Paul Nelson Day

I have been a bit busy and haven't been making any long posts, but I can't let this go without comment. PZ Myers mentioned on both Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula that it's "Paul Nelson Day". Seven years ago Paul Nelson, ID proponent and fellow over at the Disreputable Institute promised an explanation of his idea of "ontogenetic depth" which is supposed to measure the complexity of developmental processes and somehow would make evolution is impossible. He came up with this gem in March of 2004 and promised to have an explanation of what it is and how to calculate it 'tomorrow'. He said this on April 7, so today is the anniversary of another year passing with conspicuous silence from Paul Nelson.

Now this time last year, Nelson himself tried to make fun of PZ Myers and failed miserably. he also failed to explain his pet concept (again). What I also found funny is he said he developed this concept in 2003. Myers says it was in 2004. Personally I believe Myers, but either way, Happy Paul Nelson Day.

As I was writing this, I also wandered over to James Lynch's 'A Simple Prop' and saw that he was also celebrating the day, only he had something new -- not enlightening, just new. Apparently Paul nelson has finally gotten around STARTING to provide an explanation. In "Understanding Ontogenetic Depth, Part I" he pretty well says nothing. Oh he used a lot of words, but all it did was point out that OD is still undefined and make us wonder how long it will be before he finally gets off his butt and fulfills his own ideas.

But please don't hold your breath. The only thing he has done different than Behe, Johnson, Dembski and all the rest is make a promise. Other than that, he's given us pretty much what they all have given us, unsupported philosophy and promises of more to come. Nelson simply didn't imply a promise, he stated it. Then he joined ranks and broke it, like the rest of them.

Nick Matzke (NCSE), in a comment on the Pharyngula, linked over to

Nelson's latest post:

Understanding Ontogenetic Depth, Part II: Natural Selection Is a Harsh Mistress

Paul Nelson April 7, 2011 5:00 PM

Ontongenetic depth explained -- and a challenge for PZ Myers.

He called it "hilarious". Nick also said

"Paul, really, don't you realize just how silly this makes ID/creationism look? Ever heard of due diligence? I wish that just once you would exercise a little due diligence before posting your screeds about how there is some huge problem in evolutionary theory that everyone else missed before you came along and thought about it over breakfast."

Due Diligence, sure one of the hallmarks of ID 'Research is due diligence (sarcasm inserted here). If Paul, or any of them actual understood and followed a process involving due diligence . . . no one would hear a peep from any of them. How sweet would that be?