And so Dembski is guilty, too.

2008-06-25T11:16:00.000-04:00

One does not have to be a biologist but rather jus...

2008-06-01T17:32:00.000-04:00

One does not have to be a biologist but rather just a cursory knowlege of science to understand that Haeckel's work was more than "embellished". (He imposed a preconception upon the observation -- that was the greatest offense.) To simplify that issue as such is intellectually dishonest.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb99.html

Every science textbook and a good quantity of scientific research publish idealized drawings. Simple, clear drawings that communicate an idea accurately are simply a way to communicate.

See Gould, Structure of Ev. Theory, p. 906. A nice, simple, clear drawing. (But not without problems. That's another discussion.)

Comments on All-Too-Common Dissent: If it is enough to 'convict' Haeckel, it should be...

And so Dembski is guilty, too.

One does not have to be a biologist but rather jus...