Commentary on the so-called Creation/Evolution/Intelligent Design Debate and Right-Wing nuttery in general - and please ignore the typos (I make lots!)

Friday, February 23, 2007

Bill Dembski - Thy Name is Hypocrite

Over at Dembski's Den of Sycophantic Uninformed Acolytes (aka Uncommon Descent), Bill "Ted Haggard of Information Theory" Dembski himslef wrote a brief post on Feb. 9 titled, ironically, 'Dembski's pseudomathematical posturings.'
The post opens with:

"Here’s a critique of the mathematics of the design inference from an assistant professor of religious studies. The combination of ignorance and arrogance on the part of this individual is staggering.:

He then provides a small portion of the actual comments by the 'professor of religious studies' (the totality of which, along with some interesting commentary, by the 'professor of religious studies' can be seen here), and provides a link to one of his own bloviating essays on the subject. And that is all he writes. He does not need to write anything else - his sycophantic hitmen know what to do. A couple typical replies:

"When I came on here at UD, I discovered very quickly that ignorance and arrogance on behalf of many ID critics abounds at levels which I had previously not imagined possible."

" I’m sure you find these critiques humourous by now, but in any case I don’t see what he’s getting at anyway."

And the coup de grace, from a 'Jason Rennie':

Come on Dr Dembski. Of course an assistant professor in religious studies knows
more about mathetics than you do. I mean what have you got nothing more than a
mere phd in the topic. How could you possibly think that that would be able to
stand up to a doctorate in “religious studies” for indepth maths knowledge.

For shame Dr Dembski. He rightly took you down a peg.

Hang on a sec …


In other words, Dembski's bootlickers believe that some religious studies professor has no business daring to critique the meisterwerke of DR.DR. William Dembski, Intelligent Design Hero. Afterall, DR.DR. Dembski has a PhD in mathematics, surely HE is the expert on that material!

I wonder - does Dembski limit his commentary to the things HE has a PhD in (mathematics and one in philosophy, plus a Master's in Divinity)? Would his worshippers care if he strayed?

Well, let's see...

In the linked post, DR.DR. Dembski is commenting - pontificating - on vestigial structures. That is a subject that best fits in biology. Bill has no PhD. in biology. Or anything similar. Or even closely related. SHouldn't he, you know, refrain form criticising things he has no PhD. in, as his worshippers believe all others should do?

Or are they all just a bunch of hypocrites?

Not only are Dembski's cioments silly and uninformed, they are downright stupid.


But hey - he is an Intelligent Design Creationist, an anti-materialsim hero, a Research Professor in Philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, AND a Fellow at the Discovery Institute, a right-wing "think tank" dedicated to injecting religion into all aspects of culture.

HE can say ANYTHING he wants to, AND his utterances will be considered unimpeachable by his acolytes...

And I think that 'religious studies professor (Scott Paeth) said it quite nicely:


"Nevertheless, given the degree to which Dembski himself, without degrees in biology or biochemistry, relies on his own roster of "smart people" to justify many of the premises on which he bases his probability calculations, I fail to see how he, or his supporters, can claim the high ground on expertise and credentials. "

2 comments:

Dr Umesh R Bilagi said...

Intelligent Design & Vestigial Organs
By
Dr Umesh R. Bilagi
Associate Prof of Medicine
KIMS Hubli
Karnataka
INDIA
umeshbilagi@gmail.com

http://umeshbilagi.blogspot.com/


Topic :-Vestigial organs not necessarily proof of evolution for Darwin


I would postulate that it is possible to have a vestigial organ [ananatomical structure in organisms in a species, thought to have lost its original function through evolution] without the process of evolution. Let me illustrate this idea using an analogy drawn from popular computer software.

Assuming, I have a reasonable amount of storage space on my computer hard disk, if I first create an unformatted document using Microsoft(MS) Word, and then a second MS Word document that I format very rigorously, I do so because I consider MS Word software to be the best option for my purposes, as opposed to using, say, the less sophisticated Notepad software, where little formatting of documentsis possible.

Now, if you argue that there is a vestigial structure to the first MSWord document (the capacity - in this case, unused - for formatting)and that this only became functional in the second document,ultimately concluding that the first document evolved from the second document, you would be incorrect, since I am the creator of both documents.

Similarly, I would argue that vestigial organs do not necessarily confirm evolution; they only point to what tools - improvable overtime - the creator used while making the species. This same principle is seen even in electronic gadgets today.

Most probably, such an explanation did not occur to Darwin given that, in his time, there were no common tools to carry out varied, complex,seemingly disconnected jobs. So he concluded that unless a creator planned to mislead us, vestigial organs should not have existed

It is tendency of creators of to make some useful common tools, which can be used to carry out multiple jobs (or to make machines). so by virtue of this comman tools (if tools get fitted into machines), vestigenesity will come up.


Vestigial organs can be classified in to verticle & tranverse ones

Verticle ones are like appendix which are inherited from ancestor to next species

Tranverse one are in which one sex has fuctional capacity & in opposite sex it is vestigineous

Example
Vertiginous Male breast can be better explained tools of intelligent design than Darwin evolution now look at male nipple which are functional in female. Male & female have come much before mammals, so presence of male nipple in mammals can be explained by theory of tools of intelligent design better than Darwin evolution.

Doppelganger said...

Was there supposed to be a coherent point in there somewhere?

'Cuz I missed it...