Show me the evidence

| 3 Comments

In the past, I have argued that ID “peer-review” is worthless, and that adherence to ID has retarded any scientific output by such supporters as Wells and Behe. In chapter 41 of his The Design Revolution (IVP, 2004), William Dembski sets out to answer the question: If intelligent design is a scientific research program, why don’t design theorists publish or have their work cited in the peer-reviewed literature?

Over at Stranger Fruit I examine Dembski’s response and it’s reliance on the ISCID bibliography.

3 Comments

Um, so what happens if someone pays the money and retypes the bibliography in a different order or just lists the author names, journal and year without page numbers and then posts it here? Seems to me there’d be no copyright protection in that event …

Scientific bibliographies of Behe and Wells

Does ID have an explanation for this guy?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm[…]59394032.jpg

Evolution does.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by John M. Lynch published on August 17, 2004 12:27 PM.

Social Darwinism Is Alive and Well and Living at the Discovery Institute was the previous entry in this blog.

Book review: Debating Design (Dembski/Ruse ed.) is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter