hezekiah jones

The more I read about this crap, I'm seriously beginning to think that "intelligent design" actually has less going for it than Biblical Creationism. At least Biblical Creationism has a relatively stable "theory" (the Book of Genesis). And at least Biblical Creationists are consistent. Investigating "intelligent design" is actually giving me greater respect for YECs!

Behe and Dembski are a couple of weasels. Check out Shanks and Joplin in Philosophy of Science, June 1999, and Fitelson, Stephens, and Sober in the same journal, September 1999.

Behe's reply to Shanks and Joplin is classic: "I disagree that the BZ reaction 'satisfies Behe's criteria' for an irreducibly complex system. Although it does have interacting parts that are required for the reaction, the system lacks a crucial feature - the components are not 'well-matched.'" Then back to the flipping mousetrap again.

The other article points out that Dembski's "explanatory filter" is "eliminativist, with the Design hypothesis occupying a special position." Once regularity and chance are ruled out, one is left with "design" by default.

It's the bloody "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?" all over again. So the "J." in "William J. Dembski" must stand for "Josh."

[Actually it's William A. Dembski isn't it? So much for my funny.]

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>