William Dembski

Uncommon Descent began in the summer of 2005 as my personal blog. Before that, I had a personal website, designinference.com. The latter site began in 2002 and was a place for my longer writings. But by 2005, blogging was the rage, and I jumped in with both feet at Uncommon Descent. The very name was at once a play on Darwin’s idea of common descent, but also a play on descent being a homophone of dissent. In 2004, I had edited an anthology for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute titled Uncommon Dissent, so the name Uncommon Descent tied in with my then current interests and activities. And it clearly called to mind that living organisms have an origin beyond the naturalistic causes of Darwinism, indeed, Read More ›

I’d like to follow-up on Barry Arrington’s announcement of UD’s 10th birthday. When I started UD 10 years ago to the day (April 15, 2005), I wasn’t sure what I was getting into. Blogging was fairly new at the time. Moreover, I had a strong preference that my best writing efforts should go into longer sustained arguments as appear in articles and books. Still, it was a time of ferment for ID. The Kitzmiller-Dover trial was gearing up. Interest in media for intelligent design was high. I had lots of speaking engagements. And I was curious how much influence a blog might have. If I had to say the best thing that’s come out of UD, it’s the camaraderie of Read More ›

First off, let me say that I would be delighted if green technologies could be made to work and could account for much of our energy (leaving aside the politics and powertrip that seem to lure many who push green technologies). That said, these technologies have consistently underperformed in relation to the hype used to promote them. This disconnect between promise and performance of green technologies is emblematic of how easy it is for ideology to subvert science. We see this all the time in the evolution-design debate. In any case, here’s an instructive infographic that underscores the consistent failure of green technologies. The lesson for the ID community is simply to be aware of how widely ramified is the Read More ›

I just want to let people on this forum know that I’m finally updating my personal website at DesignInference.com. Specifically, the page with my writings, which had not been updated for three years, is now largely up to date (though it omits articles and books in the pipeline): http://www.designinference.com/dembski-on-intelligent-design/dembski-writings. My own work and research, though still readily accessible at DesignInference.com, will increasingly take backstage as I develop it into a more general educational website directed at cultural and worldview issues. For information about my work and research on this site, please note the following links: (1) Biosketch of William A. Dembski (2) CV/resumé of William A. Dembski (3) Teaching: Courses taught by William A. Dembski (4) Writings of William A. Dembski

Evolutionnews.org just published an article by me titled “Design Inference vs. Design Hypothesis.” Here is an excerpt: The logic of the design inference moves from a marker of intelligence (specified complexity) to an intelligence as causal agent responsible for that marker. The direction of this logic can, however, be reversed. Thus, instead, one can postulate an intelligence operating in nature and therewith formulate predictions and expectations about what one should find in nature if that postulate is true. The logic in this case takes the form of hypothetical reasoning, where a hypothesis is put forward and then its consequences are drawn out and the explanatory fruitfulness of the hypothesis is seen as a way of advancing science and giving credibility Read More ›

Evolution News & Views just posted a long article I wrote on conservation of information. EXCERPT: “In this article, I’m going to follow the example of these books, laying out as simply and clearly as I can what conservation of information is and why it poses a challenge to conventional evolutionary thinking. I’ll break this concept down so that it seems natural and straightforward. Right now, it’s too easy for critics of intelligent design to say, ‘Oh, that conservation of information stuff is just mumbo-jumbo. It’s part of the ID agenda to make a gullible public think there’s some science backing ID when it’s really all smoke and mirrors.’ Conservation of information is not a difficult concept and once it Read More ›

[In response to Daniel Dennett’s appeal to computer scientist Alan Turing as reductionist materialism’s greatest champion next to Darwin:] …  at first blush one would think that because Turing had “invented” a “machine,” this might give even Dennett pause and lead him to take a second look at his claim that competence precedes comprehension. For any competence exhibited by a Turing machine would, on its face, presuppose comprehension by, in this case, a mathematician named Turing, who understood the nature of computability and invented a machine (albeit an abstract one) that could perform any and all computations. And one would be wrong — atheists like Dennett have a knack for turning even the most damning evidence against their position into Read More ›

Some months back I was invited to speak at this summer’s Portsmouth Institute, which took place last weekend (June 22-24). The title of this summer’s symposium was “Modern Science/Ancient Faith.” See here for the schedule of talks. The speakers included Michael Ruse of Florida State University (keynote), Kenneth Miller of Brown University, John Haught of the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, Abbot James Wiseman of St. Anselm’s Abbey and the Catholic University, Joe Semmes of the True North Medical Clinic, the Reverend Nicanor G. P. Austriaco of Providence College, and me, representing Discovery Institute. Anyone who knows anything about the science-religion dialogue will realize, simply from scanning these names, that I was the odd man out. When I was Read More ›

Here’s a fantastic infographic that needs to be in every science classroom. I’ve seen similar ones, but this is by far the best: The Universe made possible by Number Sleuth Be sure to look at this in full screen mode. Whether you love or hate ID, you’ve got to admit that this is one beautiful universe! Link: www.numbersleuth.org/universe

A.E. Wilder-Smith (1915-1995), though a young-earth creationist, focused on information-theoretic arguments for design that prefigured subsequent work by Charles Thaxton and other ID proponents. Here’s an insightful interview for Dutch TV that he did in the 1970s:

As Denyse pointed out (go here), Steven Pinker’s “dangerous questions” were really pretty mild stuff. I’d like to propose a Scoville scale for dangerous questions (based on the hotness of chili peppers). In the comments, please include what you regard as dangerous questions for materialism as well as a “hotness” measure for each question. Let me get the ball rolling: What would happen if the general public not only disbelieved materialism (as it is, they disbelieve it now) but also decided to cease funding it out of their tax dollars? [Hotness = Serrano Pepper]

Hi UncommonDescent Readers: I have a request. I need one or more freelance writers to work for pay on short research articles (ca. 1000 to 3000 words) related to higher-ed. Some of this work will touch on ID but most will not. Contact me at the email address on the homepage of www.designinference.com to learn more. –Bill D.

A Muslim friend from London sent me a link to the following YouTube video: At around the 7-minute mark, the speaker makes a specified complexity argument (interestingly, attributing it to the Koran). The treatment lacks some nuance, but it’s in the right ballpark, and he’s clearly reading our stuff. I’m glad to see that these ideas are going cross-cultural.