Recently I have been posting about how the DI whines when a real scientist offers a possible evolutionary explanation for various biological structures. Frequently the response has been something like when little casey luskin he quoted Wild Bill Dembski::
"What's needed is a complete evolutionary path and not merely a possible oasis along the way. To claim otherwise is like saying we can travel by foot from Los Angeles to Tokyo because we've discovered the Hawaiian Islands. Evolutionary biology needs to do better than that. (William A. Dembski, Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses.)"It's a common theme a demand absolute 100% proof, which is nothing more than another marketing tactic. Science is more about small steps than trying to solve questions in one large discovery. By demanding more than science actually delivers in a single step is an effort to make science appear weak. Yet, what have folks like Dembski delivered at all? That's why it's a tactic. Science hasn't asked intelligent design 'conjecturists' for a complete solution, all they have done is ask that folks like Debmski support their own work, something they have never done.
That same level of perfection is never required by those same conjecturists when talking about their own design ideas. Case in point a new book announcement by little casey himself: "New Book, Cosmological Implications of Heisenberg's Principle, Argues for Purpose and Design in Nature", by Julio Gonzalo. Little casey starts by name-dropping his connection with the author and plug something he wrote last year. Funny how the author's collaboration with casey isn't mentioned in the authors bio on Amazon. Well anyway, I think this is supposed to be a review of sorts.
This 'review' is like so many others from the DI shows nothing but casey agreeing with everything the author says. You can see why, when the author says things like:
"Modern science is therefore a monumental proof that the natural world as well as man's intellect are contingent and are due to an all-powerful and intelligent Creator. "Little casey jumps right on and starts fawning. But my question is where is the critical thinking that casey demands of biologists? How can this author get away with a theme in which:
"Gonzalo discusses the theism of both Planck and Einstein and concludes that the fundamental invariant truths of nature they discovered point to an intelligent creator"If a real scientist made a comment like that and redefined other scientists work, especially taking it to areas unintended by the original scientists might seem reasonable, but when real scientists do it, they show their work, they support it. How many years have we been waiting for design conjecturists to do that? The issue is that when the philosophical agreement is there, casey treats anything said as gospel, not a single critical thoought.
One of my recent posts mentioned quote-mining and mis-characterizing other scientists work to place it in some context that appears to support Intelligent Design. I think that is exactly what you are seeing here. Gonzalo examines the theism of Planck and Einstein? Really? And somehow reaches the conclusion that they are pointing to an intelligent creator. Gee, what a surprise! Sounds much more like twisting what you are reading until you get to the point you already planned to reach anyway.
What bothers me isn't that Gonzalo isn't supporting his work, it's that little casey never asks for it. Do you think a scientist making any public announcements would get away with that from the DI? No way in hell!
It's well past the time when you, the DI, need to apply those critical think skills you claim to be promoting. You need to seriously take a look at your own methods and even your motivations and really consider them. I know you won't, but you need too. Your impact on science has been minimal, although you do your best to damage science education. Until you buckle down and either do the work or walk away because you cannot support your work, you will continue to be a bit of a joke and relegated to the same dusty shelf holding the Astrology and Parapsychology books. I know the DI will continue to fawn over anyone who says things they agree with philosophically, and even if they don't, the spin-miesters at the DI will make it sound as if they do. After all, it's what they do!