New Creation Watch Column

| 7 Comments

If you're just dying to know what Judge Jones actually wrote in his 139 page opinion, but for some reason you don't want to slog through the whole thing, feel free to have a look at my Cliff's Notes version. I go through the entire opinion, summarizing every major point from page one to page 139. Enjoy!

7 Comments

Yet the Defense’s own witnesses did not defend Dembski’s methods when they had a clear opportunity for doing so.

The defense still had an issue pending: the testimony of Jeff Shallit as an expert witness for the plaintiffs. While the plaintiffs main case did not call for Shallit to take the stand since William Dembski had been withdrawn as a witness, the plaintiffs still could have called Shallit if Dembski’s ideas were relied upon to advance the notion that “intelligent design” was science. So it appears that the defense was pretty careful to avoid direct reliance on anything Dembskian in making their case.

Wesley-

Good point, I had forgotten about that. But it’s still pretty significant that the Defense didn’t want to make Dembski’s ideas part of their case. Even if Dembski himself was unwilling to testify, I’m sure they could have found some other ID person willing to discuss it.

I wonder if Behe and Minnich really were coached not to mention Dembski’s ideas, or if they just don’t put much stock in them. I wouldn’t be surprised if Behe, in particular, praises Dembski in public but privately snickers when Dembski claims to be evaluating the probability of evolving a flagellum.

Yo, Jason, what other ID person?

How many propontents of ID are there? Not just people who yak about it like Abrams in Kansas and Calvert in Missouri, but “leading lights?”

Now that Dembski has a real job it appears that he’s hunkering down for the time being.

Behe? He seems impervious to public or professional ridicule.

Wells is mounting a defense of Icons of Evolution, however shrill it sounds.

So, who are the ID luminaries and what are they doing in the wake of the Jones Decision?

Best regards, Doc Bill

The notion that Behe, while praising Dembski publicly, is in fact having not a very high opinion of Dembski’s probability calculations, seems to give Behe too much of a credit. Recall Behe’s own dismal treatment of probabilities in his book - he hardly is able to see the fallacies of Dembski’s “math.” In his foreword to Dembski’s Intelligent Design Behe praised Dembski’s work in superlative terms. While I’d not consider it impossible for Behe to be insincere there, he needs Dembski as an ally, and such a need is conducive to a belief in the (non existent) great achievements of the ally.

How many proponents of ID are there?

In reality, there are no true ID proponents; if you probe deeply enough, they all eventually just turn out to really be cdesign proponentsists.

Good one ben.…

I’m not sure that Behe would have the smarts to critique Dembski’s probability work. After all, IIRC, he got Snoke to come in and do the maths on Behe and Snoke.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jason Rosenhouse published on December 30, 2005 6:53 PM.

A signature of a radiation in metazoan evolution was the previous entry in this blog.

Desparate, pathetic, and disgusting - DI’s West on Judge Jones 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