What’s the Difference Between Bill Dembski and An Apple?

What’s the Difference Between Bill Dembski and An Apple?

The apple has a much thicker skin.

I refer you to this series of comments in Bill’s weblog:
Or skip them if you like.

I do not think that they are compatible. ID and Evolution

The theistic evolutionists use something similiar to Pope Benedicts “Intelligent Project”.
ID is distinctly suggesting that biological evolution could only occur with the assistance of an “intelligent agent”.

If ID were merely suggesting that at some point an intelligent designer ’setup’ the system..then ID would merely be relabeled Deism…not similiar to Deism…but Deism.

ID must be suggesting that the “intelligent agent” is an active force that is necessary for any evolution.

Also, DaveScot, consider that if ID is compatible with Evolution, then ID would not be a controversy to evolution…but a new sub-theory of evolution

Comment by PuckSR … November 29, 2005 @ 8:46 pm

I hate modern debate….seriously…i hate modern debate

Let me explain….
I have never read on a pro-ID site that the ID proponent lost the debate.
I have never read on a pro-Evolution site that the ID proponent Evolution advocate lost the debate. [PuckSR later corrected himself – AA]

We have abandoned the concept of debate…the idea that you were actually trying to convince your opponent. Debate does not work when you are trying to sway the masses. Debate works when you are trying to sway your opponent.

Now, granted, normally your opponent does not change his mind…but turning public debate into some awkward form campaigning just seems wrong.

I believe the decline of public debate coincided with the decline of the American attention span. When we suddenly lost the ability to listen to a 3 hour discourse objectively…we lost the ability to appreciate a good debate.

Comment by PuckSR … November 29, 2005 @ 11:11 pm

PuckSR is no longer with this blog. …WmAD

Comment by William Dembski … November 30, 2005 @ 8:38 am

Why is PuckSR no longer with this blog?

Comment by hlwarren … November 30, 2005 @ 12:02 pm

No reply to hlwarren from Dembski.

Now, I can’t say that this was unexpected. I was actually waiting for this for a while. Why don’t you skim through PuckSR’s comments, above, and see if you can spot the abusive or trolling comment that caused him to be kicked off.

Neither can I. But he has committed the cardinal sin of not always agreeing with everything that William “The Isaac Newton of Information Theory” Dembski says. He’s open to the idea of Intelligent Design, but he’s skeptical of it, in the sense of “it’s an interesting idea, but I’m not going to just take your word for it. Show me why it’s a good idea.” So, of course, he had to be banned.

Sure, it’s Dembski’s site, and he has the right to delete anything he likes at his slightest whim. But that doesn’t mean he should, not if he wants to look as though he has something to contribute to a scientific debate. ‘Cos as it stands, it sure looks as though he wants his weblog to be a monument to his ego (ironically, I note that he’s doing this by allowing random people to comment and banning the ones he doesn’t like — artificial selection).

Years ago, one nagora made this comment on Slashdot:

When a twit like you starts defending M$ the question I always want to ask is “If they’re not a pack of shits why do they bribe, threaten, steal and lie? Do you think it’s some sort of hobby?”

There’s a similar comment that could be applied to intelligent design creationists.

Comments 4

One thought on “What’s the Difference Between Bill Dembski and An Apple?”

  1. If you don’t see PuckSR’s abusive comments, you clearly didn’t look.

    He’s attacked me personally on more than one ocassion. Then again, maybe you don’t consider calling people “idiot” and “moron” to be abusive.

    If it’s thin skinned to ban someone who constantly calls others “idiots” then I wouldn’t want to be thick skinned!

    Funny how you attack Bill, claiming he doesn’t allow anyone to disagree with him, yet if you truly looked thru his site, you’d see MANY comments from the following who disagree with Bill: cambion, PuckSR, keiths, jmcd (who was also abusive but allowed to comment many many times), and many others who have commented on the first page entries themselves. Surely you didn’t miss all of these comments…

    Then again, I see you call them ID creationists…so we see your lack of dishonesty already.

    You say Bill wants to stroke his ego- what do you call it when you use your website to tell bald faced lies?

  2. wow- it was SO hard to quickly look thru Bill’s site to find abusive comments from PuckSR. You “skimmed” thru the site you claimed, but I just did the same thing and within 2 mins found this:

    —————
    “By that token there must be some evidence that cows are sacred since so many people believe it, no?”

    Wow, your an idiot
    That is absolutely not what i said
    A better analogy

    Cows are worshipped by many people, perhaps people who worship cows are not crazy whacko’s to believe something if it is that popular. They must have some reason for their beliefs

    Comment by puckSR — November 16, 2005 @ 10:27 am

  3. He’s attacked me personally on more than one ocassion.

    Care to provide some links?

    Then again, I see you call them ID creationistsâ???¦

    Well, we are talking about the William A. Dembski who said and wrote:

    Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.

    My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ.

    Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners do not have a clue about him.

    right? If creationism isn’t religiously-motivated opposition to evolution, then what is it?

    If you’re going to argue that, whatever Dembski’s religious views may be, ID is a scientific theory, then please do me a favor and answer some of these questions about ID. Since we’re talking about William Dembski, I would really appreciate it if you could answer the questions about specified complexity and CSI, and most particularly if you could provided some sample calculations.

    Please don’t just refer me to The Design Inference or Specification: the Pattern That Signifies Intelligence: both cases are just the “tornado in a junkyard” argument, which is a strawman.

    so we see your lack of dishonesty already.

    Why, thank you! You flatter me. Either that, or you forgot to proofread.

  4. Josh….I referred to several people as Idiots and morons on Bill Dembski’s site…..but i NEVER was abusive of someone because of their beliefs.

    I attacked you on several occasions for misquoting or completely misunderstanding me. I would never attack someone for having an opposing viewpoint…I attack people for being stupid, and making stupid mistakes or making pointless comments.

    BTW…I was kicked off of Dembski’s blog because I posted something he strongly disagreed with…I stated that ID should ignore grade school, and instead attempt to be accepted by scientists and other professionals capable of fully comprehending and testing ID. I suggested that grade school children were completely incapable of making any type of informed decision on the topic, and that the attempt to present them with a “controversy” seemed harmful and clearly politically motivated.

    I was NOT banned for “attacking” you…since after I left Dembski allowed posts that were clearly meant to insult me.

Comments are closed.