Joined: May 2006
|"What I'm concerned about are sneering critics who think that ID's claims to science are dishonest, confused, ignorant."|
Just how much dishonesty is in that sentence?
He writes "sneering critics". OK, we sneer, but that's mainly after we showed his many errors.
IOW, this is just a sneer from Dimski against those who have carefully demonstrated the many fallacies, misdirections, and redefinitions of terms used by IDiots to foist off their confused, dishonest, and ignorant tripe as science.
The dishonest, confused, and ignorant Dembski cannot properly acknowledge the worthy critiques that he has received, hence he must mischaracterize them as only "sneering", when that is all that is possible after the dolt has ignored sound criticisms.
Then he writes that we "think" that ID's claims to science are dishonest, confused and ignorant. Which implies that we don't know all of that, and that we haven't pointed out exactly how they are dishonest, confused, and ignorant. Okay, what's Dembski going to do, acknowledge the legitimacy of the the responses that show his primary claim to fame to be a charade and a scam? Of course not, but it is still well to itemize just how he is being dishonest in his mischaracterizations of the peer review that his work didn't deserve, but still received (to his mortification).
See, it's all just opinion, we just "think" that. And it sells to the ignorant, dishonest, and confused, which is exactly what Dembski desires. DaveTard and O'Leary are on board, as well as the one who rants using Bartlett's quotations as authoritative references (JAD for any neophytes). It's their collective lie that we simply "think" they are wrong, hence they cover their many mistakes and far larger collection of omissions and petty censorships with the sneer that we simply "think" what we have demonstrated.
And just how well has it been shown that even the best among the IDists exhibit dishonesty, confusion, or ignorance? Not all are guilty of all three, with Paul Nelson perhaps being the most honest (he said that evolutionary theory has much more explanatory power than ID at present--my only complaint is that this implies that ID has some explanatory power, but it's close enough for a proponent), though it seems that Dembski's remarks and actions are liberally infused with all of them.
I won't try even to example the extremely numerous cases where those traits have been shown by IDists, including those who are the supposed "experts". It's just that virtually all such demonstrations are ignored and waved away with a sneer by the egregious Dembski. Yes, as Heddle finally notices, as Judge Jones ruled, but more importantly, as competent critiques have generously shown, both on the web and off of it.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy