Bill should be

…more careful and try to understand what he is reading.

Just go there and read his interpretation of 11297.

In fact, I hope that the Council will promote this report as much as possible. You must be an idiot to understand it as Dembski did. We didnt’ needed confirmation about Bill’s capacities of understanding but he kindly provide some more.

Anyway, ID isn’t a « hate crime » is just a crime against logics.

Read Full Post »

How many honorary doctorates does Judge Jones have now?

How many honorary doctorates does Judge Jones have now?:

« ID is the intellectual elite’s equivalent of leprosy. » 

write Dembski. You may just read : ID is the intellectual’s equivalent of leprosy. You don’t need scoring more then 100 90 in a IQ test to understand how IDiot ID is ;-)And other diseases of the same kind exist, say tuberculosis, isn’t Jean ?And by the way, to answer the titles question: not enough! 

Read Full Post »

Dembski again,

making a fool of himself…

Instead of trying to respond something intelligent to Jerry Coyne’s review of Behe’s book all he manage to produce is comparison with … Now, go and check by yourself, this could be sound incredible, but it’s really true.
And the usual mantra: « the Darwinists are in bad shape indeed »

I think the worst part is in the final paragraph :

Note here that single-step selection takes advantage of simultaneous mutations; cumulative selection takes advantage of stepwise mutations. Behe has the stronger argument that evolution driven by genetic change requires simultaneous coordinated mutations. Coyne, on the other hand, has the better chance of landing the role of Herman in any remake of The Munsters.

I don’t mean the last sentence, irrelevant, but the famous « evolution driven by genetic change requires simultaneous coordinated mutations » and the assertion that such a thing could be an argument ! Do you think DaveScot contaminated Dembski or that he was just hiding the symptoms?

Read Full Post »

Behe, MarkCC & Dembski

Je pensais faire une courte note au sujet du billet que Marc Chu-Carroll publie en guise de revue du bouquin de Michael Behe attendu aux rayons des librairies. Mon intérêt premier au sujet de ce billet est qu’il torche un certain nombre de bullshit que l’on retrouve dans le bouquin de Jean Staune (quand je dis que la démarche scientifique de Jean a des points communs avec celle des ténors du ID…). En fait je vais demander à Chu-Carroll l’autorisation de traduire son billet, ce qui va me faire faire d’une pierre deux coups, « The Book » et « The Edge of Evolution ».

Mais la réaction de Bill Dembski est fantastique ! Dembski est mathématicien et on s’attendrait à ce qu’il réagisse en critiquant l’analyse de Marc.

Read Full Post »

The Vise Strategy Revisited

The Vise Strategy Revisited:  »

Barbara Forrest, the official historian for the anti-ID side, has a piece of revisionist history in the latest Skeptical Inquirer (see here). It is titled ‘The Vise Strategy Undone.’ Since I’m the inventor of the Vise Strategy and one of the principal targets of her piece, let me offer a few corrections …: (stikes and emphasis by Oldcola) In general, this is William Dambski speaking

Read Full Post »

Interesting Reading

DaveScot seems to have discover Google and tinyurl 🙂
Clearly progressing.
Now, what would be the connexion between Eric Harris and Intelligent Design is obscure, and DaveScot didn’t had enough courage to discuss it…
He is copying a little bit William Demski: posting something without saying a word about it and think that this is enough. Lazy natures, as when they sit back and avoid thinking how things (say flagella) evolved, preferring to imagine some Intelligent Designer.

Interesting Reading: « Interesting Reading »

(Via Uncommon Descent.)

Read Full Post »

please, update as soon as possible

post 813 of uncommondescent, by William Dembski himself:

Here is a brief essay on design by Darwin’s contemporary John Stuart Mill. Question: are the molecular machines identified by Michael Behe as decisive evidence for design merely analogous to human-built machines or do they fully instantiate the concept of machine?

What is the meaning of this post? That Michael Behe have just a century of science to catch up?

Please, could you push the update button(s)? 🙂

Read Full Post »

why?

I was wandering what it would take to show to an IDer as Michael Behe or William Dembski that darwinism can account for the majority of observations made by biologists and that those yet unexplained aren’t unexplainable.

My conclusion is that the task is impossible.

Those guys must (may) sincerely think that they are smarter then the rest of their fellows scientists, have a better understanding of the world and this help them support their irrational (literally) belief on God. Or they are pretending so.

Whatever the case, if they admit that Intelligent Design isn’t more then an idea, without support, they would commit the equivalent of social suicide, if that don’t draw them to suicide to avoid the shame of failure.

Thus maintaining their positions is a matter of survival! And survival, literal or metaphorical, may be a sufficiently strong motive to induce intellectual blindness.

The same is true for every person basing his life in any credo that is challenged. And that include darwinists as well, at least those who will avoid discussing darwinism if a serious question is raised 😉
So, what is the point to continue discussing with them, and trying to show the flaws of their reasoning? One shouldn’t expect to make them change their minds.

What is important is education of young people, those scientist, and citizens, of the next generations.
It is important to give them the best to be used as their starting point, teach them healthy ways to use for solving problems, at least something better than « We must wait and see« .

Read Full Post »