Creationism

Blogger Tacitus makes a weak argument that Intelligent Design may be good for science. What caught my attention is a comment under the heading “Andromeda Strain” by user Irving, who writes: Certainly normal statistical models “do not work for such things.” That’s the point of the research…to find new models and frameworks. …and we may not need to rely on merely statistical models either. Let me put this another way in a story perhaps more attuned to the Tacitus readership… ...

The Intelligent Design movement recently hired a PR firm to promote its views. A critic using the name “vax” commented on this at William Dembski’s (the “Isaac Newton” of ID) blog: Why would ID need to be ‘promoted’? If it is science (as claimed) then the arguments and facts and should speak for themselves. If it’s just a public relations exercise combining religion, politics and deceptive scientific-sounding jargon, however… This led to a response from “Dan”: ...