Joined: Jan. 2006
I had to read the latest from Dr WAD a few times.
Read the article WAD posted, then read his comments. You'll have to read the article again after reading WAD's comments because the relationship between the two is not clear.
Bottom line - I think WAD is a lot dumber than we give him credit for. Seriously, the notion he is "bright but misguided" is flat wrong in my book. He's an over achieving dunce if you ask me.
Not an idiot savant by any stretch of the imagination, but someone who is not real bright yet is still able to accomplish a great deal - an overachiever for his level of intelligence.
And here is my commentary on WAD's comments:
|Indeed, the finding is so “unexpected” that biologists don’t have a clue how evolution did it. |
It is not that "unexpected, WAD and biologist do have a clue how it came to be, you are the one without the clue.
|Expectation and prediction — aren’t these roughly the same? Doesn’t one have to have an expectation of what will happen to predict it? |
No Dr WAD, they are NOT the same. I expect my children to behave yet I predict they won't always meet my expectations.
|If evolution keeps doing completely unexpected things, how can the theory properly be said to be predictive? |
What you're saying is with each new discovery of things we had not yet known we should throw in the towel because we did not see it coming? I guess you think the Psychic Friends Network is science since they predict everything?
Maybe it isn’t really a science. Gosh, what a horrible thought. All those well-meaning biologists completely out to lunch and spending our tax dollars like drunken sailors. There ought to be a law against it, I say!
Indeed...How can anything really be science if it doesn't suggest (predict?) a space zombie did it?
|Comment by William Dembski — June 8, 2006 @ 4:35 pm |
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson