# Comments on Darwin Devolves Fraud

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-darwin-devolves-fraud/4447>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Comments\
**Created:** [February 11, 2019, 10:18pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-darwin-devolves-fraud/4447 "2019-02-11T22:18:33Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 11\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Argon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/argon/32/3896_2.png) [@Argon](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Argon)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 10:18pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-darwin-devolves-fraud/4447/1 "2019-02-11T22:18:33Z")

</div>

Aren’t West and Klinghoffer mostly focused on PR rather than scientific details?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 10:19pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-darwin-devolves-fraud/4447/2 "2019-02-11T22:19:07Z")

</div>

> [@West: Review Borders on Fraud?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/west-review-borders-on-fraud/4445/9):
>
> Aren’t West and Klinghoffer mostly focused on PR rather than scientific details?

Sure. In this case, West decides to charge us with (bordering) academic fraud. That is fairly surprising, even for them.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![NLENTS](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nlents/32/1158_2.png) [@NLENTS](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/NLENTS)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 10:19pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-darwin-devolves-fraud/4447/3 "2019-02-11T22:19:44Z")

</div>

I don’t think so. This is typical DI fare. They want this out there in the search results so as to confuse the public as much as possible. It’s what they do.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Argon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/argon/32/3896_2.png) [@Argon](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Argon)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 10:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-darwin-devolves-fraud/4447/4 "2019-02-11T22:20:01Z")

</div>

> [@West: Review Borders on Fraud?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/west-review-borders-on-fraud/4445/10):
>
> That is fairly surprising, even for them.

Hmmm… I wouldn’t be surprised. 🤔

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Argon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/argon/32/3896_2.png) [@Argon](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Argon)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 10:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-darwin-devolves-fraud/4447/5 "2019-02-11T22:21:02Z")

</div>

> [@West: Review Borders on Fraud?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/west-review-borders-on-fraud/4445/11):
>
> They want this out there in the search results so as to confuse the public as much as possible.

Precisely: Squid ink.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 11:02pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-darwin-devolves-fraud/4447/6 "2019-02-11T23:02:14Z")

</div>

> [@NLENTS](#):
>
> I don’t think so. This is typical DI fare. They want this out there in the search results so as to confuse the public as much as possible. It’s what they do.

Has the DI produced anything that **isn’t** 100% pure anti-science propaganda? I sure can’t think of any examples.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 11:04pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-darwin-devolves-fraud/4447/7 "2019-02-11T23:04:58Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Sure. In this case, West decides to charge us with (bordering) academic fraud. That is fairly surprising, even for them.

How in the world can a book review contain academic fraud?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nwrickert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/32/810_2.png) [@nwrickert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nwrickert)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 11:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-darwin-devolves-fraud/4447/8 "2019-02-11T23:35:48Z")

</div>

> [@Timothy\_Horton](#):
>
> How in the world can a book review contain academic fraud?

Suppose that I were to write a book under a pseudonym. And then suppose that I wrote a review lavishing praise on that book, but without disclosing that I was the author. Then that would be academic fraud.

So yes, a book review could contain an academic fraud.

In the case that we are actually concerned with – no, that could not be a fraud. When West says it is a fraud, we should take him as merely saying that he dislikes the review.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 11:45pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-darwin-devolves-fraud/4447/9 "2019-02-11T23:45:01Z")

</div>

> [@nwrickert](#):
>
> Suppose that I were to write a book under a pseudonym. And then suppose that I wrote a review lavishing praise on that book, but without disclosing that I was the author. Then that would be academic fraud.

Didn’t Dembski get caught doing exactly that with self-reviews using pseudonyms of his book on Amazon?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cwhenderson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/cwhenderson/32/72_2.png) [@cwhenderson](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/cwhenderson)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2019, 12:21am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-darwin-devolves-fraud/4447/10 "2019-02-12T00:21:51Z")

</div>

> [@Timothy\_Horton](#):
>
> Didn’t Dembski get caught doing exactly that with self-reviews using pseudonyms of his book on Amazon?

I thought I read something about that before, so I did a little googling. Yes, “a reader from Waco” posted a critique of Mark Perakh’s “Unintelligent Design” and promoted a book of Dembski’s. A later glitch at the Canadian Amazon site accidentally revealed the identities of anonymous posters - and “a reader from Waco” apparently was Dembski. You can read more detail here:

> **[Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious...](http://www.talkreason.org/articles/creative.cfm)**
>
> TalkReason provides a forum for the publication of papers with well-thought out arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics.

Maybe note quite “exactly that”, since it was just a review on Amazon, but a pretty similar event.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2019, 12:38am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/comments-on-darwin-devolves-fraud/4447/11 "2019-02-12T00:38:18Z")

</div>

> [@nwrickert](#):
>
> In the case that we are actually concerned with – no, that could not be a fraud. When West says it is a fraud, we should take him as merely saying that he dislikes the review.

This is an overwhelmingly bad response to a review. I wonder if they really think this was fraud or if they are just that far out on a limb.

Regardless, I still look forward to dialogue with them. Will they show up?