Billy Dembski, self-proclaimed "Isaac Newton of Information Theory," has decided that calling himself "pro-science" is just as good as actually, you know, being pro-science, while Paul Nelson seems to think that open puzzles are a bad thing in science.
Meanwhile, Denyse O'Leary is excited about the new Christian magazine pimping IDC to its readers, while Larry Caldwell doesn't understand why everyone keeps talking about ID as if it were religious.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I know there are a few fans of Peter Irons out there — and maybe some of you agree that he ought to have a blog. Since he doesn't, though, I'm posting a little email exchange he had with Denyse O'Leary and William Dembski, by his request and with the permission of the participants.
There's a…
ID folks make numerous assertions said to represent scientific challenges to conventional evolutionary theory. These claims are uniformly wrong, which is one of the reasons scientists generally ignore them.
But ID folks also claim that adopting a design perspective could lead to great progress in…
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…
Being identified as "pro-science" is pretty cool, given that some people get the idea (from my kvetching about ethics) that I'm against science. (I'm against sloppy or dishonest methodology masquerading as science, but that doesn't make me an enemy of science.) But that was about the only part of…
Beautiful and elegant!
In just a few simple words and links, you have summed up the current state of affairs for ID.
Sucks to be them!
Dembski is such a tool.
Maybe Dawkins ought to nab pro-id.com or some such just for giggles.
I know that Dembski almost certainly doesn't know my blog, but I kinda take it personally that he is misusing my blog's name that way.
Copyright infringement! Trademark dilution! False advertising! Surely someone has a case for a lawsuit here.