Van Till said this of Dembski's book --=20
"lots of smoke (obfuscation by introducing
new and technical terminology ad infinitum; using familiar words in =
and rapidly changing ways) and mirrors (making things seem different =
what they are), making the conclusions highly incredible."
A friend of mine said:=20
"I wonder if this guy [Van Till] thinks the Pythagorean Theorem is smoke =
and mirrors. I
wonder if he's ever heard of the word "axiom" or "definition" or =
Doesn't sound like it. The title of the book is in reference to a
collection of mathematical THEOREMS (proven in isolation from Dembski by
other mathematicians with no interest in creation and evolution), not
wishful confusing conjectures that this man is probably more use to. =
would be much more engaging would be if this man could dismantle =
mathematical work, instead of trying to tarnish its effectiveness by
misrepresenting it as a confusing religious or philosophical work."
I have now been informed that "Howard made some general criticisms of a =
book" and that my friend "did not respond to those criticisms but only =
made snide remarks about the critic."
It appears to me that Van Till's "criticism" of Dembski only consists of =
snide remarks about the logical and mathematical abilities of Dembski. =
My friend addressed Van Till's "criticism" by pointing out that Van Till =
would be more gainfully employed in actually dismantling Dembski's =
mathematical work rather than in willful misrepresentation of it. Van =
Till's qualifications should be apparent in his statements and not by =
the number of letters attached to his name.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 10 2002 - 11:20:03 EDT