Gee, that looks like (OK, it is ...) the very document of which I linked my critique in post 14. Since you have essentially answered the rebuttal by repeating the rebutted, let me show you in one little bit of detail where I think it appalling that Dembski endorses this nonsense and scoffs at charges of quote-mining.
First, just for irony, let's note what DI says early on:
Every case of misrepresentation claimed by the NCSE dissolves entirely on close inspection.There will literally be nothing to see here when they are done, if this statement isn't hucksterism.
So skip down to their first treatment Erwin. (He's in there twice.)
Author’s comments on the summary’s accuracy:The short summary: Erwin said the paper DI cited is old and the problem it lays out for the evolutionary biology of its day has been substantially addressed. DI says other people have recently cited the paper without mentioning how out-of-date it is.“Citing a paper from 1994 is decidedly poor scholarship, however, given how fast this field has moved. The rapid advances in comparative developmental biology have rendered much of this pretty outdated. We now have a very well substantiated metazoan phylogeny, at least in general outline, allowing some of the tests suggested at the end of the cited passage. Moreover, comparative developmental studies have only served to emphasize the fundamental unity of bilaterian animals.”
REPLY:
Erwin does not challenge the accuracy of the summary. Rather, he says that his article is “pretty outdated.” Erwin’s colleagues, however, continue to cite this 1994 publication. In a major review article published in 2000, for instance, paleontologist David Jablonski of the University of Chicago cited the article (D. Jablonski, “Micro- and macroevolution: scale and hierarchy in evolution biology and paleobiology,” Deep Time (Paleontological Society, 2000), pp. 15-52; see pages 23 and 44). Graham Budd, a paleontologist at the University of Uppsala, cited the paper in another major review published in 2000, “A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla,” Biological Reviews 75 (2000): 253-295; see pages 257 and 290.
Jablonski and Budd say nothing about the paper being out of date. Both refer to the paper in the context of ongoing debates in paleontology.
What I said on that other thread (already linked back in post 14) is that DI's response
... ignores the substance of his criticism, which is that by using his old paper, D.I. ignores subsequent work clearing up the questions he raised in 1994. D.I. answers him by saying that there were citations elsewhere of that paper (of some unspecified sort) as late as 2000. Simply a dodge. Do the year-2000 papers claim that the problems Erwin now says are cleared up weren't cleared up by 2000? D.I. omits to mention.I caught them at the same game in "refuting" another criticism, from David M. Williams.
A further instance of what they tried with Erwin. If a paper has been cited anywhere by anyone for any reason lately, D.I. can represent to others that problems it described as current in its day remain unsolved even if they're not. Flimsy excuse for a misrepresentation, that! The lovely thing is that they continue to "misunderstand" this even after it is explained to them. Erwin, above, specifically said that Discovery didn't just quote his old paper, but his old citation of problems that have since been resolved. So far, nothing is exactly dissolving entirely for me.DI's behavior is unforgiveable, and so is Dembski still brazening it out.