Jeffrey Shallit has an excellent post on the conceptual failure of creationists to grasp even the possibility of an absence of intent. You probably know the feeling — you are trying to explain some process in biology or chemistry, and your student is struggling to fit the story into his mental picture of molecules or cells with purpose and plan, and he can't move on to the next stage of understanding until he sheds the preconception of intelligent guidance to the reaction or interaction. Shallit compares it to a poor confused tourist to a computer lab who can't quite figure out where the people doing the drawings on the graphic screens are.
And then he discusses an Intelligent Design blog, which makes the tourist look like a genius.
More like this
It seems that William Dembski can be shamed into more obfuscation, but can't be shamed into actually being honest. First, a little background.
I think this will be the final word on the Shallit issue. I've uploaded the court's rulings on a series of in limine motions, including the defendant's motion to exclude Shallit's testimony.
More information has come to light on this situation.
William Dembski has this odd habit when someone publishes a criticism of his writings.