• save boissiere house
  • Top Posts

  • The World is Talking, Are You Listening?
  • a

  • Festival of the Trees
  • Scoutle

    Connect with me at Scoutle.com

The party continues

The Dembski Affair is still going strong, still attracting a lot of buzz. You can take a look at my previous post if you want to see the first set of commentary.

And finally, since we always need someone who runs their mouth without bothering to look into the facts of the matter, there’s:

  • a “researcher at a middle-size public university on the Eastern seaboard” and ID supporter, attacks Abbie and the rest of “the materialists” for “attacking en masse with underhanded comments and ambushes“. It appears that “Professor Smith” didn’t bother to delve too deeply into the facts of the matter (“He was invited to speak, although the accounts that I’ve read make it sound more like an ambush“) before attacking Abbie for, among other things “underhanded tactic of poisoning the well by attacking the commenters on Dembski’s blog“. She’s invited to discuss the matter at UD, gets banned after three comments, attacked there, attacked at her blog…and dear old “Professor Smith” calls it “underhand” and “well poisoning” to mention that fact. He continues “So, either he censures comments and is criticized for hiding, or he doesn’t and is criticized for what others say?” I sure hope that Smith is simply speaking out of an ignorance he couldn’t be bothered to correct. Anyone who knows anything about UD knows that (a) they delete comments and ban participants who disagree with them; and (b) the people who attacked Abbie are the people Dembski picked to manage the blog. His final sentence is especially amusing: “It should be about science, but when you don’t have science on your side, you have to resort to something, right?” Umm, yeah, that’s pretty much how the IDists operate: since they have yet to come up with a single scientific contribution, they engage in obfuscation, misdirection and smear campaigns. Projection on the part of “Professor Smith”?

Update: One more (in German)

Update II:

And here is my major point. The common thread through the three varieties of creationism [old-earth creationism, young-earth creationism and intelligent design creationism] is that they are all looking for the break in the natural processes of variation and natural selection such that God must intervene in the natural processes in some way. Whether that intervention is at the biochemical level or whether it deals specifically with speciation events, there needs to be a gap showing where God is “necessary” to the universe.

In contrast, as a “creationist” who accepts the theory of evolution, I believe that the entire universe is designed. That universal design is the biggest problem there is for IDC, because IDC requires places that are less and more designed so they can detect the differences. IDC doesn’t try to demonstrate that the universe is designed, as many people, especially Christians, believe it does. Rather, it is attempting to prove a variation in God’s involvement.

Advertisements

5 Responses

  1. I like a party. Let’s play “tag” (if you haven’t be tagged yet). I came upon your blog only fairly recently, and enjoy the information you provide on the foibles of anti-evolutionists. I used to think Creationists were some kind of hillbillies, only found in the Ozarks and NJ Pine Barrens, just like water witches. I found out I was wrong about both.

  2. I have visited Prof Smith’s blog, and I think he is exactly right in defending ID’s right to be heard at all levels.

  3. Right to be heard? Sure. And I am eagerly awaiting their scientific publications – either in real journals, or even in things like their moribund in-house ISCID “journal”.

    But I wouldn’t hold my breath. It’s been over a decade since the publication on DBB, and Behe has yet to begin the research programme he promised. For all their talk, they have yet to produce a single bit of science. Not one experiment to test their “theory”. Why not?

    ID has a right to be heard. Sadly, though they have been wagging their tongues for the better part of two decades, they have yet to speak a word of science, they have yet to present results from even one experiment.

  4. I’m curious as to why you would say that I didn’t check my facts and then put in a quote where I said that Dembski was invited to speak. Was that incorrect? Was Dembski not invited to speak? Also, I do think it was beneath “Abbie” to attack Dembski for the words/actions of the people that comment at his blog. Would you think it fair for me to denigrate PZ Myers for the commenters that he attracts that regularly resort to personal attack?

    Lastly, ID science is a growing field. You can’t expect results overnight, especially since ID scientists have to fight the prevailing academic culture. PZ Myers has gone on record to state that he would deny tenue to any IDer regardless of their scientific acumen, IIRC. Also, once an ID paper is published, the editor is publicly flogged and the paper is disavowed by the journal that published it. This is not a level playing field that is conducive to scientific results. Never-the-less, I’ve discussed some scientific findings at my blog.

  5. Prof. Smith,

    What is your scientific discipline? I’m just curious.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: