Dembski

GoSeminoles! · Apr 2, 2006

In a Lexington, KY paper, William Dembski, one of ID's grand pimp-daddies, made one of those great statements that will live in comic infamy.

To William Dembski, all the debate in this country over evolution won't matter in a decade.

By then, he says, the theory of evolution put forth by Charles Darwin 150 years ago will be dead.

"I see this all disintegrating very quickly," he said.

Where have we seen such idiotic statements before?

"Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past."

Eberhard Dennert, At the Deathbed of Darwinism, 1904.

Tacticus · Apr 2, 2006

Wow... just wow.

It goes to show that you don't have to be smart to be a statistical mathematician(no offence to the smart statistical mathematicians out there).

TeddyKGB · Apr 2, 2006

Between evolution and ID, one has had 150 years of solid success, while the other recently had its skirt lifted in a US courtroom.

Which is which, Bill?

TemperateSeaIsland · Apr 2, 2006

I would love to just go LOL!!!1

but I know there are people out there who will believe him

Brennin · Apr 2, 2006

Tacticus said:
Wow... just wow.

It goes to show that you don't have to be smart to be a statistical mathematician(no offence to the smart statistical mathematicians out there).

Yes, you do (probability is much more intellectually demanding than the biological sciences) and Bill is quite intelligent, despite his faux pas.

Dannager · Apr 2, 2006

TeddyKGB said:
Between evolution and ID, one has had 150 years of solid success, while the other recently had its skirt lifted in a US courtroom.

Which is which, Bill?

Lime'd for truth.

Pete Harcoff · Apr 2, 2006

TeddyKGB said:
Between evolution and ID, one has had 150 years of solid success, while the other recently had its skirt lifted in a US courtroom.

Which is which, Bill?

Shhhhh! Don't go confusing things by bringing up, y'know, reality.

Dr.GH · Apr 2, 2006

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

Glenn Morton's classic review on "The Imminent Demise of Evolution: [SIZE=+3]
[/SIZE]The Longest running Falsehood in Creationism"

I sent Glenn that link from the OP (thanks!) so that he can add it to his list.

GoSeminoles! · Apr 2, 2006

Dr.GH said:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

Glenn Morton's classic review on "The Imminent Demise of Evolution: [SIZE=+3]
[/SIZE]The Longest running Falsehood in Creationism"

I sent Glenn that link from the OP (thanks!) so that he can add it to his list.

Where do you think I got the 1904 quotation from?

Dr.GH · Apr 2, 2006

GoSeminoles! said:
Where do you think I got the 1904 quotation from?

:o

Tacticus · Apr 2, 2006

Brennin said:
Yes, you do (probability is much more intellectually demanding than the biological sciences) and Bill is quite intelligent, despite his faux pas.

Yeah, that's probably why they say: "You don't have to be a statistical mathematician to understand that." Instead of: "You don't need to be a brain surgeon to understand that."

Anyway, I was mocking Dembski for that stupid quote by implying he wasn't smart enough to see evolution as an established theory but he is still a statistical mathematician-that's why I added the "no offense" part.

Dembski spouts rubbish and pretends it's science and when someone points out the flaws in that rubbish he merely spouts more to try to cover his initial foolishness.

Also, "Bill"? You know the guy? No wonder you're defending him if you're on first name terms.

Brennin · Apr 2, 2006

Tacticus said:
Yeah, that's probably why they say: "You don't have to be a statistical mathematician to understand that." Instead of: "You don't need to be a brain surgeon to understand that."

That tired saying proves nothing.

Anyway, I was mocking Dembski for that stupid quote by implying he wasn't smart enough to see evolution as an established theory but he is still a statistical mathematician-that's why I added the "no offense" part.

Intelligent people can and do say foolish things (if, indeed, this is one of them).

Dembski spouts rubbish and pretends it's science and when someone points out the flaws in that rubbish he merely spouts more to try to cover his initial foolishness.

Also, "Bill"? You know the guy? No wonder you're defending him if you're on first name terms.

We've corresponded previously, nothing more.

cerad · Apr 2, 2006

TeddyKGB said:
Between evolution and ID, one has had 150 years of solid success, while the other recently had its skirt lifted in a US courtroom.

Which is which, Bill?

150 years? Hah! ID has never been proven false in 6,000 years. Plus it has an invisible sky daddy going for it. Evolution is barely a blip on the creator's radar screen.

GoSeminoles! · Apr 2, 2006

Brennin said:
Yes, you do (probability is much more intellectually demanding than the biological sciences) and Bill is quite intelligent, despite his faux pas.

They don't distribute math doctorates to idiots, so I agree Dembski is very intelligent. So was Goebbles. Dembski is simply an anti-evolution ideologue. Facts don't matter to him on this issue because he is opposed to evolution for reasons which have nothing to do with science. People capable of this sort of double-think have proven themselves to be among history's most dangerous.

Dr.GH · Apr 2, 2006

Glenn has already updated his website. That was fast! Additionally, he is in China.

Dembski

GoSeminoles!

Guest

Member

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi

Wielder of the Holy Cudgel of Faith

Back in Town

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Doc WinAce fan

GoSeminoles!

Guest

Doc WinAce fan

Member

Wielder of the Holy Cudgel of Faith

Zebra Fan

GoSeminoles!

Guest

Doc WinAce fan

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency