As mentioned, I have a couple of pro-ID books that need to be read and reviewed these holidays: Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer, and Intelligent Design Uncensored by William Dembski and Jonathan Witt. While I’ve done preliminary readings of both books, in order to grasp their overall structure and scope, I recently started reading the latter in a greater level of detail.
What I’ve found has not been pretty.
Yes, Intelligent Design Uncensored is not a very healthy book to [...]
» Continue reading “Thoughts on the first three chapters of Dembski and Witt’s “Intelligent Design Uncensored””
When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.
~ Cersei Lannister, HBO’s “Game of Thrones”
Bit of a dramatic quote, isn’t it? But for some reason it entered my mind when I read what David Klinghoffer wrote about me and my views on the dismissive rhetoric of the scientific community towards the intelligent design movement (which I maintain is understandable, given the history of ID and creationism), in [...]
» Continue reading ““You Win or You Die” – Unintentionally nourishing the ID rhetoricotrophs”
A little while ago I decided to take advantage of the little travel money I had left over from my TAM 9 trip and purchase a number of books from my Book Depository wishlist. While not all of them relate to intelligent design, three of them do, and I hope to review them here in the coming months.
The first of these books is Intelligent [...]
» Continue reading “Two pro-ID and one anti-ID: more books to add to the review queue”
2010 has come and gone: the year of the iPad, the year of the drama surrounding Wikileaks, the year I first gained university access to scientific papers… But what happened in the intelligent design movement during that fateful year? Did anything important happen to the Discovery Institute, the infamous Seattle-based ID think tank?
I’ll be going back through the Internet archives to find out what 2010 held for the ID movement, what “research” was published, what books were released, what lawsuits exploded, among other things. I wrote [...]
» Continue reading “What did the Discovery Institute get up to in 2010? Part 1: Research”
William Dembski is arguably seen as the most philosophically competent member of the intelligent design movement, at least by people supportive or sympathetic to ID. However, few are familiar with the gross mistakes he makes in his academic papers and books, mistakes that philosophers of science have been pointing out for over a decade, with mixed success in terms of responses from Dembski to the criticisms.
Wesley Elsberry and Jeffery Shallit add
Intelligent design news from the 29th of December, 2010 to the 4th of January, 2011.
It’s 2011! Welcome to a brand new year of intelligent design. In the next few days (hopefully) I’ll be putting out my annual review of the intelligent design community, focusing on the Discovery Institute, for 2010. As you might know, I did a similar thing for 2009, but this time I’ll be splitting the review into sections based not on months, but on activities (research, arguments etc.).
But enough about what I’m about [...]
» Continue reading “This Week in Intelligent Design – 04/01/11″
The ID community seems to be bursting with peer reviewed papers at the moment, all clamoring for attention, and no doubt all being claimed by proponents as breakthroughs into the anti-ID world of academia. The latest of these is by Wolf-Ekkehard [...]
» Continue reading “The ID community isn’t Lönnig from their mistakes”
If you’ve been around any of the major intelligent design blogs over the past year, you’ll probably be familiar with BIO-Complexity already. For those unfamiliar, it’s an online, open-access, pro-intelligent design journal that claims to incorporate peer review – an essential part of the modern scientific process – into its operations. However, peer review doesn’t mean much when all your peers are highly sympathetic to your hypotheses and conclusions, and the intelligent design community has always been partial to letting sympathetic scientists endorse [...]
» Continue reading “BIO-Complexity’s opinion on intelligent design isn’t complex”
Most people don’t have journal access, so it’s always wonderful when academic papers are made available for free online – it’s even better when the papers are related to ID and evolution! The latest edition of Synthese, a philosophy journal, has a theme, and that theme is “Evolution and its rivals” (in other words: “Intelligent design and why it’s wrong – philosophers of science give their perspective”). The edition’s ten papers are free to download until the 31st of December, but don’t be lazy and miss out!
» Continue reading ““Evolution and its rivals” – free Synthese papers!”
The central, supposedly “scientific” argument in intelligent design is that of William Dembski’s design inference (DI), first proposed in his book of a similar name, The Design Inference. Dembski’s DI (also known as an explanatory filter) effectively claims that events can be put into one of only three categories: those that are due to regularity, chance, or design. Supposedly, by assessing the probability of an event occurring, one can work their way down the structure of the DI and, after eliminating regularity and chance, conclude that an event was due [...]
» Continue reading “Agency markers and Dembski’s flawed design inference”