Informatics News

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

Spread the love

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!

6 Replies to “Re Dembski’s new book: PZ Myers not short of an opinion

  1. 1
    vjtorley says:

    Jerry Coyne’s take on Dr. Dembski’s talk is here:

    http://whyevolutionistrue.word.....m-dembski/

    It seems he relies mainly on criticisms made by Professor Joe Felsenstein over at Panda’s Thumb:

    http://pandasthumb.org/archive.....rgume.html

  2. 2
    DiEb says:

    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.

  3. 3
    Joe says:

    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

  4. 4
    News says:

    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?

  5. 5
    Mung says:

    Demski’s talk could not be compressed into 144 characters or less.

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    Joe Felsenstein has a response to the talk up at PT.

    http://pandasthumb.org/archive.....rgume.html

Leave a Reply