Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Re Dembski’s new book: PZ Myers not short of an opinion


Myers just couldn’t seem to make the time to listen.

William Dembski spoke at the University of Chicago in August, and a video of the talk is available. I tried to watch it, I really did, but I ended up skipping through most of it (one of the advantages of seeing it on youtube!). Here’s my rather stream-of-consciousness monolog as I was flicking like a damselfly over the stagnant pond of his words:

“Get to the point, Bill. Skip. No biology. Skip. No biology yet. Skip. Wait, that model is anti-biology…evolution doesn’t work like that. Watches a short segment. Nope, nonsense. Skip. No biology, skip. Oh, “specified complexity”…does he define it? Listens intently for a bit. Nope. Skip. Dawkins’ weasel program? He still doesn’t understand it! No biology, no biology, no biology, I’m done.”

Readers, are Darwin’s followers onto something?

Maybe they are. Every talk show airhead knows that Darwin was right and Darwinism is true. Every union high school teacher regurges talking points, absent any awareness of the issues new findings have raised. Lawyers ready themselves to enforce Darwinism in court and inflict it on tax-funded compulsory school systems.

At that point, it hardly matters what’s true or what’s science, and it is no longer necessary to listen to any objections. Except …

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Joe Felsenstein has a response to the talk up at PT. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/10/dembskis-argume.html Mung
Demski's talk could not be compressed into 144 characters or less. Mung
Why would evidence matter in a world where mind is an illusion? Isn't the rule: First view to legislate others out of toleration wins? Isn't that the only possible rule in such a case? News
Joe Felsenstein chides Dembski for a lack of evidence yet Joe has never presented any evidence for natural selection actually doing something. The point is no one can refute Dembski without providing that evidence. PZ cannot offer up any evidence tat refutes Dembski, that's a certainty Joe
Corrected Comment: What has this to do with W. Dembski’s new book? It’s all about the talk he gave at the seminar of Leo Kadanoff – an eminent theoretical physicist who was awarded the National Medal of Science in 1999, and who was one of the advisors of W. Dembski’s thesis. I blogged about this here: William Dembski’s talk at the University of Chicago. DiEb
Jerry Coyne's take on Dr. Dembski's talk is here: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/joe-felsenstein-analyzes-a-talk-by-william-dembski/ It seems he relies mainly on criticisms made by Professor Joe Felsenstein over at Panda's Thumb: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/10/dembskis-argume.html vjtorley

Leave a Reply