Really though I don’t know why I’m arguing this at all; unless because it is annoying when people challenge you on beliefs you don’t hold. Or maybe because I can’t get out of lab for long enough to take part in a real discussion :-).

Face it - you put the post up because you thought it was funny, for reasons that are purely speculative.

And I’m sure Don is very appreciative for “generously” allowing us to have our own opinion. I know I am. LOL

Oh, I’m sure it is simply coincidence that you posted this, your snarky comment, and your hat tip to dembski’s blog because you don’t share his conclusion.

Yeah, I’m sure.

Oh, come! Don’t be ridiculous. The article itself may or may not be relevant to ID– from reading the abstract, I assumed it wasn’t. If I had thought it was I would have definitely made it a priority to read the whole thing; as it is, I have yet to do so. Do you really want to keep arguing this? It’s far more interesting to talk about real issues then the hypothetical beliefs of other people– especially if they are purely fictional.

As far as the hat tip– that is simply blogging etiquitte, when you write on something you first read elsewhere, and it implies no endorsement. Dembski is entitled to his own views; really I don’t feel responsible for them anymore than I feel responsible for yours.

Oh, I’m sure it is simply coincidence that you posted this, your snarky comment, and your hat tip to dembski’s blog because you don’t share his conclusion.

Yeah, I’m sure.

PvM– I’m having trouble seeing both a) how the excerpt you gave relates to ID and b) how it is poking fun at anything. Care to elaborate?

Well, Dembski argued that the prime numbers in the movie contact could help explain how a design inference would work. If you read the paper, you will find some other gems…
Seems however that Dembski considers the paper relevant to ID. I guess these must be desperate times :-)

To recap: While it may be tempting to jump to the conclusion given by Dembski and repeated on this blog that the change was one made by the peer reviewers, the actual evidence seems to lack support one way or another.
Furthermore, I fail to see why a disclaimer like this is relevant, other than that it precluded IDers from claiming that this work ’supports intelligent design’.

Then why did you waste everyone’s time by posting it?

Oh, it wasn’t for you– to whom I have generously allowed your own opinion– but for the others who, like me, would find it funny; perhaps just because it is such a humorous example of what we face on a regular basis.

The point stands, but I don’t classify it under “worth trying to convince the half-dozen people who count it a point of honor to disagree”. There are more interesting things to argue with you all about. :-)

Then why did you waste everyone’s time by posting it? The entire point of your post is summarized here:

Question: Which sentence was introduced by the peer-reviewers?

Of course there’s a subtext here, in that you’re implying that the folks who wrote the paper really are supportive of ID (Dembski was much less subtle in making that point) and had to pretend not to in order to get it published.

There’s even less basis for that deduction than there is for the originally unsupportable assumption you made in the first place.

But discussing the assumptions that might go into that ‘educated guess’ strikes me as a bit trivial and not worth spending time on; if you honestly come to different conclusions, you are welcome to them.

Dan– Sorry about that; it is unstuck now. Definitely there are plenty of other aspects of the article that might be looked at; I didn’t get much further than the abstract.

But I wouldn’t say that “not reaching any conclusions” necessarily sets it off from other articles; it seems a majority carefully avoid reaching any decisive conclusion for fear they might be wrong.

PvM– I’m having trouble seeing both a) how the excerpt you gave relates to ID and b) how it is poking fun at anything. Care to elaborate?