This is a big claim. And it explains why Dembski gets so much attention. Yo=
u
might whip up a bit of applause if you say that a designer can explain
biology. But you'll bring down the house if you say that Darwinism can't an=
d
only a designer can. Especially if this claim gets dressed up in fancy
mathematics of the sort that presumably intimidates biologists but snows th=
e
general reader. And this is precisely how Dembski dresses his claims.
Borrowing results from computing theory—the so-called No Free Lunch=
theorems—
Dembski claims to prove that Darwinism is utterly impotent before organismi=
c
complexity. Hence a designer. Unfortunately, Dembski's proof has nothing
whatsoever to do with Darwinism and his claim to the contrary is hopelessly=

silly.


http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR27.3/orr.html


Now there's a controversy that works!

Silly Dembski, or maybe a crazy genetic engineer, wacky shit regardless.

Max Herman
genius2000.net

++