N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Dembski demonstrates several characteristics of his thinking in the following posts:
| Quote | (Headline for Dembski's thread):
If the evidence for Darwinian theory were so great, why keep slamming ID? Just present it!
(From Sophophile): Bill, there are thousands of books, textbooks, journal articles and websites presenting the evidence for evolution with natural selection as a driving force. Over 99% of practicing biologists accept evolution, if I recall correctly (I can’t find the survey right now). What evidence for evolution do you think is being withheld?
Why keep slamming ID? Because we critics genuinely believe that ID is incorrect. What could be more natural than arguing against a view you believe is wrong, and arguing for one you believe is right? I can easily turn the question around and ask, “If the evidence for ID is so great, why keep slamming Darwinian theory? Just present it!”
(From Dembski): ...... Sophophile: Two points before you are booted: (1) the burden of proof is on the chance worshippers to show that natural selection has the creative power attributed to it in building, say, molecular machines — we already know that intelligence can build machines, including nanomachines; (2) the issue is not the number of articles or books cited, but their quality and detail in demonstrating that Darwinian paths exist to such systems.
Good bye. |
His most obvious characteristic, intolerance of disagreement, is well displayed in the last comment.
Another key component is that the man is used to thinking in false dichotomies. The whole "if not the ToE, then ID" dynamic is repeated at small scale in his headline, which views evolutionary biologists as either slamming ID or spending their time supporting their view. As Sophophile points out so clearly, biologists as a whole (and in some cases as individuals) do both.
Wrapped up with the false dichotomy mindset is massive projection. Again, Sophophile pointed that out very clearly: the people most guilty of imbalance in spending all their time attacking their opponents and not supporting their own views are the IDists. It's been a decade and Dembski still hasn't applied his mathematical treatment to real biological examples in any realistic way.
Lastly, again as Sophophile points out, a massive quantity of literature appears every year suporting various aspects of evolutionary biology. New fossils are found constantly: despite a Dembski claim of "no new fossils today", this year has seen Tiktaalik, Janjucetus, progress in identifying the Doushantuo embryos, and others). Genetics, biochemistry, and evo-devo are making strides that were unthinkable a decade ago, producing what Dembski described as a "pathetic level of detail" that leaves me awestruck at what those fields can accomplish. Thus we see in Dembski massive denial, facile dismissal pretty much on par with Behe's demonstration at Dover.
Closed-mindedness, overly simplistic thinking, false dichotomies, classic projection, and massive denial. None of that should be news to anyone, but it's certainly an impressively concise example of those failings.
|
