that focus primarily on Darwin though not only evolution; Darwin among the poets (1932), Darwin among the machines (1997), Evolution after Darwin (1960).
"Is evolution not [also] an interdisciplinary concept in our contemporary scientific milieu?" - g. arago (question to W. Dembski, UD, 05-07-05)
Here comes the irony: it will take only one paper, or a series of papers to completely overhaul the 'evolution paradigm' about which the poster edarrel, armed with an American Flag icon, speaks. This is really what a (Kuhnian or otherwise) 'scientific revolution' is about. For starters, the folly with which some specialized scientists pretend evolution is only about biology or chemistry or botany or geology is a myth that needs to be dispelled.
There is not yet, however, a book or paper by anyone IN the IDM (or those dancing around it), not even Dembski's "Design Revolution" that signifies the 'revolution' ID theories are promising. One wonders what all of the money is being spent for/on if not merely as a prelude to the real discovery or invention that is soon to come. At least it should be fun!
"Where does one buy stock in all this?" - Steve Petermann
If I were you, I'd be putting my money on clerks in patent offices, or in a 21st century version of the most unlikely place you'd think a trailblazer could be starting from or currently living. It must be worth investing in such a long shot if one were to be found at hand, asking for yours. Numbers aside but not without meaning for a Jerry Mcguire-inspired thread.
And whatever the discovery or interpretation would likely piss off R. Dawkins of England (home of icon Charles) something fierce, so that many people could go home smiling after reading it. Or perhaps they'll already be in the comfort of their own home and just click 'send,' to their relative, neighbour or friend, and the smiles of post-evolutionism and pre-Darwin memories will be shared all around.
Arago
'Get lost and then get found, not swallowed in the sea.' - Coldplay (EMI, 2005)
Comment by g arago — July 10, 2005 @ 4:26 pm
July 10th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
g arago:
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on this. The ID hypothesis is so ambiguous scientifically I don't see any definitive event shifting the paradigm. Teleological arguments are notoriously indeterminate. History has shown this and I believe it will continue to be so. Since teleology is ultimately based on causation, there will never be some seminal scientific insight that is not without reasonable counter arguments.
If there is a shift it will not be momentus because scientific teleological arguments do not fit well within the current accepted scientific method. Instead it will be more of a subtle cultural shift. If that happens science will follow.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 10, 2005 @ 5:47 pm
July 11th, 2005 at 3:58 am
It's o.k. to disagree with such a statement as the one you cite and there's no need to be afraid. I wasn't referring to an ID hypothesis. They (IDM) don't have it in their cards at this time. They (often) wear an icon too, but don't wish to speak about it openly. I'm glad you've shown your 'belief in teleology' and express your thoughts, hopes and doubts about it here.
Your statement should probably read "I haven't yet seen any definitive event…" and include hearing, not just seeing such that you may believe if your ears did hear the right words. The electric age brings sounds as much as sights into our sensitive expanse. Add that you may act if Spirit moves you.
The 'evolution paradigm' (in a post-modern view) is more than only about teleology. It is also about origins, human purpose and meaning(s). Though, yes, there is both causality and also effects to confront for its overhaul or overcoming.
You didn't address my 'for starters' suggestion that "the folly with which some specialized scientists pretend evolution is only about biology or chemistry or botany or geology is a myth that needs to be dispelled." Would you still wish to address this, as someone interested in Science, Philosophy and Theology, who may be able to speak on the present hierarchy of disciplines in the academy? You are not a biologist, so there's no need put a biological science ahead of others, say psychology or anthropology since those disciplines are highly influenced by evolutionary theory too.
Apparently you subscribe to one-dimensionality (or narrow dimensionality)of evolution as does Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Wells, Nelson and others who haven't yet dealt with the difference between human-made and non-human-made things. What evolves and what doesn't? It will not take a natural scientist or philosopher of science to understand and express them-self on such things so that a solution to the crisis may become available. Naturalist-in, natuaralistic theist-out doesn't appear to contain the proofs.
At least, this is what it reads on your website:
Please don't refuse the insight when it comes to you because you are stuck looking at biology (or at ID's repatriated theories + information era) instead of listening interdisciplinarily, or because of rejecting or whitewashing ancient ideas for the lure of post-modern relativity and pluralism. These things should not make one seek a 'new religion,' but rather to find what is new in what is old. Likely, you still have it in you, whether you've lost it or not.
Btw, was it 'religious studies' or a particular traditional 'theology' you studied as a student before becoming a 'design engineer'? Existentially compelling the overhauling of evolution must be, otherwise my statement would ring hollow. And coming from this swallow, hollow or numbing it could never set us free.
Best wishes for not getting swallowed in the sea,
Arago
Comment by g arago — July 11, 2005 @ 3:58 am
July 11th, 2005 at 8:52 am
g arago,
It's too bad that your debate style is such that only those who relish pissing contests would want to engage you. You seem like an intelligent person but your non sequitor presumptions, condescending tone, and constant ad hominen shuttle you quickly to the "don't pay any attention to" category. I suppose you have been successful sucking in those who feel they need to counter your personal assaults but I'll pass. There are far too many other individuals who really are serious about civil debate to waste my time with you.
p.s. I'm fully expecting a counter post from you that I'm fleeing the battlefield out of fear, intimidation, or something else. Oh well.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 11, 2005 @ 8:52 am
July 12th, 2005 at 3:13 am
It's too bad one can't respond to such a posting without censorship (3 times) from Telic Thoughts, even with an apology to Steve included in the text.
Do Mike Gene, the Deuce, Guts, bipod and Joy really want to exclude the contributions of someone who is quite clearly interested in 'civil discourse' about telic thoughts, simply to protect Mr. Petermann from legitimate questions, including those about his plans for a 'new religion'? Better take off the links to his site if you don't want such topics discussed in the context of telic thoughts. Otherwise, it's misleading for readers to believe there are authentic claims to knowledge and sincerity to discuss them coming from this place.
This is not a 'counter post' from Steve's typical enemy. It is rather an appeal to more careful and respectful communication.
g. arago
p.s. If the management is disatisfied with my posting, they can please send me an e-mail saying so out of respect for time spent writing to their site.
Comment by g arago — July 12, 2005 @ 3:13 am
July 12th, 2005 at 10:03 am
g arago,
We don't delete each others posts here. Nobody needs protecting.
OK, I'm all for that. Let's give it a try.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 12, 2005 @ 10:03 am
July 17th, 2005 at 11:22 am
Stuart Harris wrote:
Let's see, a cursory glance at the antievolution ARNies reveals the same postaholic behavior Harris believes requires treatment:
Mike Gene - Posts: 4804 | Registered: Feb 2000 - 75 ppm*
Mung - Posts: 2767 | Registered: May 2002 - 73 ppm
Salvador Cordova - Posts: 5429 | Registered: Nov 2003 - 271 ppm
leonard - Posts: 7308 | Registered: Aug 2001 - 152 ppm
nobody (AKA Mod 6) - Posts: 5510 | Registered: Dec 2001 - 100 ppm
Douglas - Posts: 4223 | Registered: Nov 2000 - 74 ppm
IlÃon - Posts: 3142 | Registered: Feb 2003 - 105 ppm
mturner - Posts: 6185 | Registered: Jul 2001 - 129 ppm
joy - Posts: 1961 | Registered: Oct 2002 - 60 ppm
Comparing these averages with The Pixie's:
The Pixie - Posts: 1917 | Registered: Jan 2002 - 46 ppm
As Stu derisively wrote:
Comment by Brian Sell — July 17, 2005 @ 11:22 am
August 14th, 2005 at 9:09 pm
[quote]LOL! Nice post. I hope Douglas doesn't see the 666 stuff. Then he'd really get motivated. [/quote]
I also notice that someone's mathematical training appears to be lacking (167 doubled is NOT 333).
I see that your scientific training has not failed you here.
Hey, my "ppm" is almost exactly the same as Mike Gene's - coincidence? (Never mind that mine is also almost exactly the same as Mung's.) And, most of my posts at ARN have been of the "one-liner" variety, sometimes even venturing into "two-liner" territory. And they've all been brilliant, regardless of length.
I don't think one should be accused of ARNism until one's ppm breaks the 100 ppm barrier. Anyone more than double that probably should be committed forthwith or henceforth, or something.
Comment by Douglas — August 14, 2005 @ 9:09 pm