Dembski’s latest paper – stillborn, alas.

It seems I will have to change my LOL Dembski. Teh mathz haz appeared – their relevance to evolutionary biology, however, remains zero. Dembski’s latest (and much bally-hooed) attempt at being taken seriously has finally appeared in print: a joint paper with engineering professor Robert Marks titled “Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success.” You may remember that Dembski was unwilling to say where the paper was to appear lest the Evil Atheist Conspiracytm cause the paper to be pulled. In wonderful news for for the ID movement, it has appeared in that noted journal of evolutionary biology, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man & Cybernetics. You will be familiar with the journal because it is where most to the breakthroughs in 20th century biology were published.

The paper is available here and the lovefest over at Uncommon Descent has already gone sour with the master himself closing comments (a mere nine comments – and just over an hour – in) after he was called on errors and misrepresentations. Sayeth Bill, “I’m growing weary of these quibblings and thus shutting the comments off.” This is somewhat ironic for a professor who sends his students onto the internet to drive-by comment on sites that oppose ID. For Dembski, valid criticisms are mere “quibbles” and Darwin’s work on barnacles mere “puttering”. It must be tough being such a great (and unrecognized) philosopher, theologian, mathematician, and historian. He truly is the Isaac Newton of our times. But I’m willing to predict that this paper will do nothing to disprove or problematize the abundant evidence for natural selection and its efficacy.

That aside, other critiques have begun to appear:

I will add more as I find them.


7 thoughts on “Dembski’s latest paper – stillborn, alas.

  1. P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isn’t a pro-ID article but that it’s about something else (I’ve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID.

    This is like saying that any article on how to build a better mousetrap is a refutation of Michael Behe.

  2. Three of the 10 comments were Dembski’s feeble replies before he was worn down by the massive assault by His Own People.

  3. Wes wrote

    Did anybody else notice that Dembski actually lists his “participation” in the Dover case in his (15 page!) CV:

    That’s beyond laughable.

  4. Pingback: A priori bias in the Dembski-Marks representation « The Metropolis Sampler

Comments are closed.