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.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The case of the various kinds of blogs hosted on ScienceBlogs has come up on Newsweek, and I get quoted trying to explain how I'm unperturbed by a couple of institutional blogs here.
Not all bloggers feel this way, Myers included. "We've known about those [institutional blogs] for some time--they…
Apparently William Dembski, over at Uncommon Descent is *not* happy with my review of
Behe's new book. He pulls out a rather pathetic bit of faux outrage: "Are there any anti-ID writings that the Panda's Thumb won't endorse?"
The outrage really comes off badly. But what's Debski and his trained…
SPECIAL NOTE:This page and its subordinate pages will no longer be updated. See the new page at my new blog for the live version, and change all your subscriptions. Thank you.
This is a list of the Basic Concepts posts being put up by Science Bloggers and others. It will be updated and put to the…
A few days ago, Billy Dembski responded negatively to a review of Michael Behe's new book by my fellow ScienceBlogger Mark Chu-Carroll. In particular, Dembski questioned whether it was really a review, telling his readers to "Judge for yourself whether this deserves to be called a review." (It is…
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.