Bill Dembski says that "framing" is bad. Bill Dembski says that "framing" is bad. Good lord, I feel like I've been hit over the head with a two-ton block of solid irony. Dembski says that people shouldn't try to shape messages. My mind just can't wrap around that one.
It's like Charlie Manson complaining about a drop in local property values. It's like Dick Cheney complaining about politicians being mean to each other. It's like Keith Richards doing a drug abuse prevention commercial.
Un-freaking-real.
More like this
Ed has written a little about Dembski's claim that Barbara Forrest (of Creationism's Trojan Horse fame) owes her care
I've been a bit derelict in my blog reading lately, so I overlooked this post by Wesley Elsberry.
A while ago, I wrote about Dembski's definition of specified complexity, arguing that it was a non-sensical pile of rubbish, because of the fact that "specified complexity" likes to present itself as being a combination of two distinct concepts: specification and complexity.
Jeff Shallit has issued a response on Panda's Thumb to accusations made (in lieu of a response) by William Dembski to his
He's playing the holier than thou card. Somehow that doesn't surprise me. Not even when it makes him a hypocrit.
And in the meantime, framing Seed as an "atheist magazine" (and by extenstion, Scienceblogs). I sooo need a new irony meter yet again.