12 Replies to “Dembski’s Suing Me!

  1. 1
    Granville Sewell says:

    Evolutionary convergence is one theory, here’s another: You ARE Bill Dembski. How else to explain why he puts up with your nonsense?

  2. 2

    Standing side by side, Dr. Dembski and I resemble the number ten.


  3. 3
    Unlettered and Ordinary says:


    I not sure if this is serious or a joke… I not sure if I sould laugh or what…

    I am so confused, kinda like a darwinist…

  4. 4
    Larry Fafarman says:

    You couldn’t wait for April Fools’ Day?

  5. 5
    Granville Sewell says:

    Dr. Dembski and Mr. Finch: as long as we are talking about evolutionary convergence and plagiarism, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to make a serious point, and call attention to a comment by “mentok” in a previous post that I thought was perhaps the best of many good points made in response to your call for examples of the “predictive prowress” of ID. This was comment #129 out of 194 so many people may have missed it earlier:

    [Start of quote]
    One prediction that stands out for is the prediction that if species are designed, then it is highly likely that we should see repeating design structure and functionality across the board, even when there are no “evolutionary relationships” between species. One example is vision. A designer once having figured out how to make vision possible and stable, would more then likely use that design or a variant of that design over and over because vision is extremely complex.

    Evolution cannot adequately explain why various species supposedly evolve similar organs and forms without any evolutionary relationship between the species. If mutation is the origin of novel organs and limbs etc, then why does mutation seem to create similar organs and limbs in species without any evolutionary relationship between them? Not only are we expected to believe that random mutation can build computer coded nanotechnology (far surpassing anything we can design, for example cold fusion in plants) as well as flight technology superior to anything we can design, swimming technology superior to anything we can design, and on and on, but we are also expected to believe that random mutation can build the same type of technology over and over.
    [End of quote]

    Then I mentioned, in comment #131, that there are several very interesting examples of evolutionary convergence in the section “origin of the carnivorous plants” here .

  6. 6
    bFast says:

    Dr. Finch (may I call you Dr.? or should I call you drrrr.) You are truly warped!

  7. 7
    SCheesman says:

    Dr. Sewell, what do you mean “cold fusion in plants”?

  8. 8
    SCheesman says:

    I see that was part of a quote, so the question should go to Mentok…

  9. 9
    Atom says:

    I liked the “Bili = Something really bad” part.

  10. 10
    Michaels7 says:

    re: convergence = common design

    I’ve been on a YES music binge lately. One of their videos, “Close to the Edge” entertains microbes to jellyfish to the carnivorous plant… A convergent symphony of life and music.

    Parts 1 & 2


    and the always impecable Steve Howe in a sublimely complex guitar piece made simple by a series of gradual steps…


    ahmm, back on topic, Gloppy and Dembski standing side by side = hybrid = Bili Sloppy Finch? I think the ribosome may experience rejection overload, creating the first neo-darwinian proof of new information by accidental readings.

  11. 11
    Jack Golightly says:

    Galapagos Finch is an anagram for:

    Paschal Gag Info.

    It’s a plot.

  12. 12
    jstanley01 says:

    Hmm. Finch… Finch… Finch… Any relation to the late Peter (I’m mad as h*ll and not going to take it anymore) Finch???

Leave a Reply