Comments on: Steve Barr (scientist and Christian!) on ID. Bill Dembski (nobody!) in reply.

By: John Farrell

John Farrell — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:23:47 +0000

Well said, Mike. I think Dembski’s self-serving antics are becoming too much even for the magazines that used to be sympathetic to ‘specified complexity’.

Look for him to ask Ann Coulter to attack Barr in her next column.

By: Noreen Qureshi

Noreen Qureshi — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:30:50 +0000

It is pretty unfortunate that these two professionals have resorted to arguing (including bashing one another publicly through their blog posts) instead of progressing productive debate.

However, whichever side you agree with, Steve Barr’s posting on his blog has been criticized as being too general and unclear by others in the blogging community. To get a better understanding of his argument, I would recommend reading his book, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith.

By: Michael Fugate

Michael Fugate — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:22:15 +0000

They cannot participate in science because they are unwilling to operationally define their terms. Meyer, for instance, hypothesizes in his recent book that the information needed to produce the first cell was provided by an intelligent designer. He never provides valid, reliable and consistent definitions of design, intelligent design, information, functional information, specific information, complexity, irreducible complexity, etc. If you can’t define your variables, you can’t do science.