And that's not good. John Lynch rips into Dembski's views on Alfred Russell Wallace, and Dembski's mistakes are legion and major. Wallace is an interesting guy, and it's always a shame when Discovery Institute propagandists start mangling yet another aspect of history, philosophy, and science.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Over at his blog, William Dembski, my least-favorite pathetic excuse for a mathematician, [has cited an article][dembski] written by one John Davison about the theory of evolution. According to Dembski, this article explains "why the naked emperor still lingers"; that is, why the theory of…
I could resist a brief mention of this. Remember yesterday's post, when I discussed how EpiWonk had deconstructed and demolished David Kirby's latest mangling of epidemiology and willful misreading of government reports? Apparently it had an effect. It would appear that Mr. Kirby may actually have…
Here is a criticism of evolutionary biology:
…it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory … We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory.
If a Bill Dembski or a Michael Egnor or a Ken Ham had said this — and it is exactly the kind of thing…
Curse you, Orac. He had to pass along a link to a podcast interview with William Dembski. It was extremely aggravating—Dembski is dishonest bloviator of the first water.
He blames the loss in Dover on everyone else: it was the Dover school board's fault because they had religious motives (and…