A Study in ID Duplicity

On April 26, William Dembski posted <a href=http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/26#more-26>this brief essay</A> on his blog. He was responding to allegations that ID proponents routinely quote scientists out of context in making their case.

In his blog entry Dembski focusses on one particular example of this charge. In an essay entitled <a href=http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.04.Five_Questions_Ev.pdf>Five Questions Darwinists Would Rather Dodge</a> (PDF format), posted at his website in April of 2004, Dembski had quoted paleontologist Peter Ward to the effect that the Cambrian explosion poses a serious problem for evolutionary theory.

Shortly after Dembski's essay was posted online, Gary Hurd and Dave Mullinex posted <A HREF=http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000251.html>a detailed reply</a> to Dembski's remarks about the Cambrian explosion. Among other criticisms, Hurd and Mullinex claimed that Dembski had misrepresented Ward's writing. It was this assertion that Dembski was addressing in the blog entry mentioned above.

For me this provided an interesting opportunity. Prior to preapring this blog entry, I had read neither Dembski's original essay nor the reply by Hurd and Mullinex. And I had never heard of Peter Ward. Consequently, I was able to look into this dispute without any preconceived notions. I knew the facts of the situation would be easy enough to obtain, and they would allow me to see for myself whether it was Dembski, or his critics, who were giving me the straight story.

I have posted my findings in <a href=http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2005/05/study-in-id-duplicity.html>this lengthy entry</a> over at <a href=http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com>EvolutionBlog</a>. You'll never guess what I found!