Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Valentine Pontifex · 05-24-2002, 04:38 PM

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/replynfl.html" target="_blank">Richard Wein</a> has replied to Dembski's rebuttal to his Talk.Origins FAQ. It is well worth reading since it makes his case even stronger.

As in his original T.O. FAQ, out-of-date browsers like Netscape 4, might have difficulties with the math symbols.

Dr.GH · 05-24-2002, 05:33 PM

Dembski, like Wells, has earned degrees from legitimate universities. However, his professional output must be considered as subnormal as it is clearly unable to withstand normal peer review. Wein has preformed a service to many of us by highlighting the failures in Dembski's arguments, if not eleminating any need to read them in the first place.

Thanks for the link,

GH

Valentine Pontifex · 05-25-2002, 05:04 PM

When Richard Wein's response to Dembski attack on him was uploaded, the original essay's "Other Links" box was edited. One of the new links was the following review of NFL which has been accepted for publication in the journal Biosystems:

<a href="http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/nflr3.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/nflr3.pdf</a>

It is very good and very readable. It also cites Wein's T.O. review. That is fast.

lpetrich · 05-25-2002, 08:13 PM

One of my favorite parts of that review is how Dembski does no discussion of previous papers that demonstrate that natural selection can increase complexity, at least if "complexity" is defined in some reasonable fashion. He also does little discussion of artificial-life work, even though it also provides counterexamples against his thesis.

Bubba · 05-27-2002, 04:39 PM

I'm kind of suprised that Dembski is as popular as he is. His arguements have never seemed as reasoned or as thoughtful as other IDers like Behe.

Bubba

tgamble · 05-27-2002, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bubba:
I'm kind of suprised that Dembski is as popular as he is. His arguements have never seemed as reasoned or as thoughtful as other IDers like Behe.

Bubba

I doubt their followers care how reasoned their arguments are. Even an idiot like Kent Hovind has quite a few followers.

pangloss · 05-28-2002, 05:17 AM

I had to laugh at Dembski's original 'refutation' wherein he blabbered about his credentials and how his book had been 'glowingly' reviewed and endorsed by those in several disciplines including biology. Being a biologist, I was curious, so I checked out his 'endorsement' page ( <a href="http://www3.baylor.edu/~William_Dembski/docs_books/nfl.html" target="_blank">http://www3.baylor.edu/~William_Dembski/docs_books/nfl.html</a> ) to see who these 'biologists' were that endorsed his pap.

The only 'real' biologist was one Martin Poenie, Associate Professor of Biology, University of Texas at Austin. A quick check revealed the following about Poenie:

He is an ISCID fellow ( <a href="http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php" target="_blank">http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php</a> )

He is endorsed as a 'creation friendly' PI by Probe Ministries ( <a href="http://www.probe.org/docs/e-gradschool.html" target="_blank">http://www.probe.org/docs/e-gradschool.html</a> )

He was a speaker at the infamous Yale Conference ( <a href="http://www.rivendellinstitute.org/business/newschedule.doc" target="_blank">http://www.rivendellinstitute.org/business/newschedule.doc</a> )

In other words, Dembski got one of his like-minded creationist pals to give his book a 'glowing' endorsement.

Imagine that - getting a buddy to endorse your book and claiming that THAT proves something!

What a dick.

[Edited by scigirl to fix links]

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]

tgamble · 05-28-2002, 05:44 AM

Funny how a few biologists endorseing a creationist book makes infallable and accurate.

Yet thousands of biologists who say evolution is right are obviously wrong and incompetant.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

Nic Tamzek · 05-28-2002, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LordValentine:
When Richard Wein's response to Dembski attack on him was uploaded, the original essay's "Other Links" box was edited. One of the new links was the following review of NFL which has been accepted for publication in the journal Biosystems:
<a href="http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/nflr3.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/nflr3.pdf</a>

It is very good and very readable. It also cites Wein's T.O. review. That is fast.

Sooner or later talkorigins is going to have an impact factor...

nic

Valentine Pontifex · 05-28-2002, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nic Tamzek:


Sooner or later talkorigins is going to have an impact factor...

nic

Nic,

Yeah. I never imagined that Richard would get a literature citation out of it. Maybe you will get one for one of your efforts.

Everyone else (since Nic has already seen it),

I might as well mention a slight update to Wein's response to Dembski:
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/replynfl.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/replynfl.html</a>

05-24-2002, 04:38 PM	#1
Valentine Pontifex Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 3,092	Response? What Response?: Wein Responds to Dembski <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/replynfl.html" target="_blank">Richard Wein</a> has replied to Dembski's rebuttal to his Talk.Origins FAQ. It is well worth reading since it makes his case even stronger. As in his original T.O. FAQ, out-of-date browsers like Netscape 4, might have difficulties with the math symbols.

05-28-2002, 05:17 AM	#7
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	I had to laugh at Dembski's original 'refutation' wherein he blabbered about his credentials and how his book had been 'glowingly' reviewed and endorsed by those in several disciplines including biology. Being a biologist, I was curious, so I checked out his 'endorsement' page ( <a href="http://www3.baylor.edu/~William_Dembski/docs_books/nfl.html" target="_blank">http://www3.baylor.edu/~William_Dembski/docs_books/nfl.html</a> ) to see who these 'biologists' were that endorsed his pap. The only 'real' biologist was one Martin Poenie, Associate Professor of Biology, University of Texas at Austin. A quick check revealed the following about Poenie: He is an ISCID fellow ( <a href="http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php" target="_blank">http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php</a> ) He is endorsed as a 'creation friendly' PI by Probe Ministries ( <a href="http://www.probe.org/docs/e-gradschool.html" target="_blank">http://www.probe.org/docs/e-gradschool.html</a> ) He was a speaker at the infamous Yale Conference ( <a href="http://www.rivendellinstitute.org/business/newschedule.doc" target="_blank">http://www.rivendellinstitute.org/business/newschedule.doc</a> ) In other words, Dembski got one of his like-minded creationist pals to give his book a 'glowing' endorsement. Imagine that - getting a buddy to endorse your book and claiming that THAT proves something! What a dick. [Edited by scigirl to fix links] [ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

05-28-2002, 05:44 AM	#8
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	Funny how a few biologists endorseing a creationist book makes infallable and accurate. Yet thousands of biologists who say evolution is right are obviously wrong and incompetant. [ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-24-2002, 05:33 PM	#2
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	Dembski, like Wells, has earned degrees from legitimate universities. However, his professional output must be considered as subnormal as it is clearly unable to withstand normal peer review. Wein has preformed a service to many of us by highlighting the failures in Dembski's arguments, if not eleminating any need to read them in the first place. Thanks for the link, GH

05-25-2002, 05:04 PM	#3
Valentine Pontifex Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 3,092	When Richard Wein's response to Dembski attack on him was uploaded, the original essay's "Other Links" box was edited. One of the new links was the following review of NFL which has been accepted for publication in the journal Biosystems: <a href="http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/nflr3.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/nflr3.pdf</a> It is very good and very readable. It also cites Wein's T.O. review. That is fast.

05-25-2002, 08:13 PM	#4
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	One of my favorite parts of that review is how Dembski does no discussion of previous papers that demonstrate that natural selection can increase complexity, at least if "complexity" is defined in some reasonable fashion. He also does little discussion of artificial-life work, even though it also provides counterexamples against his thesis.

05-27-2002, 04:39 PM	#5
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	I'm kind of suprised that Dembski is as popular as he is. His arguements have never seemed as reasoned or as thoughtful as other IDers like Behe. Bubba

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.