Which to go golfing with? Oh, I think that’s an easy one–Dembski! After all, you can be pretty sure his methodology will never lead to a birdie or an eagle. In fact, you’ll probably find that bogeys are par for his course.

Though Rick tried to excavate ID’s claim to science, I never could get a handle on Dembski’s arguments to establish ID as a science. His downgrading of the critical science term of “predictions” to “expectations” was, probably, an expected prediction for most around here. ["ID apologist", nice one BA.] His “two prongs” for ID did not come out in the discussion, at least for me.

Shermer was much easier to understand and his points presented the definition of science well enough to help clarifiy the pertinent differences and conflicts between it and ID.

Overall, I would be hard pressed to tell you who I would choose to go golfing with me of the three. Hmmmm…it would be an interesting foursome.

I was also disappointed that Dembski was allowed to talk about ID as a “theory” on a par with scientific theories. This would have been a good opportunity to make the distinction between scientific theories and the way we use the word day to day.

1) His heavy reliance on name-dropping to bolster his points. While it’s nice to have credentials, they are not necessarily good arguments. Just because a bunch of PhDs and authors support his point, does not make them right.

2) He weirdly downplays his association with the Discovery Institute and its aims. Either he represents them or he doesn’t. His attempt to make it look like they wrote the Wedge document just to get money from crazy fundies is particularly disingenuous.

3) In order to sound rational, he posits a “designer” that bears very little resemblance to the standard definition of god. He’s very hazy on the subject of whether the designer is natural or supernatural and seems to want to have it both ways. I think Michael Shermer hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that that Dembski’s “designer” is really just a human with more powers.

4) The interviewer brings up the Wedge document in order to point out that the Discovery Institute’s avowed goal is to cut down science at its “weakest points” in order to fight against “materialist” culture. Dembski claims to have had nothing to do with the document (!) then recites some quotations to the effect that Darwinism has given atheists ammunition to hound all religion out of science and culture. In other words, they’re out to get us as much as we’re out to get them. Perhaps, but this is not an argument against Darwinism.

Good luck to Mr. Shermer, this will be a tough one!

How’s that for an exact prediction! I should quickly apply for the JREF prize