Pic, because probably it will get silently corrected or deleted:
The real geneticist is George Church. Why he would endorse creationist Stephen Meyer's book is an interesting question, but one I can't answer for now.
As for the other endorsers, who is surprised that longtime ID advocate Russell Carlson would endorse Stephen Meyer's book? After all, Carlson was apparently not astute enough to detect all the problems with Dembski's claims about information.
Who is surprised that J. Scott Turner would endorse the book? Like Carlson, he's on the editorial board of the intelligent design vanity journal, Bio-Complexity. And, in the past, Turner has shown himself less than perceptive about the ID movement.
Who is surprised that creationist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, also on the board of Bio-Complexity, would endorse the book?
As for the other endorsers, anyone who would accept Dean Koontz or George Gilder's opinion about a scientific issue gets exactly what he deserves.
4 comments:
Ah yes, George Gilder. Who once told the Boston Globe:
"I'm not pushing to have [ID] taught as an 'alternative' to Darwin, and neither are [the Discovery Institute], What's being pushed is to have Darwinism critiqued, to teach there's a controversy. Intelligent design itself does not have any content.
The original link has dried up, but that was in 2005.
You'll find what Church had to say in a new post at EN&V. He has some strange views. E.g., "As a scientific discipline, many people have casually dismissed Intelligent Design without carefully defining what they mean by intelligence or what they mean by design." Maybe he thinks that ID proponents were more careful when they were pretending that they don't mean the christian god when they talk about the designer.
The Frank Church/George Church blunder was pointed out to O'Leary in the comments, but as of today, she still hasn't corrected it.
Hell, it's only the TITLE of her blog post. We know what happens when we point out that the titles of IDiot writings are contradicted by facts: they call us ignorant for not understanding that their title isn't their "real" point.
See: William Dembski, No Free Lunch.
He's the same George Gilder who ran an investment newsletter that had a slight hiccup. As he told the Wall Street Journal:
"The trouble with my business is that everyone came in at the peak," Mr. Gilder said in a recent interview. "The typical Gilder subscriber lost all his money and that made it very hard for me to market the newsletter."
Sharp as a tack, he is, picking that up so quickly!
The funny thing is that DI appears to be spending more time pointing out the "support" of King and Koontz then they are of Church.
As for Denyse (accent on the 'Deny') O'Leary mere facts have never stood in her way before.
Post a Comment