[donh]

It is true that Cambridge University Press officially lists this book as a philosophy monograph. But why should how the book is listed by its publisher be relevant to deciding whether it does or does not contain genuine scientific content?

Well now, there's a puzzler, let me think. I guess "Winnie-the-Poo" COULD be a scientific monograph--who's to say?

Darwin's little book wasn't a peer-reviewed scientific paper, but the gutwad of peer-reviewed research that followed on it's heals was, and established evolutionary theory as an integral part of biological science. Where's the equivalent for Dembski's book?

Yet another bait&switch arguement brought to you by the ever-predictable Discovery Institute.

[Heartlander]

You present an ‘argument from Poo’?