Why intelligent design fails: Introduction

My heartfelt thanks to all the contributors of this volume. --WmAD

Hi Bill, good to hear that you appreciate the hard work by these contributors. I assume that their comments have been largely responsible for you realizing that "No Free Lunch" was lacking the essential details to be useful in any scientific manner?
Your recent attempts to formalize some of the concepts is admirable and with the help of your critics I am sure we may be able to get the mathematics right this time but there is a problem that does not seem to go away easily namely the criticisms by critics and even some ID proponents that the explanatory filter is unsuitable for inferring new design (Del Ratzsch, Elsberry and Wilkins and others).

Serious question for Mr. Dembski:

I've glanced at the discussions by you, your critics, and your supporters. While I'm not an expert in biology or math, I don't see any evidence that your ID efforts have contributed anything to the sciences. We all have to decide what's worth paying attention to, lest we waste our time on unimportant ideas. So I don't yet see any reason to read your books. But perhaps in the future your 'program' will become successful, important, and interesting. I don't expect it will, but it's at least a possibility. Could you suggest how I might know when this happens? What condition or event should alert me that your set of ideas now merits attention and study? Since everyone can't run around analysing every claim, we rely on circumstantial evidence, respected scientific bodies, fellow scientists, etc. to help us sort out the information worth giving attention. What indicator like this will ID achieve?

RE: Steve's serious question.

It's a very good question, and I'm wondering the same thing on behalf of school systems being pressured to incorporate "intelligent design".

My heartfelt thanks to all the contributors to this volume. May you write many more essays and books against intelligent design. --WmAD

I can't believe how much I'm posting here. Sorry for the repeat, but my IE program didn't refresh, and so I thought my first post didn't take. At any rate, keep up the good work y'all. --Bill

We all have to decide what's worth paying attention to, lest we waste our time on unimportant ideas. So I don't yet see any reason to read your books.[]/quote]

Wait a minute. I have a serious question too.

Are you saying, steve, (given some of the remarks you've made concerning Dembski and other ID advocates in previous posts), that you've NEVER actually read any of Dembski's books at all?

FL

I just got a book named Kicking the Scared Cow, by James P. Hogan out of the library. It's a collection of heavily spun essays promoting various crank theories over mainstream science, and section one is entitled "Humanistic Religion: The Rush to Embrace Darwinism". I won't consider all his attacks on evolution in detail, I'll bet they'll be keeping talk origins busy for some time, but at the end of the section he brings up Behe and Dembski. And here he says "The response of the evolutionists to these kinds of revalations has been almost complete silence". (page 49) Now this list of books you give above puts the lie to this statement; Hogan's book is copyrighted 2004 so he has no excuse for not considering them. A couple of other statements I have found are equally false, so it disturbs me that this book, which is nicely presented by Simon and Shuster and carries the Dewey Decimal number 500 is going to be a source of falsehood for the public for years to come.

In the centuries past it was difficult to distinguish crank science from real science as most practitioners themselves had no idea of the difference. To play loose with Steve Weinberg (who commented so "pithyly") Newton was not the first great scientist but the last great alchemist. Maxwell in his own way believed in mysterious forces guiding the phenomena he studied and this was about 120 years ago. But then those days scientific work was the pursuit of the aristocracy and the idle rich. with the emergence of the modern university and a liberal state apparatus we have gradually seen a more efficient and sensible allocation of resources in favor of people who follow the scientific method which Victor Stenger tells us is nothing esoteric but the most natural thing to do. Unfortunately the State continues to use certain fiscal mechanisms that still favor those with lots of money but little objectivity. So charitable contributions can equally help set up a fine institution like the Howard Hughes Institute and a questionable ones that spin out crank theories.

P.Hogan works in a free market. Got to bear. But Hey Jude - don't feel bad - need a laugh read Hogan

A couple of other statements I have found are equally false, so it disturbs me that this book, which is nicely presented by Simon and Shuster and carries the Dewey Decimal number 500 is going to be a source of falsehood for the public for years to come.

My heartfelt thanks to all the contributors to this volume. May you write many more essays and books against intelligent design.

— William Dembski

In contrast, ID has generated . . . nothing.

I think Ian is being a little harsh here.

While it's true ID has proven something of a dry hole with respect to medicine and science, it's been a real gusher for right-wing politics - at least here in the USA. It's galvanized armies of fundamentalists to support sympathetic and/or pandering politicians from the school-board to the White House, and opened serious cracks in that pesky wall of church-state separation that liberals are always hiding behind.

Yeah, I think he meant, nothing worth a shit.

Seriously, though, it has generated a large number of humorous things, and laughter is a great thing in life. From grad students telling biology professors they aren't qualified to discuss evolution, to Kent Hovind's PhD thesis in which Hitler is conflated with Shintoism, to nitwits who allege that thousands of scientists, professors, dozens of Nobel Laureates, and hundreds of journal editors, in dozens of countries, have been peer-pressured into supporting science which is untrue, has no real practical use, and is also a religion, btw.

That's good stuff.

I still can't believe you are so quick to offer harsh criticism of ID and specifically of Dr. Dembski (August 10, in case you've forgotten), and yet you have never even actually read any of Dembski's books, steve.

That does not make sense to me.

FL

FL: You may have a valid point if 1) Dembski's work was only accessible online 2) Dembski's work had not received wide scrutiny and rejection by science. Of course I would agree with you that for a first hand understanding of Dembski's arguments, his books are important but there are many other online articles in which Dembski makes his arguments and claims.
Nor does it take one to read Dembski to realize that ID has so far generated nothing of much scientific relevance or interest.

We've been told that you'd need at least a PhD in math to even hope to understand the Great Dembski. Why bother to spend the years it's going to take to gather all that training, to be able to understand a "proof" that 2 + 2 = 3?

In contrast, ID has generated . . . nothing. I think Ian is being a little harsh here.

— Russell

As has been pointed out by, among others, Eugenie Scott, Intelligent Design can propose, and has, testable claims - Irreducible Complexity being one. It remains a fact, however, that Intelligent Design's central claim - that a supernatural Deity is the Designer in question - is not Scientifically testable.

If Intelligent Design is to stand or fall on the strength of IC claims for Bacterial flagella, immune systems, and Blood clotting cascades, I would suggest that it is in free fall as we type.

To be fair, it's much easier to pursue science when you don't care what answer you get from nature. The ID folks, to the extent they are willing to put their ideas to experiemental test, have settled in advance on one very specific hypothesis. In effect they have risked all their chips on a sucker bet. You might say that the scientists are betting on the red numbers or the the black numbers while the ID people are betting on 42, but it's worse than that. The scientists are just betting the ball will land someplace. The ID people are betting on a number that probably isn't even on the wheel.

Of course I would agree with you that for a first hand understanding of Dembski's arguments, his books are important but there are many other online articles in which Dembski makes his arguments and claims.

FL:
it turns out that Dembski had a LOT more to say, some good specific counter-responses to FSS's claims that somehow, just somehow, Barbara Forrest either missed or . . . just . . . didn't . . . want . . . to . . . talk . . . about.

Whoa! There's a surprise! Dembski doesn't concede an inch to his critics! Apparently this counter-response is "good" and "specific" in your view. But how come we can't find a single mathematician to validate Dembski's work?

Do I have to read the "Left Behind" books to fairly decide I don't want to read the "Left Behind" books? I don't think so. (That's why God designed book reviewers.)

Tell you what: if you can show me one mathematician, not affiliated with the Discovery Institute, who publicly endorses Dembski's work, I'll check a copy out of the library.

For something that generates "nothing of much scientific relevance or interest", I can't help noticing the ~massive~ reams of paper and bandwidth that you guys (and your favorite authors) continue churning out constantly on this subject and on its various aspects, scientific and otherwise. Hmmm. Where there's smoke, there's fire . . . .

— FL

It is those same groups that are likely to follow Dembski because he says what they want to hear and talks above most of their heads.

Not that he would have to as one of my creationist friends has said to me before "I don't want to know about it if it would cast doubt on my beliefs". She openly admits she'd rather hear lies that support her beliefs then facts that cast doubts on them.

I had an extended comment on Dembski's NFL response to Fitelson et alia just about ready to post. Then I discovered that a dog knocking the "ESC" key can wipe the text composition area completely clear without a chance of recovery.

So here's the brief version. Dembski critiques the alternative method Fitelson et alia offer, but ignores the specific criticisms they made of his methods. In two notes, Dembski references Fitelson et alia. One is false claim that Fitelson et alia only offered a likelihood analysis, which ignores all those pesky criticisms of Dembski's methods -- again. The other note essentially concedes the point Fitelson et alia made concerning Dembski's EF and "sweeping the field clear" of chance hypotheses, then makes the incredibly weak rejoinder that the EF could be fallible just like any other procedure in empirical inquiry. Unfortunately, Dembski's claim on page 6 of NFL contradicts this construal of the EF as a tentative and fallible procedure.

There's loads of stuff remaining in Fitelson et alia that Dembski hasn't yet taken cognizance of, much less offered an effective rebuttal to. Just because Dembski bloviates for six pages at a whack doesn't render the content a "good specific counter-response". Did Forrest and Gross miss some stuff? If so, it isn't attributed in the index of NFL.

Well, PvM, I would think it would be reasonable for a Dembski critic to go ahead and upgrade to a "first hand understanding of Dembski's arguments" by reading his books, prior to laying down harsh criticism. It is, as you said, important.

— FT

Finally, you also said, "Nor does it take one to read Dembski to realize that ID has so far generated nothing of much scientific relevance or interest. For something that generates "nothing of much scientific relevance or interest", I can't help noticing the ~massive~ reams of paper and bandwidth that you guys (and your favorite authors) continue churning out constantly on this subject and on its various aspects, scientific and otherwise. Hmmm. Where there's smoke, there's fire . . . .

— FT

So while it's natural, I suppose, for you to claim or suggest that "science" has examined and rejected Dembski, the honest reality is that, outside of PT, the great debate is still going on, even between scientists, and the jury is still out, concerning ID and its advocates such as Dembski.

— FT

Hmm. FL, have you read the Fitelson et alia paper? If so, where in NFL is Dembski's "good specific counter-response" to Fitelson et alia's critique of the TRACT and DELIM conditions? If not, how would you know whether Demsbki had a "good specific counter-response" other than just taking it as given that anything Dembski said that referenced Fitelson et alia must simply settle the issue?

FT seems to believe that the amount of postings on PT are somehow indicative of the success of Intelligent Design. PT is a forum in which a large number of contributors provide analysis of exciting new fossils, research etc relevant to evolution. In addition PT spends some (significant) time exposing the many fallacies and errors in the ID arguments. Point in case Dembski's latest paper. Various posters commented on Dembski's 'response' to critics finding flaws in his paper or showing how his paper is mostly re-inventing the wheel.

Showing the flaws in ID hardly means that ID is a scientifically viable idea or that it has contributed to scientific knowledge. There is just no positive hypothesis of ID, there are no non-trivial scientific contributions that follow from Intelligent Design. Scientifically speaking ID is meaningless now that its foundations have been shown to be without much merrit.

Pim, I look at evolutionists discussing ID kind of like civil engineers discussing the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

Which I also didn't read a book about.

Tell you what: if you can show me one mathematician, not affiliated with the Discovery Institute, who publicly endorses Dembski's work, I'll check a copy out of the library.

b) Dembski's response to Tom Schneider regarding his evolutionary algorithm and such

— FT

F& G are good with polemic, but it's clear they were willing to not engage Dembski's response to FSS. Elsberry's post at least shows awareness and some engagement, far better than F&G. Again, just my opinion, but if you read those books, you might agree. Or not.

1. A strong desire for high achievement. 2. An object of such desire; an ambition.

Just one other item. Dembski also discusses Elsberry on a few pages of NFL and TDR.

Not trying to start debating some more, but reading those critiques increases my motivation to go check out, to go READ, Elsberry's chapter in "Why Intelligent Design Fails" so I can see what he is saying.

Because, after all, I want to know for myself what each side is saying. I don't want to rely on secondhand info for either Dembski or Elsberry or others.

Imo, there is so much to be explored here, back and forth, which author or writer said what in response to what, charting the different back and forth arguments and responses. Could make for a wonderful life hobby.

FL

Not trying to start debating some more, but reading those critiques increases my motivation to go check out, to go READ, Elsberry's chapter in "Why Intelligent Design Fails" so I can see what he is saying.

— FL

"Could make for a wonderful life hobby."

Yes, indeed. Unfortunately, I have rather a lot of work to do for a living, so I'm still waiting for one competent critic to tell me there's anything worth spending my time on in Dr. Dembski's output. (Especially since, apparently, none but the finest math minds have the slightest chance of grasping it.) So, FL, have you found that critic for me?

Okay a few references

Forrest and Gross discuss Fitelson, Stephens and Sober's "How not to detect design" on p 132-135. Forrest and Gross focus on Dembski's response which was posted on his website (five pages). So the first observation is that FT may have missed what F&G were critiquing, it was not the NFL response but Dembski's reply to FSS posted on his own website. F&G urge the reader to read Dembski's Design Inference and FSS side by side to understand the flaws in Dembski's claims.
No Free Lunch is addressed only indirectly on pages 117-118 since it was being released while they were writing their own book.

Oh, I might add, I've never commented on NFL. Obviously, I have no opinion on it. The comments I have made apply only to the writings I've seen on the web - which demonstrate to me the guy has nothing useful, interesting, maybe even correct, to say about biology.

The author of comment 6470 (writing under a moniker FL) gives an advice to Dembski's critics - "first read and then criticize." A reasonable advice except for being preposterously immaterial. FL praises Wesley Elsberry as allegedly the only Dembski's critic who has read Dembski's work. What a nonsense - besides Elsberry, many other Dembski's critics have thoroughly studied Dembski's arguments (and found them faulty). I don't know who, as FL asserts, has indeed been criticizing Dembski without first having read what Dembski had to offer in his multiple publications. I, for one, have perhaps read more of Dembski than he deserves and criticized his output in many details, and so did others. I my view, all Dembski's attempts to respond to Schneider, Orr, or to Sober et al (as well as to Wein or Erik) failed. As to my critical comments, Dembski has never addressed them in any substantial way, although lately he started mentioning my name day in and day out, but still avoiding any discussion of substance. I am afraid FL himself should follow his advice and familiarize himself with the publications in point before reproaching their authors for allegedly not having read Dembski.

I wonder, also, if FL is aware that Dr. Elsberry's paying job involves taking out the garbage, so to speak, that accumulates around the topic of evolution. For which I'm grateful.

(Still waiting for that one competent favorable critique...)

This refusal to at least "read first" is what I find puzzling.

"So, in summary, first, the usual objections to design do not actually establish impermissibility. Second, design does not seem to violate the basic ceteris paribus conditions. Third, there are some scientifically relevant positive considerations for at least permitting exploration of the possibility of design in nature within the scientific context. And fourth, there are at least some possible payoffs from permitting discussion of design in science. Of course, those possibilities may never pay off---empirical investigation may not ultimately tell in their favor. But even if so, it should not be forgotten that that the medium in which science now swims may itself consist of unacknowledged design payoffs."

I do not wish to play down or denigrate what Dembski has done. There is much of value in The Design Inference. But I think that some aspects of even the limited task Dembski set for himself still remain to be tamed.

Often I am a bit behind Dembski's publication as he is a hard worker (he also repeats himself ad nauseum). It also slows me down as I always wait for a used or remaindered copy of his latest opus. But, to date, I am embarassed to admit to have read the following (without finding any merit):

Behe, Michael J., William Dembski, Stephen C. Meyer (Editors)
1999 Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe: Wethersfield Institute Proceedings. San Francisco: Ignatius Press

Dembski, William
1994 "On The Very Possibility of Intelligent Design" in The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for the Intelligent Designer, J. P. Moreland, (ed). Downers Grove, IL:InterVarsity Press

_______
1998a "The Explanatory Filter: A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design" © Leadership University 2002
http://www.origins.org/articles/dembski_explanfilter.html

_______
1998b The Design Inference - Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

_______
1998c "Introduction" in Mere Creation Dembski (ed). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press

_______
1999 Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Religion. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press

_______
2002. No Free Lunch. Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

_____ , James M. Kushiner (editors)
2001 Signs of Intelligence Grand Rapids: Brazos Press (Baker Books)

____
2004 "The Design Revolution" Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press

(I was just looking around the office, and I couldn't find "No Free Lunch" or "The Design Inference" and I won't be buying anymore copies).

Just go get a copy of F&G from the library, find the page where they mention FSS's essay, then compare their comments to Dembski's FSS response in NFL,then you will see how much got left out of F&G for whatever reason.

— FT

Quoting Del RatzshL I do not wish to play down or denigrate what Dembski has done. There is much of value in The Design Inference. But I think that some aspects of even the limited task Dembski set for himself still remain to be tamed.

— FL

"That Dembski is not employing the robust, standard, agency-derived conception of design that most of his supporters and many of his critics have assumed seems clear."

— Del Ratzsch

I think that some are certainly too far in the materialist direction, and they claim that science backs them up on that. ID can at least serve a 'keeping em' honest' function, even if nothing else. I think that ID may very well have things to offer science, but I think that it is too early for ID to claim that it has done so. I don't think that it is just obvious that ID will contribute substantively to science, but I think it has that potential, and that it should be pushed as far as it can be made to legitimately go.

And now it sounds as if you don't have a copy of The Design Revolution, 'cause now you're asking me to offer snips from his "Aspirations" chapter.

— FL

I don't know who, as FL asserts, has indeed been criticizing Dembski without first having read what Dembski had to offer in his multiple publications.

When Ratzsch's book appeared I was the first to post a review of it (a positive one). The quotation from Ratzsch given by FL is from the concluding sentences of the Appendix to Ratzsch's book (in my view, a good book, very favorably differing from what ID advocates usually deliver). It is quite obvious that the phrase about Dembski's having done much good, is just a device to soften the blow inflicted by the preceding quite strong refutation of Dembski's EF. Ratzsch is himself a "design theorist' so, having pointed to the faults in Dembski's discourse he just had to somehow soften the blow thus showing that, despite his critique of Dembski (and of Johnson in his earlier book) he still remains a fathful soldier for ID. Hence the bow in Dembski's address. What actually shows his opinion of Dembski's work is the stuff preceding the concluding sentences quoted by FL.

The ambitious program offered by Dembski, coupled with his incessant claims that Darwinim is dead or, at best, dying, reflect the ID crowd's fantasies - there are no signs that their program has a chance of being really implemented insofar as science is concerned.

FL - yes, I have seen the stuff described in "aspirations" #1 - 5", and it reminds me why I've never been tempted to read the book:

#1 - CSI strikes me as silly, and I can't find a competent mathematician or biologist who says otherwise

#2 - I've seen enough of Dembski's and his friends' "applications to biological systems" to know they're ludicrous

#3 - Is going to require some knowledge of biology - (see #2 above)

#4 & 5 - I see no reason to believe will ever be anything more than creationist pipe dreams.

FL insists that outside of Panda's Thumb, an ongoing debate about ID rages on in the scientific community.

I have to wonder: Where exactly is this debate taking place?

As a biologist/ecologist, I attend symposia, conferences, workshops, and trainings; my job requires me to work very closely with a wide variety of life-scientists from a number of fields; I try as best I can to stay up to date by perusing the professional literature; and from time to time I even get to attend some continuing education programs.

But I have yet to see anything that even remotely resembles a "debate" over ID. In fact, offhand I can't recall a single instance where ID has even been mentioned.

Yet evolutionary theory plays a key role in much of what I do. The evolutionary relationships between ecosystem components and their evolutionary history all factor into the decision-making process. The roles of various types of selection are very key in understanding the current state of certain species. And information about mutational effects are very important in my field.

So again, where is this debate?

Ah, but I recently attended church and listened to a sermon wherein ID was mentioned quite regularly. And it wasn't too far from here (Darby, MT) where ID was debated at local school board meetings. And I hear grumblings from state legislatures about giving "equal time" to ID in high school classrooms.

Thus it seems the "debate" FL refers to isn't taking place in the scientific community, but is instead taking place in the socio-political arena. And that by itself is a good indicator of exactly what ID is, and what it isn't.

When ID starts playing a valuable, informative role in what I do, I'll consider it from a scientific POV. But as long as it is content to remain in the socio-political realm, I treat it accordingly.

Is that unreasonable FL?

I'll accept that F&G weren't really tuned in to Dembski's NFL response to FSS because NFL was just happening as F&G got their stuff out. Still, I think F&G's strong point is just pointing out the "wedge" aspects in a polemic manner, NOT trying to give an evenhanded understanding of the arguments/responses of each side.

— FL

PvM, I notice you didn't address Ratzsch's first quotation there (would you do so?) but nevertheless you also do say that "I also agree that intelligent design may have some scientific relevance but Behe/Dembski so far do little to further such a position." Agree on the first half of that quote, disagree on the second half, but glad you said it all the same. At least there's a bit of middle ground in there somewhere.

— FL

Interesting shark analogy, GWW. I'll keep it in mind on my next fishing trip. Not entirely sure what relevance it has

Update: Dembski's No Free Lunch does not address the criticisms raised by FSS but rather the alternative method proposed by FSS. In other words, Dembski did not address AFAICT the major shortcomings detailed by FSS in Dembski's explanatory filter but focused on FSS's alternative method which they claim is a better one. Dembski objects to Sober placing demands on the design hypothesis which are unlikely to be met by ID. That such demands are necessary has been detailed by Gedanken on the ISCID forums.

In the spirit of beating dead horses, here's another analogy for FL, :

Suppose it's 1930 or so. Some Guy has just written a book that purports to show that this new theoretical breakthrough called General Relativity shows that, in fact, Galileo, Copernicus, et al. were wrong, and that it turns out the bible was right all along! Your interest is piqued - so you look up what Albert Einstein has to say about it. He says, basically, so far as he can tell Some Guy's argument is meaningless. Meanwhile, you find out that Some Guy is an avid proponent of a cult that believes no scientific worldview can ever be complete without acknowledging the centrality of Mary Baker Eddy. Are you remiss in devoting your limited spare time to projects you deem more productive? Are you required to read Some Guy's book before objecting to a movement that aims to incorporate it into your kids' science curriculum? Are you ethically bound not to criticize anything Some Guy says until you've given his book a thorough read?

Some Guy also fails to publish his theory in the scientific literature; When he does publish in Mary Baker Eddy's journal, and the publications are called failures even by some of his sympathizers, he announces that he will fill in all the blanks soon.

PvM, the copy I had of F&G is back in the library. I remember their comments (and lack of comments) regarding Dembski vs FSS, but no, I don't remember page numbers or each sentence. I was offering the gist of it from memory.

— FL

For example, I read Barbara Forrest's book the other month, the one you recommended above. (How hard is it to go to a library and read somebody's book and get yo' stuff firsthand, steve?) I read how, in her view, Fitelson Stephens and Sober had come up with these killer objections to Dembski, and how Dembski could only come up with suggesting that FSS 'didn't get it' (her phrasing). To read her comments in her book, Dembski could do no better than that. End of discussion; Dembski loses again. But then I went to Dembski's book (NFL) to actually see what he said about FSS's arguments.

— FL

Richard's approach to antievolution claims is sound: no matter how reasonable-sounding the claim, check the original source. I regret not performing that bit of follow-through with the claim concerning Forrest and Gross, who have proven time and again to have solid scholarship behind their criticisms.

Section 2.10 of NFL mentions Sober several times, but I have found no mention, even uncited, of Fitelson et alia. I specifically linked my synopsis to items that Dembski actually put in the index of NFL.

You're right, Wesley. I'm afraid I was confusing the critique by Sober alone with the critique jointly authored by Fitelson, Stephens and Sober.

=Dick Thompson]I just got a book named Kicking the Scared Cow, by James P. Hogan out of the library.  It's a collection of heavily spun essays promoting various crank theories over mainstream science, and section one is entitled "Humanistic Religion: The Rush to Embrace Darwinism".

BTW, here's Hogan's website. Try reading his bulliten board to get a taste of the nuttery.

Hogan isn't just an anti-darwinist, he's also a relativity denier, a global warming denier, a Big Bang denier, an HIV/AIDS denier, and a Velikovskian. In short, he's never met a pseudoscience he didn't like.

— Steve Reuland

Note also on Hogan's "evolution" book list is the mandatory reference to Michael Denton's "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis" (1985) but no sign of "Nature's Destiny" (1998) where Denton admits common descent.

I didn't read everything on Hogan's site, but I found no reference to YEC - no approvals or refutations.

— Frank J.

Having said that, I ought to add that I don't have any problem with Creationism--as I see it properly defined. Scientists and much of the media treat the term as synonymous with "Biblical literalist," a needlessly narrow sense, seemingly adopted for the sole purpose of setting it up to be attacked. A broader view would see it simply as not ruling out the possibility of some kind of guiding intelligence at work behind the complexities that we see, which is not at all incompatible with creation over an extended time, i.e. evolution.