Joined: Jan. 2007
|Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 19 2009,10:31)|
|Quote (franky172 @ Aug. 19 2009,10:06)|
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,09:48)|
|P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isn’t a pro-ID article but that it’s about something else (I’ve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID.|
What the fuck does WEASEL have to do with anything? Anybody seen the paper yet? He "critiquing" latched or proper Weasel?
And their argument might "support ID" in his mind but does it mention ID in the paper? Inquiring minds want to know and I can't look at the paper right now.
Dembski is full of shit, and he knows it. On page 1055 he critiques "Partitioned Search", cites Dawkins , and then pretends that Weasel is a partitioned search. Dawkins never used the term, AFAIK, and Weasel isn't partitioned.
Dembski knows these facts because they have been pointed out to him on his own blog, and he has known these facts for months, yet he let these lies (formerly perhaps mistakes, now corrected lies) be published. Why?
So, are you saying that Dembski and Marks have not addressed any of the criticism of the paper that Wes had previously pointed out to them?
Yes. And worse - they deliberately let a falsehood pass through peer review.