Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Bill Dembski: Trouble happens when they find out you mean business

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Continuing with James Barham’s The Best Schools interview with design theorist Bill Dembski – who founded this blog, we look at how he managed to not avoid trouble, principally with Christian academics:

WD: The problem is that within a month of publishing The Design Inference, I also published Mere Creation, the proceedings of a 1996 conference at Biola on creation and design. In that book, I did put my cards on the table regarding where I saw the methods developed in The Design Inference leading. So, Darwinists quickly made the connection and started going after the earlier book.

Another thing that worked against the book is that I was hired shortly after its publication to found and direct Baylor’s Michael Polanyi Institute. This gave me national prominence, to the consternation of Darwinists in- and outside of Baylor, and thus incentivized them to refute the book at all costs. When the Polanyi Center was dissolved a year later (more about this below), many who had their finger to the wind and wondered whether to back intelligent design, backed down. I stayed on at Baylor to complete my contract, but was persona non grata the entire time.

In 1999, I could still get a job in the mainstream academy on the basis of my work in The Design Inference. By the fall of 2000, my career was toast.

Okay, let’s hop to the Polanyi Institute. What happened there?

TBS: In 2000, after organizing and hosting a very successful and visible international conference (whose proceedings, coedited by you and Bruce Gordon, are now published as The Nature of Nature [ISI, 2011]), you were first demoted, then essentially fired, by Baylor University, in Waco, Texas. Can you explain how this came about? What were the ramifications of Baylor throwing you under the bus for you personally? What do you think the long-term ramifications of this incident have been for our intellectual culture as a whole?

WD: The short of it is that Baylor hired me to start an intelligent design think-tank, the Michael Polanyi Center, we put on a tremendously successful conference, and three days after the conference the faculty senate voted 27–2 to shut the center down. Not immediately, but a few months later, the Baylor administration acceded to the faculty senate’s wishes.

When I protested the center’s dissolution, I was fired as director from a center that had already ceased to exist. This, at Baylor—an ostensibly Christian institution. But in fact, the science faculty at Baylor were probably more Darwinian than their secular counterparts, having to prove that they were as “reliable” in their science as those outside.

The whole story is available online, arranged chronologically in a series of news articles: “The Rise and Fall of Baylor University’s Michael Polanyi Center.” If I had it to do again, I would never have gone to Baylor. But the past is past. It’s all there. It made national news. And Baylor got a black eye for its failure to respect freedom of thought and expression. But massive institutions like Baylor can handle a bit of battering. Private individuals who get chewed up by them are less fortunate.

Mmmm. For many Christian academics, the worst news possible is that the atheists they are discreetly selling out to don’t have the goods anyway. They don’t hate anyone as much as they hate the guy who can demonstrate that fact.

Next: What Dembski is planning to do now.

See also:

Why Bill Dembski took aim against the Darwin frauds and their enablers #1

Why Bill Dembski took aim against the Darwin frauds and their enablers Part 2

Bill Dembski: The big religious conspiracy revealed #3

Bill Dembski: Evolution “played no role whatever” in his conversion to Christianity #4

So how DID Bill Dembski get interested in intelligent design? #5a

So how DID Bill Dembski get interested in intelligent design? #5b – bad influences, it seems

Comment on Dembski interview here.

Comments
@BA77,
The argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
No on #3. Consciousness is not even part of our existing models, let alone special or exceptional within a material framework. That's the conclusion of the materialist, that consciousness is epi-phenomenal, emergent, fully material (hence the name "materialist"). So you've quite conspicuously assumed the very thing you are trying to argue for in #3. Here's a good way to prove to yourself that your #3 is not sound -- try to define the terms used. What does it mean in formal terms for consciousness (never mind for now that we don't have a working model for consciousness in science to begin with!) to be "special", or "central" or "positioned". I predict you will find that your definitions are casual, vague, subjective, and intuitive -- totally inoperative for the purposes before you, here, in other words. Of course consciousness feels super-duper central to you, a conscious being! The argument, as you've stated it, doesn't understand and cannot develop its own crucial terms. Fail.eigenstate
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT
for instance eigenstate you dogmatically stated this;
Saying it has to have a mind, or must not have a mind, just beckons regress. Why a mind? Why no mind? It can’t be answered with anything that doesn’t itself demand a deeper answer.
Yet contrary to the imaginary brick wall you have erected in your mind that says the question cannot be answered, I find this:
The argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
references:
Quantum mind–body problem Excerpt:Parallels between quantum mechanics and mind/body dualism were first drawn by the founders of quantum mechanics including Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, and Eugene Wigner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem Dr. Quantum - Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579 The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries:
Eugene Wigner Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another. http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm
i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics - John Hopkins University Excerpt: It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe. And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial… https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-quantum-enigma-of-consciousness-and-the-identity-of-the-designer/ What drives materialists crazy is that consciousness cannot be seen, tasted, smelled, touched, heard, or studied in a laboratory. But how could it be otherwise? Consciousness is the very thing that is DOING the seeing, the tasting, the smelling, etc… We define material objects by their effect upon our senses – how they feel in our hands, how they appear to our eyes. But we know consciousness simply by BEING it! https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/another-atheist-checks-out-of-no-consciousnessno-free-will/comment-page-1/#comment-411601
Moreover, The 'Mind' on the other end of our mind, that precedes quantum wave collapse, possesses infinite information:
Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1
bornagain77
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
eigenstate, you certainly seem to be cutting off your nose to spite your face when you state dogmatic stuff like this:
we can’t investigate it even in principle
As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger in that old joke, "who's WE pale face???", I find reality, especially in this day and age, very amendable to a curious mind that is willing to dig a bit!bornagain77
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT
@kuartus#7.1.2.1.9,
There is no analogy between God and the laws of nature. The laws of nature being a contingent property of a contingent universe require an explanation.
Not if those laws are transcendant, eternal, brute. If God gets a pass, you've just let "physical law" run by you. And something must be the explanatory endpoint. Else you are stuck in a vicious regress of explanations. Physical law is/can be just as necessary as any kind of necessity you wish to ascribe to God.
There really is no metaphysical necessity in them. I could easily conceive of a universe with no consistent laws at all. The necessity of God is show by realizing that there cant be an infinite regress of contingent causes.
None of which works against the "necessity of physical law". Again, if God can, law can.
The chain has to terminate and that first member could not have an external cause because if it did then it would lead to that infinite regress again. So it would have to be a necessary being.
There's nothing that entails "being" in any of this. Necessary law is just as metaphysically warranted as "necessary God" or "necessary being". Which is to say it's totally inscrutable for humans, but the salient point is that it's special pleading to ascribe necessity to a God or a mind or a will.
Its explanation would lie in the fact that it has to exist since there cant be an infinite regress. That first member is what we call God. In contrast you would be hard pressed to show that the laws of nature have to exist.
Well, I don't mind calling impersonal, physical law, devoid of mind or will, "God", if you prefer that. That's fine, as long as we are clear about what we are referring to. I don't even attempt to show that physical law is transcendentally necessary, any more than I attempt to show that other "God" forms, (Gods with minds, will, etc.) are transcendentally necessary. That's totally opaque to humans, and we can't investigate it even in principle. If we could, we have a transcendental paradox, and now have to answer the question: "why is THAT existing in the way it does?" Regress again. It's a very tight algorithm, with no way out. You have to terminate at something "brute". Law does just as well as "Yahweh" (and better in terms of parsimony!) or "Allah". Saying it has to have a mind, or must not have a mind, just beckons regress. Why a mind? Why no mind? It can't be answered with anything that doesn't itself demand a deeper answer.eigenstate
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
further notes as to the exact equations:
in the equation e^pi*i + 1 = 0 ,,,we find that pi is required in; General Relativity (Einstein’s Equation) https://docs.google.com/File?id=dc8z67wz_52c9nxpz2h_b
,,,and we also find that the square root of negative 1 is required in;
Quantum Mechanics (Schrödinger’s Equations) https://docs.google.com/File?id=dc8z67wz_51ck47zff3_b
,,and we also find that e is required for;
e is required here in wave equations, in finding the distribution of prime numbers, in electrical theory, and is also found to be foundational to trigonometry.,,, The various uses and equations of 'e' are listed at the bottom of the following page: http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/img0.gif
quote:
"Like a Shakespearean sonnet that captures the very essence of love, or a painting that brings out the beauty of the human form that is far more than just skin deep, Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence." Stanford University mathematics professor - Dr. Keith Devlin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity#Mathematical_beauty
Here is a very well done video, showing the stringent 'mathematical proofs' of Euler's Identity:
Euler's identity - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zApx1UlkpNs
The mystery doesn't stop there, this following video shows how pi and e are found in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1
This following website, and video, has the complete working out of the math of Pi and e in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Greek languages respectively, for Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1: http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/ Fascinating Bible code – Pi and natural log – Amazing video (of note: correct exponent for base of Nat Log found in John 1:1 is 10^40, not 10^65 as stated in the video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg9LiiSVae
bornagain77
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT
The following mathematical formulation is very intriguing : The following is the equation that is found to, mysteriously, correspond deeply to the 'macro' structure of the universe:
0 = 1 + e ^(i*pi) — Euler
Believe it or not, the five most important numbers in mathematics are tied together, through the complex domain in Euler's number, And that points, ever so subtly but strongly, to a world of reality beyond the immediately physical. Many people resist the implications, but there the compass needle points to a transcendent reality that governs our 3D 'physical' reality.
God by the Numbers - Connecting the constants Excerpt: The final number comes from theoretical mathematics. It is Euler's (pronounced "Oiler's") number: e*pi*i. This number is equal to -1, so when the formula is written e*pi*i+1 = 0, it connects the five most important constants in mathematics (e, pi, i, 0, and 1) along with three of the most important mathematical operations (addition, multiplication, and exponentiation). These five constants symbolize the four major branches of classical mathematics: arithmetic, represented by 1 and 0; algebra, by i; geometry, by pi; and analysis, by e, the base of the natural log. e*pi*i+1 = 0 has been called "the most famous of all formulas," because, as one textbook says, "It appeals equally to the mystic, the scientist, the philosopher, and the mathematician." http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/march/26.44.html?start=3
(of note; Euler's Number (equation) is more properly called Euler's Identity in math circles.) Moreover Euler’s Identity, rather than just being the most enigmatic equation in math, finds striking correlation to how our 3D reality is actually structured,,, The following picture, Bible verse, and video are very interesting since, with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), the universe is found to actually be a circular sphere which 'coincidentally' corresponds to the circle of pi within Euler's identity:
Picture of CMBR https://webspace.utexas.edu/reyesr/SolarSystem/cmbr.jpg Proverbs 8:26-27 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep, The Known Universe by AMNH – video - (please note the 'centrality' of the Earth in the universe in the video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U
The flatness of the ‘entire’ universe, which 'coincidentally' corresponds to the diameter of pi in Euler’s identity, is found on this following site; (of note this flatness of the universe is an extremely finely tuned condition for the universe that could have, in reality, been a multitude of different values than 'flat'):
Did the Universe Hyperinflate? – Hugh Ross – April 2010 Excerpt: Perfect geometric flatness is where the space-time surface of the universe exhibits zero curvature (see figure 3). Two meaningful measurements of the universe’s curvature parameter, ½k, exist. Analysis of the 5-year database from WMAP establishes that -0.0170 < ½k < 0.0068.4 Weak gravitational lensing of distant quasars by intervening galaxies places -0.031 < ½k < 0.009.5 Both measurements confirm the universe indeed manifests zero or very close to zero geometric curvature,,, http://www.reasons.org/did-universe-hyperinflate
This following video, which I've listed previously, shows that the universe also has a primary characteristic of expanding/growing equally in all places,, which 'coincidentally' strongly corresponds to the 'e' in Euler's identity. 'e' is the constant that is used in all sorts of equations of math for finding what the true rates of growth and decay are for any given mathematical problem trying to find as such in this universe:
Every 3D Place Is Center In This Universe – 4D space/time – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3991873/
This following video shows how finely tuned the '4-Dimensional' expansion of the universe is (1 in 10^120);
Fine Tuning Of Dark Energy and Mass of the Universe - Hugh Ross - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4007682
Towards the end of the following video, Michael Denton speaks of the square root of negative 1 being necessary to understand the foundational quantum behavior of this universe. The square root of -1 is also 'coincidentally' found in Euler's identity:
Michael Denton – Mathematical Truths Are Transcendent And Beautiful – Square root of -1 is built into the fabric of reality – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003918"
I find it extremely strange that the enigmatic Euler's identity, which was deduced centuries ago, would find such striking correlation to how reality is actually found to be structured by modern science. In pi we have correlation to the 'sphere of the universe' as revealed by the Cosmic Background radiation, as well pi correlates to the finely-tuned 'geometric flatness' within the 'sphere of the universe' that has now been found. In 'e' we have the fundamental constant that is used for ascertaining exponential growth in math that strongly correlates to the fact that space-time is 'expanding/growing equally' in all places of the universe. In the square root of -1 we have what is termed a 'imaginary number', which was first proposed to help solve equations like x2+ 1 = 0 back in the 17th century, yet now, as Michael Denton pointed out in the preceding video, it is found that the square root of -1 is required to explain the behavior of quantum mechanics in this universe. The correlation of Euler's identity, to the foundational characteristics of how this universe is constructed and operates, points overwhelmingly to a transcendent Intelligence, with a capital I, which created this universe! It should also be noted that these universal constants, pi,e, and square root -1, were at first thought by many to be completely transcendent of any material basis, to find that these transcendent constants of Euler's identity in fact 'govern' material reality, in such a foundational way, should be enough to send shivers down any mathematicians spine.bornagain77
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
Eigenstate, There is no analogy between God and the laws of nature. The laws of nature being a contingent property of a contingent universe require an explanation. There really is no metaphysical necessity in them. I could easily conceive of a universe with no consistent laws at all. The necessity of God is show by realizing that there cant be an infinite regress of contingent causes. The chain has to terminate and that first member could not have an external cause because if it did then it would lead to that infinite regress again. So it would have to be a necessary being. Its explanation would lie in the fact that it has to exist since there cant be an infinite regress. That first member is what we call God. In contrast you would be hard pressed to show that the laws of nature have to exist.kuartus
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT
I would say that the older laws of physics were indeed approximations/descriptions, but now, the closer we get to the foundation of reality itself, especially since particle/waves are shown to reduce to transcendent information in teleportation experiments (i.e The Word as predicted in John 1:1), then I would have to say that many mathematical formulations are going beyond mere approximations and are actually describing the actual, real-time, actions of information. There is a correspondence that is far tighter than mere approximation. In fact they were able to state this in regards to quantum mechanics:
An experimental test of all theories with predictive power beyond quantum theory - May 2011 Excerpt: Hence, we can immediately refute any already considered or yet-to-be-proposed alternative model with more predictive power than this (quantum theory). http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0133
That is a fairly dramatic staement within science to say the least!bornagain77
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
@Brent#7.1.2.1.5, Law has (at least) two meanings: a descriptive one ("science studies physical law") and a prescriptive one ("Congress enacted a law requiring seltbeats"). This is the equivocation you are deploying. It's not a metaphor being used -- a physical law is not analogous to a civil law, law imposed by a will or some political power. The "law" in physical law is descriptive and gets its "ruleness" by virtue of its consistency, the absence of exceptions in natural phenomena. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does NOT use "law" in the prescriptive sense (i.e., referring to a law-giver); science is necessarily silent on such questions insofar as a law-giver is not itself a natural phenomenon that can be incorporated into a natural model. As for happen to exist, again, I think you are confusing some positive argument for "just happens" with ignorance regarding any transcendant metaphysic. We just don't know the provenance of physical laws (the descriptive kind), and do not have a way to know, even in principle. So, "don't know" is as far as we can get, epistemically. Philosophically, though, "just is" cannot be ipso facto irrational, as without it, one immediately falls into infinite regress. For a theist, for example, God "just is", and needs no Designer. If God can be a brute fact -- or perhaps you have an answer for 'who made God' rather than 'God is a necessary, eternal something-or-other? -- so can physical law. If physical law must be explained in terms of its provenance, so must all gods, or anything else. And that's demonstrably a fool's errand, as any explanation for physical law, or a god is immediately subject to vicious regress -- how did *that* come to be? And on and on. The explanatory chain must terminate somewhere, necessarily. The absurdity obtains in what you appear to demand, vicious, infinite regress.eigenstate
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
--Liz: "What a scientist assumes is what I said: “…that phenomena can be explained/predicted by other phenomena.” Everyone knows that phenomena CAN BE (and usually are) explained by other phenomena. The question is whether, as a rule of science, phenomena MUST ALWAYS be explained by other phenomena. The answer is no. That dubious formulation comes from materialist ideology expressed as methodological naturalism. If a scientist could observe Moses parting the waters, he would be under no obligation to attribute the event to natural causes. Indeed, If what you said was true, archeology, which studies phenomena as the effects of human intelligence, would not be science. On the other hand, the rules of reason that I described earlier are, indeed, absolutely necessary for science. You have injected that which is optional to science and withdrawn that which is essential. The rules of right reason are non-negotiable foundations for modern science. --"To infer a law-giver from what are called in science “laws”, is simple equivocation. A scientific law is simply an equation that relates observed phenomena, and appears to hold true over a certain range of values." A law is a subjective human description of the objective regularity found in nature. The regularity thus described exists independently the mathematics of human description. The earth would orbit the sun even if no one on earth knew about it or tried to measure it. That regularity, given the contingent nature of the universe, had to be caused.StephenB
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT
To infer a law-giver from what are called in science “laws”, is simple equivocation.
No. It is not an equivocation at all. It is using a metaphor to ask about a metaphor. Both metaphors hold. There are "laws" of nature, and there need to be explanations for those "laws". It is irrational to just say they just happen to exist, brute fact, nothing to see here, which is what scientists admit when they scramble to explain the fine-tuning of the universe. These laws need an explanation just as the fine-tuning does.Brent
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
way to go, stephenb! don't let them get away with that!paragwinn
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
Your arrogance is writing checks that your powers of analysis cannot cash. Yes, I am the same person who wrote that comment and who also found it necessary to provide remedial education for you on the difference between a global world view and a scientific paradigm. For some strange reason, you seem to have cultivated the puerile notion that sneering at concepts you don't understand constitutes some kind of a counter argument. I didn't ask you to explain what you meant in the preceding paragraphs in order to start a flame war. On the contrary, I was simply trying to let you know, without calling attention to the fact, that you did not articulate your views in a comprehensible way. Indeed, your latest foray into the English language is a clumsy mix of half-formed thoughts crying out for a theme. With respect to your earlier comments, you need to make some kind of sense out of them: --[a] “A solution to the most important piece to the puzzle about ‘intelligent design’ in the past decade (including anything Dembski himself has contributed) was found yesterday, in a hotel lounge in Eastern Europe, during a discussion about ‘interdisciplinarity’." No one knows what you are talking about. Try to think in terms of an argument. It will clear your mind. --[b]”Ironically, during some of the presentations given at the conference that provided the background for the ‘discovery,’ the terms ‘Inter-Disciplinarity’ and ‘Inter-Disciplinary’ were shorthanded to ‘ID.’” Why do you wander around in a linguistic fog? Come on out into the clear air of rationality and explain your terms and define the relationship between (among) them. --"With the creator(s) of this thread, we are agreed that “Trouble happens when they find out you mean business,” i.e. that you take seriously the ideas and perspectives that they hold, interepting them and the evidence in new ways. However, Dembski’s interpretation that “Naturalism currently dominates science” doesn’t hold sway the same way outside of ‘natural sciences.’” What's wrong with Dembski's interpretations? Who disgrees with them and why? –”There is thus another story waiting to be told.” Well, then, why don't you provide an abbreviated account of that story.StephenB
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
"I dont know why there is regularity in nature" I do. ;-)kuartus
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
I don't know why there is regularity in nature.Elizabeth Liddle
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
Why should we expect these regularities to keep holding in the future? What grounds them?kuartus
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
I will ask you again lizzie, Why is there regularity in nature at all?kuartus
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
Well, yes and no. From the standpoint of scientific methodology, your statement is true,
Yes, it is.
but from the standpoint of rationality and the philosophy of science, it is not true. As a matter of underlying metaphysical principle, the scientist cannot function without assuming the rationality of the universe, which means, among other things, acknowledging that the laws of causality and non-contradiction are true.
What a scientist assumes is what I said: "...that phenomena can be explained/predicted by other phenomena." To infer a law-giver from what are called in science "laws", is simple equivocation. A scientific law is simply an equation that relates observed phenomena, and appears to hold true over a certain range of values.Elizabeth Liddle
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
Are you the same person who wrote the following, who thinks you should be taken seriously, as if Dembski cannot be disagreed with (and surpassed!) by honest scholars or that a 'neo-ID' theory is not possible? "when I write about the ID world view, I am referring to the belief or attitude that biological design is real, that it is detectable, and that its effects can be measured."Gregory
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
---Gregory: "A solution to the most important piece to the puzzle about ‘intelligent design’ in the past decade (including anything Dembski himself has contributed) was found yesterday, in a hotel lounge in Eastern Europe, during a discussion about ‘interdisciplinarity’. ---"Ironically, during some of the presentations given at the conference that provided the background for the ‘discovery,’ the terms ‘Inter-Disciplinarity’ and ‘Inter-Disciplinary’ were shorthanded to ‘ID.’" What is this piece to the puzzle? Why does it matter? --"With the creator(s) of this thread, we are agreed that “Trouble happens when they find out you mean business,” i.e. that you take seriously the ideas and perspectives that they hold, interepting them and the evidence in new ways. However, Dembski’s interpretation that “Naturalism currently dominates science” doesn’t hold sway the same way outside of ‘natural sciences.’" --"There is thus another story waiting to be told." What is wrong with Dembski's "interpretations?" Who disagrees with them and why?StephenB
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
kairosfocus scores an own goal:
Consequently, the attempt to personalise and attack the source in this case is an Alinskyite smear tactic, not a serious response on the merits. (Or, have you shown that on this matter, I am in gross error, on observed fact?)
Make a slight substitution, KF:
Consequently, the attempt to personalise and attack the NCSE in this case is an Alinskyite smear tactic, not a serious response on the merits. (Or, have you shown that on this matter, the NCSE is in gross error, on observed fact?)
LOL.champignon
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
Liz: "I mean, it’s possible that early scientists made that assumption," (The mind of a Creator) Possible??? It is an unassailable fact. The early scientists persisted through multiple frustrations, defeats, and failures because they were convinced that the Creator fashioned a rational universe that was ripe for discovery. ..."but it is not an assumption required by science." Well, yes and no. From the standpoint of scientific methodology, your statement is true, but from the standpoint of rationality and the philosophy of science, it is not true. As a matter of underlying metaphysical principle, the scientist cannot function without assuming the rationality of the universe, which means, among other things, acknowledging that the laws of causality and non-contradiction are true. In keeping with those same rational principles, a law cannot exist without a lawgiver and, in that same sense, a rational universe that corresponds to our rational minds cannot exist without a Divine mind that orders one realm to the other. Many modern scientists disagree, of course, but these are the same irrational, anti-ID partisans who suspend reason's rules and advance the ridiculous proposition that a universe can create itself. -- "No Creator Mind need be posited." Again, from a methodological standpoint, that is true. If we assumed apriori the presence of a Creator's mind, the design inference to a designing intelligence would be a mere tautology. On the other hand, any rational person should be able to understand that the rationality of the universe comes from a rational source. The law of causality requires it. In that sense, ID science confirms that which sound philosophy has already established.StephenB
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
And on what do you ground the assumption that one type of phenomenon will reliably lead to another particular phenomenon every time? Obviously we havent performed an infinite number of experiments throughout all time to know that is the case. Why is there predictable regularity in nature at all?kuartus
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
You hold to a myth, Elisabeth, of neuro-science neutrality that denies the reflexivity of agents, personalities and ideologies. Dehumanisation is a regular feature of neuro-science (neuro-law, cognitive studies, etc.). This was confirmed to me by the Western European neuro-scientist/administrator that I had dinner with last night.
I don't recognise the myth you say I hold to, Gregory. Can you explain in more detail what you think it is I deny, becaue I'm pretty sure I don't deny it!
Dawkins is a kindergartener wrt ideology and philosophy. He is not really worth much of the time that people give to him and his agnostic-atheism. (Natural) Science was built on the view that the world is understandable because it was ‘created’ by a Mind, not just by random chance without greater (or simpler) meaning.
I agree that Dawkins isn't much of a philosopher, and I disagree with him on a great deal. But I also disagree with you that "Science was built on the view that the world is understandable because it was ‘created’ by a Mind, not just by random chance without greater (or simpler) meaning." I mean, it's possible that early scientists made that assumption, but it is not an assumption required by science. The basic assumption of science is that phenomena can be explained/predicted by other phenomena. No Creator Mind need be posited.Elizabeth Liddle
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
"such designers would have themselves have evolved by Darwinian processes" - Elizabeth (hiccup) You've 'given away the store' (as crudely 'USAmerican' as that sounds to me) of being entirely objectivistic. We live in an age where a 'double hermeneutic' is widely recognized, if not widely understood. (Pure) Objectivism is a ridiculous fantasy held by people who don't understand their subjectivity and how it intervenes in their 'science.' You hold to a myth, Elisabeth, of neuro-science neutrality that denies the reflexivity of agents, personalities and ideologies. Dehumanisation is a regular feature of neuro-science (neuro-law, cognitive studies, etc.). This was confirmed to me by the Western European neuro-scientist/administrator that I had dinner with last night. Dawkins is a kindergartener wrt ideology and philosophy. He is not really worth much of the time that people give to him and his agnostic-atheism. (Natural) Science was built on the view that the world is understandable because it was 'created' by a Mind, not just by random chance without greater (or simpler) meaning. But I thought this thread was about Dembski's 'troubles' and his 'Waterloo moment' and how the ground shifted on ID when 'triumph' and 'freedom' was prematurely announced? Only champignon seems to have faced this, with the disheveled ID fans attacking the person, not the evidence. To re-emphasize, 1.2 was not said lightly. The ground will shift again. - Gr.Gregory
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
The 'store' is the "we'll consider any outlandish and unsupportable conclusions with no scientifically verifiable warrant (and under their breath) as long as it isn't a capital "D" Designer conclusion" store.Brent
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
R0bb, If your comment/question was directed at me, then I think you've misunderstood my point. If you read my subsequent reply to Elizabeth I think you'll see it. If she and others think that ID can't be science because we infer a non-material designer, then by the same standard MATERIALISTS would be forced to dump the four forces.Brent
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
@Elizabeth, How are the four forces physical? They affect physical objects, but without material, they cannot themselves be called 'physical' (in a relevant sense to what we're talking about), unless you intend the very obvious equivocation anyway. But if you only mean that affecting matter is the standard, then the intelligent designer is thought to affect matter as well, and so is also physical. Unless I just didn't get what you meant, you haven't done anything to solve the problem. Can, or can science not, conclude or infer from physical, material reality what is not material? If not, then you'd have to throw out the four forces as an unscientific conclusion.Brent
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
So when ID leaders talk about materialism, that entails the rejection of the four forces of nature? Can you name anyone who qualifies as a materialist under that definition?R0bb
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
He gave away any claim to rationality and scientific objectivity. By injecting the irrelevant subject of God (and space aliens) into a scientific discussion about ID methods, and then by refusing to allow the same Divine foot in the door that he, himself, placed there, he dramatizes his mindless commitment to materialism and the fact that no amount of evidence to the contrary could move him from that position.
But he didn't inject the subject of God! He was repeatedly, and idiotically IMO, goaded by Ben Stein into answering, consistently, that he didn't believe in any gods. He was also asked whether he would countenance, in principle, an Intelligent Design hypothesis. And, quite rightly, he said he would (it's a widespread myth that scientists cannot, or will not, deal with Intelligent Design hypotheses, which Dawkins put to rest in this interview, only to be widely, and bizarrely, misunderstood). In other words, he doesn't rule out the possibility that intelligence was involved in the design of life on earth, but, again, rightly, points out that this would merely push the question back as to the origin of the designers, and posits that such designers would have themselves have evolved by Darwinian processes. Absolutely standard. I'd say the same myself. What store are we supposed to have given away?Elizabeth Liddle
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply