Insistent, assertive questions nagged Monday night’s speaker, who felt his explanation of the scientific evidence of intelligent design fell upon “deaf ears.”Of course not, dear, that isn't what ID does. Dembski himself likes to say that it isn't a "mechanistic theory." Which in turns means it isn't falsifiable, which means it isn't science.
“I’m just not sure that he presented any proof that intelligent design works,” Lauren Tice, Overland Park sophomore, said. “He didn’t convince me.”
As RSR puts it:
Dembski, who may have been led to expect a warmer reception for his ideas -- he was in Kansas, after all -- seemed to grow testy as questioner after questioner expressed doubt about his assertion that evolution is a failed theory and that patterns in nature are best explained as a result of intelligence.This is why Bush didn't come here, KU students like to think for themselves.
Dembski, who was both expansive and patient early in the question and answer period -- even allowing follow up questions -- became more combative, frequently interrupting questioners to ask them to get more quickly to the point, as it became clear that many in the audience, perhaps a majority, remained unconvinced.