Mark Chu-Carroll has done it so that you don't have to ... read the Dembski & Marks paper that I mentioned a few days back. Shorter MC-C: "Same old rubbish." Read his full verdict here.
Update (5/11): Dembski "responds" (and apparently cannot bring himself to actually name who makes the criticism) and Mark sets him straight.
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
The "A single protein is so complex it couldn't come together randomly" nonsense will never go away. It'll keep popping up, getting refuted, and then popping up again in a new form.