William A. Dembski

(The journal Nature had Brian Charlesworth review my book No Free Lunch in its 11 July 2002 issue. I would repeat the entire article, but copyright restrictions prevent me. The article is available at nature.com to subscribers for free and to nonsubscribers for a fee. I respond to the article here.) One prominent evolutionist I know confided in me that Read More ›

The National School Boards Association enlisted Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch to criticize intelligent design bullet point fashion. Here I want to respond to these bullet-point assertions. I would repeat the entire article, but copyright restrictions prevent me. The article is available at http://nsba.org/sbn/02-jul/070202-8.htm. The article begins by asking whether intelligent design (or ID) has a legitimate place in the Read More ›

his article appeared in a discussion on the topic of intelligent design published in the July/August, 2002 issue of Research News & Opportunities In Science And Theology. Other contributing writers included Karl Giberson, Michael Ruse, Michael Behe, Eugenie Scott, Jonathan Wells, and Robert Pennock. When the Athenian court convicted Socrates for subverting the youth of Athens, he was given the Read More ›

For more information about David Berlinski – his new books, video clips from interviews, and upcoming events – please visit his website at www.davidberlinski.org.     Thanks to Commentary for posting the letters and responses to David Berlinski’s “Has Darwin Met His Match?” These are delightful to read and we encourage you to print them off, find a corner where you Read More ›

Talk delivered at CSICOP’s Fourth World Skeptics Conference in Burbank, California, 21 June 2002, at a discussion titled “Evolution and Intelligent Design.” The participants included ID proponents William Dembski and Paul Nelson as well as evolutionists Wesley Elsberry and Kenneth Miller. Massimo Pigliucci moderated the discussion. This conference focuses on skepticism’s prospects over the next 25 years. I want in Read More ›

1. Preamble

I have many critics. Some are measured and calm. Others are obsessive. Richard Wein is perhaps the most obsessive. His critique of my book No Free Lunch (hereafter NFL) weighs in at 37,000 words and purports to provide the most thorough refutation of my work to date. It certainly is long. But is it thorough and does it succeed in actually refuting my ideas? In fact, the critique fails as a refutation and skirts key issues at every opportunity. It is therefore neither thorough nor a refutation.