Dembski has had a habit in the past of posting things on his blog that are reported to him by anonymous colleagues. It's forced him to have to apologize a time or two when it turns out that the facts aren't quite correct (you may recall the anonymous colleague who told him about seeing Kevin Padian speaking ill of "Asian fundamentalists" in a speech that he did not give in a place he hadn't been in years). The latest was this post, where based upon such a report he implied that Ken Miller was a closet ID supporter. Ken Miller has now posted a reply that includes the actual text of the question and answer. You'll notice that the way Dembski's informant portrayed the situation wasn't even close to how it actually went.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Some of you who watch Dembski's blog may have read his false accusations aimed at Kevin Padian over the last couple weeks. As it turns out, the whole thing was nonsense. Someone sent him an email about a paleontologist from Berkeley who allegedly singled out a church in the area that is…
Lawrence VanDyke has posted a response to me on the Exparte blog, the blog of the Harvard Federalist Society. I will reply to that as well as a comment he made to my first post on this subject.
VanDyke's response begins with Adam White saying:
Lawrence VanDyke continues to defend himself against…
One of Dembski's acolytes posted an item at Uncommon Descent about an Indian "cosmo theorist" supporting ID. I'm not sure why he posted it, since it said nothing of substance, it just had a quote from the guy saying that evolution contains a "grave error" when it comes to human evolution, without…
There is a long history of creationist misrepresentation of the views of scientists, going back to the time of Darwin himself. As the creationist movement has grown and gone through its various phases over the last century, such misrepresentations have been a powerful weapon in their arsenal. In…
Not this time, I'd wager. Miller's comment about the "design" of the Universe is close enough for IDists to claim that he's merely talking about a version of "front-loaded" intelligent design. Like a ferret invading a hen house, Dembski only needs a tiny amount of wriggle room to believe he's escaped his own distortions.
Over on a different message board I've got IDists claiming the "Wedge document" is mythological and an urban legend, despite them knowing that it exists and that the author, Phillip Johnson, has repeatedly affirmed its goals. Crazy stuff.
Actually, I don't believe Phillip Johnson is the author of the Wedge document itself, though he is the one who originated the wedge argument. That document was probably written by committee, so to speak, within the DI. But the DI admitted long ago that the document was authentic.
I've tried twice now to post the link to Miller's transcript of his remarks. Curiously, it has never shown up.
That's odd, I don't see anything in the unpublished comments. At any rate, the transcript is already linked to in my post.
What the hell is up with DaveScot in that post by Dembski? He's falling all over himself to try and show how what a good agnostic he is, or at least that's what is seems. A little later he makes this ridiculous statement:
Wow. Darwin sure is an asshole. I had no idea he and muslims were such buddies. I love how this shows some of DaveScots not so hidden predjudices.
You're right, Ed, there's no proof that he was the actual author of the wedge document though he certainly devised most of the content himself first.
Those IDists are getting a little touchy today. I've now been accused of propogating the "lie" that Phillip Johnson was a founder of the Intelligent Design movement. Of course, they are trying to use Clintonesque parsing of words to separate "scientific" ID from the rest of IDs inconvenient "wedge" baggage, but I've yet to find any prominent IDist dispute Johnson's vital role.
Me: I've tried twice now to post the link to Miller's transcript of his remarks. Curiously, it has never shown up.
Ed: That's odd, I don't see anything in the unpublished comments. At any rate, the transcript is already linked to in my post.
I meant I tried to post the link to Miller's transcript over on Dembski's blog. I'm sure it's just, uh, fallen through the cracks. Twice.
OH. Well that's not a surprise.