Dembski himself once defined intelligence as "the power and facility to choose between options - this coincides with the Latin etymology of 'intelligence,' namely, 'to choose between'". What happens if you use this definition to argue, on Dembski's own blog, that the theory of evolution "postulates as the agent of evolutionary change - a process of_selection_
(aka 'choice') between options" - that is, given Dembski's own definition of intelligence, natural selection is an intelligent process. Predictably, you get banned. Richard Hoppe has more.
More like this
Ed has written a little about Dembski's claim that Barbara Forrest (of Creationism's Trojan Horse fame) owes her care
I've been a bit derelict in my blog reading lately, so I overlooked this post by Wesley Elsberry.
A while ago, I wrote about Dembski's definition of specified complexity, arguing that it was a non-sensical pile of rubbish, because of the fact that "specified complexity" likes to present itself as being a combination of two distinct concepts: specification and complexity.
Jeff Shallit has issued a response on Panda's Thumb to accusations made (in lieu of a response) by William Dembski to his
So evolutionary design = intelligent design. Scary stuff.