From: FMAJ1019@aol.com <FMAJ1019@aol.com>
[...]
>It's time for some science.
I quite agree with you. The ID movement is a propaganda campaign aimed at
planting seeds of doubt, mostly among the general public, and is not about
conducting real science.
Dembski has proposed a method for specifying events (for the purpose of
statistical tests) *after* they have occurred. If this method were valid, it
would revolutionize the work of statisticians, and would probably be the
greatest contribution to statistics of the last century. Even the renowned
statistician R. A. Fisher tried to solve the post-specification problem and
failed. So why is Dembski concentrating all his efforts at spreading the
word among the general public, and to some degree among scientists involved
in the creation-evolution debate, who are not experts in statistics? Why
isn't he taking the world of statistics by storm? Has even a single major
statistician commented favourably on his work? Not as far as I can discover.
Or must statisticians be added to the list of academics who are blinded by a
dogmatic opposition to Intelligent Design?
Futhermore, why does Dembski claim to have detected ID in nature, when he is
unable to cite a single specific successful application of his design
inference to nature? Why does he equivocate over the precise method of the
design inference? These are not the actions of someone who is trying to make
a contribution to science. They're the actions of a propagandist.
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 06:57:23 EDT