On UcD, Dembski posts a ‘response’ to Steve Reuland and others pointing out that the paper which Dembski called pro-ID wasn’t.
I posted a reference the other day to a peer-reviewed paper by two Finnish ID-supporters that I claimed supported ID. The paper highlighted that evolutionary methods work to the degree that they are directed. As is typical with our detractors, whenever a pro-ID paper by pro-ID scientists comes out in a peer-reviewed biology journal, they try their best to show that it doesn’t actually support ID. An example is the following post at PT by Steve Reuland:
The response seems to be that it was a paper by two ID supporters (interestingly enough Dembski may have out-ed the second author).
What is Dembski’s ‘devastating argument’? Now stop snickering and pay attention
So let me spell it out: DIRECTED EVOLUTION IS NON-DARWINIAN. DARWINIAN EVOLUTION IS NON-DIRECTED.
Seems that Demsbki indeed has fallen for the false duality of not Darwinian means ID.
Does directed evolution falls properly under intelligent design? Certainly not as formulated by Dembski. It should come as no surprise that ID proponents are conflating the various meanings of intelligent design but rest assured, ID formulated as the set theoretic complement of chance and regularity has nothing to gain from science exploring the regularity aspects of proteins.
Next step Anger all the way to acceptance… “Shock, Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Testing, Acceptance”