Bill Dembski, PhD. PhD., apparently doesn't think people lacking PhD.'s in specific areas or having lesser degrees than he has have no business commenting on things outside of or above their field or level of supposed understanding.
See how he denigrates Richard Wein, after Wein devastates one of Dembski's supposed mathematical arguments, because he has but a B. S. in statistics, while he, Dembski, has a PhD.:
"A word about credentials seems worth bringing up. Richard Wein holds a bachelor's degree in statistics -- that's it. Now, his lack of academic credentials by itself does not undercut his critique -- any work must ultimately stand on its own merits. Yet his lack of formal training should raise a suspicion about his contempt for my knowledge of statistics and probability. I do have the requisite credentials in this field, having a Ph.D. from a good school and having published in this area (my CV is available at
www.baylor.edu/~William_Dembski). NFL was thoroughly vetted by experts spanning a range of disciplines. Moreover, the endorsements appearing with the book are glowing and come from experts in computer science, machine learning,
mathematics, statistics, engineering, biology, biochemistry, physics, and
philosophy (see http://www3.baylor.edu/ ~William_Dembski/docs_books/nfl.htm).
All of the endorsers are more eminent in their respective fields than Wein. How can they think NFL is the best thing since sliced bread and Wein think it is the worst thing since the Lisbon earthquake? One has to wonder if more isn't at stake than just the merit of the ideas."
But watch out if someone dares mention reality - that Dembski has no relevent degrees in many of the things he pontificates on - you get the hero-worship treatment. (via moonman62)
"Please review his CV again. He is a mathematician---the metalanguage of all the sciences---who has a special competence in the Philosophy of Science. Are you saying that some Ph.D. biologist shuffling around in a dusty lab somewhere is a "scientist" and the extraordinary polymath Dembski is not? This is credentialism of the worst sort. I guarantee he can talk polypeptides, or some other biological esoterica, with any biologist living or dead, and write a peer reviewable paper on the subject as well."
Sure - and he can use the simplistic 'DNA is just like the english language anaology' with the best of them... Apparently, polymathery does not include actually being competent in the areas you can 'talk' in.
But I digress...
King Hypocrite is at it again:
"Chu-Carroll names his bog GOOD MATH, BAD MATH: FINDING THE FUN IN GOOD MATH, SQUASHING BAD MATH AND THE FOOLS THAT PROMOTE IT. Perhaps I’m missing something, but Chu-Carroll’s expertise is in computer programming, where he has a Ph.D. How much math does he actually know?"
Clearly not as much as Dr.Dr. Bill 'polymath and mathematical supergenius' Dembski...
It seems that hypocrisy has a face, and that face is the Intelligent Design Religio-Political Movement's Bill Dembski's.
5 comments:
You gotta love DaveScot in the comments. He, who is an expert on nothing more than vomiting hot air, criticizing Mark for reviewing the book on it's math merits. Something Mark is highly qualified for.
Davescot is a moron.
I don't think anything more needs to be said for the guy. He embellishes everything associated with himself from his appearance to his intellect. He outright lies about how he runs Dembski's blog. He is a waste of air.
Tag you are it.
Right. So you slag Dembski off (rather than his work) for slagging other people off (rather than their work).
Nice example set. Well done.
Ah, yes, the infamous 'ExhiledfromGroggs' 'Paul' - the bulldog of hero-worshipping IDC sycophants. I am so flattered.
Allow me to help you with some simple issues - note the subtitle of this blog:
Commentary on the so-called Creation/Evolution/Intelligent Design Debate and Right-Wing nuttery in general...
Also notice that there is a link in the subtitle that leads to a post of mine in which I write:
While I will be commenting on such things from time to time, the purpose of this blog is primarily to provide links to and commentary on the essays and posts of individuals that are far more patient and eloquent than myself on these and related issues.
It is not and was never my intent to 'slag' Dembski's "work" (though I would scarcely characterize his histrionics-laden internet blog posts or his repetitive, vacuous vanity press books "work").
It was my intent to demonstrate Dembski's hypocrisy and sleaziness.
Which I did.
So your silly sarcasm, while utterly futile and misplaced, is actually unintentionally correct.
It was Well Done. Thanks.
Post a Comment