The argument just keeps rumbling on …
|August 25, 2009||Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design||
A curious piece was posted a few days back by Ewen Callaway at the New Scientist (go here). Its focus was on the recent IEEE paper by Robert Marks and me on conservation of information (for the paper, go here). Callaway remarks: “Even if a paper supporting ID has made it past peer review — and no doubt the arguments will rumble on — it seems like nothing much has changed.”
Callaway and his colleagues are welcome to hide their heads in the sand and pretend that nothing has changed. But at the next Dover trial, as the body of peer-reviewed work supporting ID continues to grow (Marks and I have plenty in the pipeline, and there are other labs now getting into the act), it will no longer be possible for the next Judge Jones to dismiss ID for lack of peer-reviewed papers (even at the Dover trial, Jones was mistaken to claim that no peer-reviewed work supports ID).
Nothing much has changed when a camel first starts sticking its nose into a tent. And nothing much has changed just at the moment something begins to slide down a slipperly slope. Nothing much has changed when a virulent bug first invades a body. But soon enough everything has changed.