Dembski posted the following on UcD via Denyse O'Leary
<quote>
On Thursday (12.07.06) I learned it was definite that Baylor
University was revoking a postdoctoral fellowship that I held in the
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Last month (11.06)
I was appointed as Senior Research Scientist in that department to
work on a project in information theory with Prof. Robert Marks. That
project was funded through a grant that he procured specifically for
me to work with him. Here are the facts:
</quote>
Old news but so far it had gone unnoticed.
Funny how ID is always relying on a promissory note, while originally
the claim was that Dembski had shown a reliable filter to detect
design, in a more recent interview Dembski admitted
<quote>With the formation of Baylor's Evolutionary Informatics Lab
just this month and work by me and my colleague Robert Marks on the
conservation of information (several papers of which are available at
www.evolutionaryinformatics.org), I think ID is finally in a position
to challenge certain fundamental assumptions in the natural sciences
about the nature and origin of information. This, I believe, will have
a large impact on science. </quote>
Ironically, Dembski accuses 'Darwinists' of what he does best
<quote>I have found that Darwinists make a habit of staying quiet
about problems with their theory and ignore the best criticisms of it.
</quote>
Oh well, there is some irony here that Dembski strikes out twice at Baylor.
Btw, I will soon describe Behe's "expert" testimony in a lawsuit
between religious schools and the State of California. If you thought
Kitzmiller had some whoppers, you will love this one.
For some background see
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/09/viewpoint_discr.html
<quote>Those articles discuss a California lawsuit filed by a group of
Christian schools against the University of California. They are suing
in an attempt to force UC to recognize some of their classes as
meeting the requirements that UC sets for high school students who are
applying for admission to the system. Several subjects are involved in
the suit, but as a biologist I'm mostly interested in the biology
courses that are involved.</quote>
Given the description of the text book used, should we as Christians
not be appalled by what is taught as 'science' to Christians? Should
such schools be allowed to teach this 'alternative viewpoint' in place
of real science and still receive credit? Where are the limits here
from a legal, scientific and religious perspective?
Funny that behe also appeals to the work by Wells, somehow unaware of
its major shortcomings.
From the introduction to " Biology for Christian Schools" we find that
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2005/10/05_textbooks.shtml
Anyone familiar with the mentioned texts?
<quote>
The introduction to Biology for Christian Schools (2nd Edition, BJU
Press) clearly states, for instance, that students' conclusions must
conform to the Bible and that scientific material and methods are
secondary: "The people who have prepared this book have tried
consistently to put the Word of God first and science second. To the
best of the author's knowledge, the conclusions drawn from observable
facts that are presented in this book agree with the Scriptures. If a
mistake has been made (which is probable since this book was prepared
by humans) and at any point God's Word is not put first, the author
apologizes."
</quote>
Stay tuned: http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/08/california_the_saga_continues.php
For the viewpoint from the plaintiffs see
http://www.acsi.org/web2003/default.aspx?ID=1181ể
NCSE Resources with Behe's 'expert testimony'
Elsberry: http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2007/08/28/behe-the-expert-again/
What a week it has been
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon, 3 Sep 2007 21:36:53 -0700
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 04 2007 - 00:37:27 EDT