No Free Lunch [Review of New Dembski Book on Intelligent Design]

Boston Review ^ | August 23, 2002 | H. Allen Orr

[aculeus]

Discuss among yourselves.

[dinasour]

Bump for later study.

[AnnaZ]

[John H K]

Discuss among yourselves.

Probably a futile exercise, since the typical FR Creationist hasn't read anything this long about science in his or her life.

[Vladiator]

This is not about science.

[Kyrie]

Discuss among yourselves.

Dang. I thought we could discuss it among someone else this time.

[martian_22]

I thought it was an editorial.

[Raymond Hendrix]

Thanks for the typical response from the know-it-all corner. Do you people ever consider that humility may be a virtue?

Dawkins little weazel fraud was exposed years ago btw. Of course it can always be fun to confuse the casual reader with a rehash.

The Blind Atheist

[berned]

What's gained by replacing a mysterious material order with an equally mysterious designer?

Ummm -- the truth?

[Kyrie]

Probably a futile exercise, since the typical FR Creationist hasn't read anything this long about science in his or her life.

I would say that this type of attack is unscientific. Only I've been around scientists who feel attacked by their peers and colleagues, and they usually react this way. Arrested development, perhaps? Does it come with the territory?

Anyway, leave room for the atypical. Maybe one of them will show up later...

[bzrd]

Good article overall, though it had the usual equating of the ID movement with young-earth creationism. Anyone familiar with ID should know that the former looks at the latter as a red-headed stepchild.

I thought it somewhat hypocritical of the writer to call for intellectual honesty on the part of the ID crowd, while at the same time utilizing using this tired ploy as means to bolster his own argument.

Whatever one's stand on this argument--while were on the subject of intellectual honesty---isn't it time we let the kids in on it.

What's wrong with teaching the controversy? Maybe it will improve their learning skills.

Brian.

[monkey]

The NFL theorems thus say that if we average over all possible fitness functions—where some lead directly uphill to the target and others don't, and some are smooth and others rugged—no evolutionary algorithm outperforms any other.

How does Dembski define and show the existence of "all possible" fitness functions in nature?

[f.Christian]

Creation/God...Christianity---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO 1984 America---

[f.Christian]

Evolution is the taproot...holy grail of liberalism---the clone farm/spores!

Evolutionists is the weed(maggot-flies)---rotten infested fruit from the REPROBATES/parasites/blood-life suckers of Truth/civilization!

Pretty simple...Tree of Life/Truth vs death/lies(devils/heresy)!

[f.Christian]

To: Dimensio
As I see it, evolution is an ideological doctrine. If it were only a "scientific theory", it would have died a natural death 50 - 70 years ago; the evidence against it is too overwhelming and has been all along. The people defending it are doing so because they do not like the alternatives to an atheistic basis for science and do not like the logical implications of abandoning their atheistic paradigm and, in conducting themselves that way, they have achieved a degree of immunity to what most people call logic.

488 posted on 7/29/02 5:18 AM Pacific by medved

[f.Christian]

Note the number of articles posted here on FR on new findings in biology that bolster evolution.

A blatant lie. I have been asking you and your fellow evolutionists for a single (1) example of a major biological discovery favoring evolution for months. None of you folks has been able to give such an example the reason is because.



EVOLUTION IS PSEUDOSCIENCE FOR MORONS


150 posted on 8/23/02 7:08 PM Pacific by gore3000

[aculeus]

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO 1984 America---

Any suggestions here?

[f.Christian]

The MO of the EVO taliban...missing dove---appearing rabbit!

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/PSYCHO-EVO/NWO Soviet-LIBERAL-Socialist America---

the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...

Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple/SWAMP-MALARIA/RELIGION(cult of darwin-marx-satan) over them---made these absolutes subordinate--relative...

REDACTING them

and calling/CHANGING---

all the... residuals(technology/science) === TO evolution via schlock/sMUCK IDEOLOGY/lies/bias...

to substantiate/justify/validate their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...

anti-God/Truth RELIGION(USSC monopoly)---

and declared a crusade/WAR--JIHAD--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY(breaking the establishment clause)...

against God--man--society/SCIENCE(religious oath-TEST for office)!!

[Orual]

Printed it out for a careful read this evening.

Any suggestions here?

Here's mine.

[aculeus]

Is he typing wearing a catcher's mitt?

That's it!!!