His recent "peer-reviewed paper" has prompted one giant to look down and notice: Joe Felsenstein gives it a brief dismissal. Dembski has apparently graduated from "not even wrong" to "irrelevant"!
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Monckton has written to the New Scientist in response to Lawrence Krauss' article:
I have not been a "journalist" for 15 years. Until I retired two years ago I directed a leading technical consultancy. I have made a fortune from probabilistic combinatorics.
I think that means he made money from…
His recent "peer-reviewed paper" gets scrutinized, and is judged: boring, trivial, and pretentious. Just like the author!
Lawrence VanDyke has left a comment below, which I would like to bring up here to address in more detail. Lawrence wrote:
I left out the "in support of ID" because I assumed that much was obvious in context. You make it sound like I was trying to make Leiter say ID proponents haven't published any…
In the shadow of The Year in ID, Dembski gives us his predictions for ID in 2007. Three simple things:
A new ID friendly research center at a major university. (This is not merely an idle wish -- stay tuned.) [Prediction by me: This will be at Baylor and no biology will be involved.]
The…