didymos
Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008
|
Ooooh, lookie: the DI attack gerbil makes an appearance at UD. Casey Luskin is a spokestard: | Quote |
The quality of some of the objections to ID on this thread are as saddening as the quality of some of Josh Rosenau’s objections to ID when we presented our respective papers at St. Thomas University last November.
Much like the mistake that Clive Hayden highlights here, Josh also tried to make hay out of the fact that a monograph by ID proponent Paul Nelson hasn’t been published yet, but Josh completely ignored publication of many important ID scientific books and papers by William Dembski (The Design of Life, The Design Inference, No Free Lunch), Jonathan Wells (Icons of Evolution), Stephen Meyer (Signature in the Cell), Michael Behe (Darwin’s Black Box, The Edge of Evolution)–and many others in recent years. (Indeed Paul Nelson was a co-author of “Explore Evolution,” but Josh failed to mention this as well.)
Similarly, Josh charged that Bill Dembski has been “reduced to rewriting and analyzing programs originally written in 1980’s.” I’m not sure exactly what that means, but it was telling that Josh’s presentation failed to acknowledge that Dembski now works with the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, has submitted multiple research papers for publication, and had recently published a peer-reviewed article on evolutionary algorithms. (Dembski has since published 3 more papers since Josh’s presentation.) But somehow Josh failed to note Dembski’s research productivity.
Taking a similar approach, Josh’s partner from the NCSE Peter Hess said in his presentation that ID “does not yet have a working research program.” (A tired objection which we all know is false — I blogged about this here.)
In any case, this all seems to be not just using “glass half-empty” thinking about ID. It’s more like “take the glass, pour out all the water, then step on the glass, and then mock the lack of water” attacks on ID.
But having spent enough time watching the NCSE’s approach over the years, you sadly come to expect these kinds of misrepresentations. Needless to say, we were ready to rebut these misrepresentations and the many students I interacted with at the conference were not persuaded by NCSE’s arguments.
|
Rawr! You tell 'em Casey! DI Attack Gerbil Whine Attack GO!
--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio
|
