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.
- ‘Irreducible Complexity’ Reflects Human Ignorance – Abbie expands on what she calls Dr. Philip Klebba’s “very public depantsing on the evolution of the bacterial flagellum”.
- Opinion: ‘Irreducible Complexity’ Reflects Human Ignorance – Klebba’s Op-Ed in the Oklahoma Daily, the OU student newspaper.
- The scientific vacuity of ID: Dembski and the flagellum –
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)
- Dembski doch noch in EXPELLED? – by Martin Hafner at the blog “molecular B(io)LOG(y)”
- The Common Thread in Modern Creationism – by Henry Neufeld of “Threads from Henry’s Web”. As usual, Henry’s comments are thoughtful and insightful.
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.