Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List

subscribe to our mailing list:


Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes


Serious Notions with a Smile


Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site


[Write a Reply] [Letters Index]

Title Author Date
Argument from artificial selection TalkReason , Jul 06, 2007
We have posted Lee Bowman's letter, wherein he defends the output of Phillip Johnson, tries to justify Behe's hurling mud at Judge Jones, and asserts that ID is science in which research is going on. Bowman pretends to be a thoughtful observer of the ID vs. evolution debate. However, a brief investigation reveals that Bowman is an active member of the crowd behind the rabidly pro-ID website Uncommon Descent, which is one of Dembski's outlets (where one of Bowman's colleagues is such an odious figure as DaveScot, and where Dembski stooped to such devices as attacking Judge Jones by utilizing the sounds of flatulence). In other words, Bowman is a hard-core ID-type creationist, an acolyte of Dembski and a participant in a notorious blog known for intolerance to critique and use of extremely rude and contemptible methods of "debate." It is common knowledge that on the Uncommon Descent blog every comment lacking admiration for Dembski and ID is promptly erased. Unlike Bowman and friends, who do not allow any critical word to appear at their site, Talk Reason is not afraid of publishing Bowman's letter. Still, Bowman has his own outlet where he can defend Johnson, attack Judge Jones, and admire ID "science," Behe, and Dembski, rather than sending his deceptively "thoughtful" letters to Talk Reason, where he surely knows his views will make most readers only shrug. As to a detailed response to the assertions made by Bowman in his letter, they have been debunked more than once before, including many posts on Talk Reason and on the Panda's Thumb blog, so we see no need to rebut every unsubstantiated notion in Bowman's letter one more time in this brief comment to his letter.
Related Articles: Professor Jerry Coyne addresses Michael Behe's reply to Coyne's review of Behe's new book