I follow the posts of Intelligent Design Creationists in order to see whether they have finally begun to understand science. Imagine my excitement when this post appeared on the Science and Culture website!
Why Intelligence Is Necessary to Explain Nature’s Functional InformationAlas, my excitement was short-lived. The post is actually about a podcast interview with William Dembski and not somebody intelligent.
- On the Meaning of the Word "Function"
- The Function Wars: Part I
- The Function Wars: Part II
- The Function Wars: Part III
- The Function Wars: Part IV
- Restarting the function wars (The Function Wars Part V)
- The Function Wars Part VI: The problem with selected effect function
- The Function Wars Part VII: Function monism vs function pluralism
- The Function Wars Part VIII: Selected effect function and de novo genes
- The Function Wars Part IX: Stefan Linquist on Causal Role vs Selected Effect
- The Function Wars Part X: "Spam DNA"?
- The Function Wars Part XI: Stefan Linquist responds to my critique
- The Function Wars Part XII: Revising history and defending ENCODE
- The Function Wars Part XIII: Ford Doolittle writes about transposons and levels of selection
- The function wars are over

1 comment :
The ID article follows the standard ID pattern: it dismisses natural selection as a process that can increase information, without giving any argument or evidence or even saying the words "Natural selection." If you want to be taken seriously when saying that about 99% of biologists are wrong, you need to at least give some reasons! It is like asking a creationist HOW THEY KNOW that Genesis is the word of God, and not just some scribes running their quills. No answer, just silence.
Post a Comment