Dembski himself once defined intelligence as "the power and facility to choose between options - this coincides with the Latin etymology of 'intelligence,' namely, 'to choose between'". What happens if you use this definition to argue, on Dembski's own blog, that the theory of evolution "postulates as the agent of evolutionary change - a process of_selection_
(aka 'choice') between options" - that is, given Dembski's own definition of intelligence, natural selection is an intelligent process. Predictably, you get banned. Richard Hoppe has more.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
So. William Dembski, the supposed "Isaac Newton of Information Theory" has a new paper out with co-author Robert Marks. Since I've written about Dembski's bad IT numerous times in
the past, I've been getting email from readers wanting me to comment on this latest piece of intellectual excreta.
I…
One of the bad arguments that I've frequently seen from creationists
is the argument that some biological system is *too good* to be a possible result of an evolutionary process. On its face, this seems like it's not a mathematical argument. But it actually is, and math is key to showing what the…
Over at Uncommon Descent, Dembski has responded to my critique of
his paper with Marks. In classic Dembski style, he ignores the
substance of my critique, and resorts to quote-mining.
In my previous post, I included a summary of my past critiques of
why search is a lousy model for evolution. It…
I suppose everyone has someone who they consider an embarrassment to their alma mater. I can probably think of a dozen just off the top of my head regarding my undergraduate institution (including a number of politicians who shall remain nameless). However, one who really sticks in my craw is the…
So evolutionary design = intelligent design. Scary stuff.