Joined: April 2007
In contrast, according to an article by Daniel Conover which appeared in the Charleston Post and Courier on March 29, 2004 Schwabe doesn’t endorse Nelson’s arguments at all:
|In any case, the point of my Schwabe reply wasn't to endorse all of Schwabe's arguments or claims, but to illustrate the existence of a genuine controversy about relaxin, which Timmer had denied.|
| It's the kind of argument that irritates mainstream scientists who say that regardless of whether intelligent design constitutes a meaningful critique of evolution, intelligent design is not science. Why?|
said Schwabe, no fan of the movement himself. Despite his dismissal of I.D., descriptions of Schwabe's theory routinely show up on intelligent-design Web sites.
|"Because you can't make predictions from (intelligent design),"|
| "And this just makes it more difficult, you see," Schwabe said. "They're desperate to get rid of Darwin, and they're misusing (the idea)."|
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."
- William Dembski -