heddle
Posts: 126
Joined: Nov. 2005
|
| Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 06 2007,17:40) | | Tims's UD post reminds me, at one point last year Dave Heddle turned on Dembski. Said he was going to write a big explanation of where Dembski's math was in error. I went there a few times last year to look for that post, but all I saw was Jesus and NASCAR, and disliking both, didn't hang around. Does anybody here go to his site and know whether or not he wrote that essay? |
I have not written the essay.
What I did was a huge amount of research, (re)reading Dembski's books (no fun, I'll assure you) and searching for all existing criticisms. The bottom line, I'll readily admit, is I am not sure I can add anything new. There was much more already written than I was aware of. I might get around to it, but I'm in no hurry--I would actually prefer to write a book--a Christian/Scientist on why the ID movement has been a disaster--which would include a chapter that would amount to a review of the better criticisms aimed at Dembski's mathematics. However, the ID fifteen minutes seems to be just about used up--I doubt I could find a publisher. So maybe I'll write another novel instead. That's a lot more fun.
As for Jesus and NASCAR, how could you not like either of those related topics? If God didn't intend NASCAR, why did he give us Morgan Shepherd?
GCT,
| Quote | And yet, the only reason he is adding his two cents is probably because none of those others have done the trick in his estimation. See, he has this totally awesome, cool way of finally showing us all where Dembski went wrong that no one has thought of before since no one before Heddle has been able to show where Dembski was wrong. Or at least that's the impression I get.
Also, a few commenters there have asked multiple times when he is going to get around to his mathematical tour de force and he keeps dodging the question. |
As usual, you are less than truthful. I never once implied that I have some awesome new criticism--I would not have expected so since the problems are fairly evident and I am not even a mathematician.
And Choo-Choo asked me a few times (do you know of someone else? You implied multiple people have asked me about it.) about the Dembski critique, and I keep telling him I hadn't done it. How is that dodging?
BTW, It's funny that you flame me when I criticize PZ and his commenters--and yet you participate in this forum whose raison d'etre is to criticize someone (Dembski) and his commenters. (Oh, but that's different...)
--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris
|
