A creationist site that talks about cherry picking....that's irony for you.
And one of the authors;
''William Dembski is one of the main pushers of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, specifically his unfalsifiable concept of "specified complexity".
Unusual for a creationist, he does in fact have some actual credentials: a Ph.D in mathematics from the University of Chicago, a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a Masters of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. Now, if only one of those fine institutions recognized Intelligent Design as being anything but an absolute hodgepodge of nonsense, he'd be set
Dembski has written a bunch of convoluted books about intelligent design, including The Design InferenceWikipedia's W.svg (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & TheologyWikipedia's W.svg (1999), The Design RevolutionWikipedia's W.svg (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences. He once held a non-tenured position at Baylor University but was fired for being an all-around jerk (he maintains that he was dismissed in order to discredit or censor the research of his newly-founded Evolutionary Informatics Lab). ''
You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science.
Come on Rich, your reading comprehension is better than that. Read this line again:
Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences.
And, as a matter of logic, they don't have to in order for him to make perfectly valid arguments about and against neo-Darwinism. Dembski's arguments stand or fall on their intrinsic merits (on the accuracy of his facts and the validity of his premises and conclusions), not his academic degrees. Once again, apologists for Neo-Darwinism choose to employ a logical fallacy rather than respond on the merits, constituting yet another concession that they are powerless to defeat the underlying argument.
