Uncommon Dissent II

By Jason Rosenhouse

In my previous discussions of William Dembski’s anthology Uncommon Dissent I addressed Dembski’s intruduction and the contribution from Robert Koons. I argued both contained numerous errors and misrepresentations, and neither provided anything worth considering seriously.

Those were very bad essays, but they provided nothing to raise the heartbeat of an experienced ID consumer like myself. They contained the normal level of preening, arrogance, and stupidity that I have come to expect from the ID’s. It seemed a pity. I mean, not only are the ID’s not producing anything new in the way of scientific arguments, but now it seems they have run out of underhanded rhetorical tricks as well.

Then I read the contribution by Edward Sisson. After about three pages I was longing for the wit and erudition of Koons and Dembski.

Over at <A HREF=http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com>EvolutionBlog</A> I have posted four (!!) replies to various aspects of Sisson’s essay.

Part one is available <A HREF=http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2004/07/sisson-part-one.html>here</A>. Part two is available <A HREF=http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2004/07/sisson-part-two.html>here</A>. Part three is available <A HREF=http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2004/07/sisson-part-three.html>here</A>. Part four is available <A HREF=http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2004/08/sisson-part-four.html>here</A>.

I feel like these four posts barely scratch the surface of all that is wrong with Sisson’s essay. Enjoy!