This Week in Intelligent Design - 29/03/11

| 8 Comments

Intelligent design news from the 23rd of March to the 29th of March, 2011.

This week marked the highly notable, first ever mention of yours truly in an official Discovery Institute blog post, which is rather exciting. It’s a pity then that, as I already said today, the mention was a horribly confused jumble of misinterpretation and laziness that made me come off like an undefinable supporter of ID-dualism, or something like that.

But whatever, that doesn’t really matter in the scheme of things. What else happened this week in the online world of intelligent design?

8 Comments

I agree with your comments, and I’m glad this was posted here.

I second harold’s sentiments Jack. Poor David Klinghoffer is searching far and wide for new anti-ID critics to “critique”, and, I suppose, needs to target undergraduates such as yourself (It’s a pity he never learned biology nor any other science while he was at Brown.).

What? No ID research this week? How odd.

Karen S. said:

What? No ID research this week? How odd.

Didn’t you read? They’re doing blog science. What James Delingpole likes to call peer-to-peer review! The fact that this is so superior to “establishment science” is why there’s been such a flurry of “work” done on CSI recently.

John Kwok said:

Poor David Klinghoffer is searching far and wide for new anti-ID critics to “critique”, …

He’s also searching far back for allies in Wallace and Shaw. Unfortunately for him, opinions about the universe that are 120 and 90 years out of date are next to worthless, however brilliant the men who utterred them were in their day. Everyone reading this knows more about the universe than Shaw or Wallace (or Newton or Darwin) did. Then again, Klinghoffer is likely just projecting the static nature of the creationist/ID arguments onto science.

Science Avenger said:

John Kwok said:

Poor David Klinghoffer is searching far and wide for new anti-ID critics to “critique”, …

He’s also searching far back for allies in Wallace and Shaw. Unfortunately for him, opinions about the universe that are 120 and 90 years out of date are next to worthless, however brilliant the men who utterred them were in their day. Everyone reading this knows more about the universe than Shaw or Wallace (or Newton or Darwin) did. Then again, Klinghoffer is likely just projecting the static nature of the creationist/ID arguments onto science.

I don’t think he’ll find them in Wallace, who discovered Natural Selection independently of Darwin. If I was David, I might have to go back to Paley myself, if I was being logically consistent.

Jack,

Just hot off the presses. Luskin is whining and moaning about how Intelligent Design is scientifically testable, rebutting to criticism stated by Dartmouth ecologist Mark McPeek. Of course the literature Luskin cites is virtually non-peer-reviewed, contrary to his breathtaking inanity:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/0[…]t045311.html

Regards,

John

Hello! Would you mind if I share your article with my myspace group? There’s a lot of readers that I think would really appreciate your content because this item is exactly what they are interested in. Please let me know if you have any reservations. Thanks

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Scanlan published on March 29, 2011 7:23 AM.

Fratercula arctica was the previous entry in this blog.

Reminder: Phyloseminar (Wed 3/30): Making comparative methods as easy as ABC 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