One the hallmarks of creationism - and a sign of the dishonesty of creationists - is how they misquote others in creationist writings. Not content to misrepresent science itself, they also insist on misrepresenting real scientists in order to make it appear as though those scientists support creationism and oppose evolution. Apparently, Intelligent Design isn't far different.

Jeffrey Shallit explains at Talk Reason:

Dembski writes [in his latest book, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design]: "According to Arthur Schopenhauer, "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."" The only problem is that Schopenhauer apparently never said this. ... When I saw the quote being touted in a preliminary version of Dembski's book in May 2002, I immediately wrote him and informed him that the quote was very probably specious. He then replied with a three-word message: "Prove me wrong."

But quotations are particularly susceptible to misattribution; there are even two books (Boller and George's They Never Said It, and Keyes' Nice Guys Finish Seventh) devoted to tracking down the original source of quotations. It is, of course, nearly impossible to prove that someone didn't say something. And anyone can invent or misremember a quotation and then find someone to attribute it to. As Ralph Keyes said, "Any quotation that can be altered will be." The burden of proof is on the person hawking the quotation, not the skeptic.

I then referred Dembski to my forthcoming letter to Skeptic magazine (which was published later that year), in which I explained why the Schopenhauer quote was in all likelihood fabricated. Since it was so discredited, I felt sure that Dembski would not use the quote in the published version of his book. So I was astonished to open The Design Revolution and discover that Dembski continues to use the quote, and continues to attribute it to Schopenhauer. The fact that he does so suggests a certain contempt for accuracy incompatible with being a scholar -- no matter how many degrees he has.

Shallit provides several other instances where Dembski misquotes people, all of which serve to support Shallit's conclusion here that Dembski doesn't seem like a person who is all that concerned with being accurate and acts with contempt towards some of the most basic ethical values of real scholarship. You don't suppose that this bears any relation to his insistence on defending so-called "Intelligent" Design, do you?

Read More:

• Evolution vs. Creationism
• What is Creationism?
• What is Intelligent Design?
• What is Science?