As I checked the dashboard, I just saw that the current visit-count for the “Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design” page stands at 50,307. Worth noting, even as onlookers are again invited to ponder its remarks. END
PS: Table of contents:
WEAK ANTI-ID ARGUMENTS:
3] Intelligent Design does not carry out or publish scientific research
7] Because William Dembski once commented that the design patterns in nature are consistent with the “logos theology” of the Bible, he unwittingly exposed his intentions to do religion in the name of science
8] Intelligent Design is an attempt by the Religious Right to establish a Theocracy
10] The Evidence for Common Descent is Incompatible with Intelligent Design
11] Darwinian evolution is a Vastly More “Simple” Argument than Intelligent Design
12] Macro-evolution is nothing but lots and lots of “micro-evolution”!
13] Real Scientists Do Not Use Terms Like Microevolution or Macroevolution
18] Methodological naturalism is a centuries-old, traditional rule for science
23] The Designer Must be Complex and Thus Could Never Have Existed
26] Dembski’s idea of “complex specified information” is nonsense
27] The Information in Complex Specified Information (CSI) Cannot Be Quantified
29] The ID explanatory filter cannot rule out chance or unknown laws!
30] William Dembski “dispensed with” the Explanatory Filter (EF) and thus Intelligent Design cannot work
32] What types of life are Irreducibly Complex? Or which life is not Irreducibly Complex?
36] ID Proponents Talk a Lot About Front-Loading But Never Explain What It Means
38] Does Quantum Theory contradict and disprove the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC)?
39] ID is Nothing More Than a “God of the Gaps” Hypothesis
41] What about the Canaanites?
UD’s Weak Arguments Correctives page passes 50,000 visits
Congrats KF, UD Team, News, Barry, etc., etc., to everyone involved for all your hard work.
Also, a quick review of book search for terms Intelligent Design vs Neo-Darwinism(years 1800 – 2000)…
Google Books Ngram Viewer
and same search comparison of books from 1800 – 2008(would not allow past year 2008, not sure why)…
Google Books Ngram Search Viewer
Thanks for all you do UD 🙂
DATCG, your word frequency comparisons are interesting. I guess 1996 was about the time ID began to snowball into more public consciousness. The challenge of course is, we operate in an increasingly polarised context in which projection and battling narratives have more prominence than responsible, reasonable search for truth. One is tempted to despair, but the significance of the hit count for the correctives page is that there are people pondering basic questions and so, bit by bit, the toxic fog of misleading narratives will lift. At least, for some. KF