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
Woodford's comments are at least 60% constructive.ScottAndrews2
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
And what evidence "leads to" (or could) "to the metaphysical"?Elizabeth Liddle
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Physical, then. Obviously there is far more to the world than literal matter.Elizabeth Liddle
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
. . . there is nothing intrinsically unscientific about proposing intelligent design as a hypothesis to account for life. Proposing a non-material designer, however, is, because there are no tests for a non-material designer . . .
So, how are the four forces of nature material? Science seems to have discovered them just fine.Brent
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
Chas- you have serious reading comprehension issues. Also there isn't anything in any peer-reviewed journal that sez accumulations of random mutations can construct new, useful multi-protein configurations. And definitely nothing that says a knuckle-walker can evolve into an upright biped. THAT is why no one take evolutionists seriously- no evidence to support their grand claims.Joe
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
Wood: There is no contradiction. NCSE, Talk Origins etc have shown themselves consistently misleading and in some cases outright deceptive on matters related to design theory. So, their word, uncorroborated, cannot stand. That is a note on the general problem, not a remark on the circumstances of Dr Dembski and Baylor. (My opinion on that is that there was probably enough blame to go around, as is the usual case in any messy situation as played out, but it is especially obvious that something was very wrong with the institution. Certainly, a glance in the long delayed proceedings of the conference shows me that this should have been COMMENDED, not an occasion for breaking up a centre and dismissing the man who headed it. It reminds me of a place I know where employees too often and with reason said that no one who tries to do something outstandingly good will go unpunished.) As touching the undersigned, the problem was that I have been falsely accused, and strawmanniswed, and the issue that has been put on the table, that there is something that we can easily enough recognise -- Functionally Specific, Complex Organisation and associated Information [FSCO/I] -- that is being trashed rhetorically because it cuts across agendas, surprise (NOT), associated with the very same NCSE etc. In appealing tot he merits of fact and logic, I can simply point to posts in this thread as cases in point of string-organised data elements that are long enough to be complex and are specifically and functionally organised in accord with the rules of English and the context of this thread. Those cases in point are all produced by intelligence, a pattern that turns out to be general across billions of test cases. Further to this, there is no known process where chance and necessity, acting on relevant components, would produce such on the resources of our solar system or the observed cosmos as a whole, across their reasonable lifespan to date. (And, onlookers, I am forced to be so specific, detailed and meticulous in statements as the slightest perceived gap will be pounced on, much as the short remark on the problem of sources above was.) Indeed, there is analysis that shows why that is so. 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?) I repeat, it is abundantly shown, on case after case that the sources I challenged above are often inaccurate and misleading, sometimes even deceptive on the matters related to design theory. For instance, NCSE's Barbara Forrest et al -- on right of fair comment, e.g. as warranted here on in context, in UD's weak argument correctives accessible from this an every UD page, under the Resources tab -- are deceptive and falsely accusatory in their repeated assertions and insinuations that design theory and thought are in effect simply repackaged Bible-based creationism in a cheap tuxedo, towards imposition of a right wing anti-science theocracy on education and the civilisation. Similarly, starting from how they define "evolution," Talk Origins is highly manipulative. Going further, on this topic, Wikipedia is biased, and misleading to the point of being propaganda, also stiffly resisting correction of what one might have thought were mere errors. To simply contrast its article on Intelligent Design with that at NWE, is quite illuminating on this point. So, even where facts are accurate, the context and invited conclusion may well be highly misleading. That is, it is fair for me to notify the naive onlooker that the sources being used are not to be taken at face value. Which is what I did. I trust the difference will now be clear to the unbiased onlooker at least. Good day GEM of TKIkairosfocus
January 29, 2012
January
01
Jan
29
29
2012
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT
Liz: "What was the store (Dawkins) gave away." 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.StephenB
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
Look if evolutionists want to be taken seriously ...
You're right. No-one, but no-one, takes evolution seriously. Sob! If only there were some way of getting its message across. Some kind of journal(s), maybe; maybe run some classes ...Chas D
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
Dawkins’ point is that there is nothing intrinsically unscientific about proposing intelligent design as a hypothesis to account for life. Proposing a non-material designer, however, is, because there are no tests for a non-material designer, as IDists freely acknowledge – ID, as people keep reminding us, is not about the identity of the designer but about the detection of design.
You are sadly mistaken as IDists do not know the "nature" of the designer. What we do say is let the evidence lead and if it leads to the metaphysical then so be it. That is what science demands.Joe
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
Convince people? Via a blog? Fortunately most people are already convinced by the design inference. But yes perhaps we need someone to write a nice glossy narrative, a story woven by a science-writer- not. Look if evolutionists want to be taken seriously they need to focus not only on their communication, but also their evidence. Thanks fer playin'...Joe
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
Maybe that's true, but I come here to learn. Since one of the purposes of this site is (I assume) to convince people of the ID view of the world, one would think people here would benefit from some feedback. Part of my job is to teach and communicate software engineering practices, and I benefit enormously from honest feedback from my students on how better to present new concepts and ideas. If ID wants to present its best face to the world, then it needs to do a far better job of communications (IMHO first order of the day should be to find a real qualified science writer...)woodford
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
boring!!!,, oh well of interest somewhat as to the supposed flat earth fallacy used against us supposed ignorant Christian dweebs,,, ,,,I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe:
Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.
Moreover, 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.
notes:
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 Quantum mind–body problem 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 "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. http://eugene-wigner.co.tv/
Here is Wigner commenting on 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.”
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
Further note:
The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin - updated video http://vimeo.com/34084462 He's Alive - Dolly Parton - 1989 CMA - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbRPWUHM80M
bornagain77
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
Earth to woodford- It isn't that you are filtered out- it is that you never say anything. So it is more like you filter yourself out...Joe
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
bornagain, The NCSE claims that the earth is round. Are you going to become a flat-earther? For the third time:
KF, BA77, If you dispute the facts of Dembski’s implosion as laid out in the NCSE article, then back up your claim. Show us the factual errors.
champignon
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
Champ, you really don't seem to get it do you? You are citing NCSE to make a
Argument Ad Hominem? (William Lane Craig) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX3beh6g1Qg
Citing NCSE material against Dembski's character, as human as Dembski may be, carries about as much weight with me as if you would cite Hitler as a source for defending human rights!!! Moreover, neo-Darwinism, regardless of what deceptive means you try to deny it, is falsified by recent advances in science;
Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US
bornagain77
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
unfortunately for you woodford, I, for the most part, ignore you and listen to kf, go figure! Free country and all that given to us by unalienable rights endowed on us by our Creator. Oh that's right you don't believe that your rights are guaranteed by God but just what man decides you can have.bornagain77
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
bornagain, The topic of this thread is Dembski's career, not his ideas. His arrogant and inflammatory behavior is very important in explaining why his career crashed and burned. I'm not arguing that Dembski's ideas are wrong because of his childish and impulsive behavior. They fail on their own (de)merits. See this, for example. Lastly, let me repeat my question:
KF, BA77, If you dispute the facts of Dembski’s implosion as laid out in the NCSE article, then back up your claim. Show us the factual errors.
champignon
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Sorry BA, I filter your stuff out, just like Joe filters my stuff out. But it is not an unreasonable question to ask who KF is and why we should pay attention to him. Certainly it is not for the quality of his writing and clarity of thought. Or is UD so desperate to have anybody sound vaguely intellectual they put up with it? If I'm going to spend time reading a source, I'd like to know something about them. KF does not get a free pass so must work harder to communicate well. So far that seems a lesson he does not want to take to heart. But given his complete and utter disdain and disgust at unbelievers, that doesn't surprise me. I'm surprised others here tolerate it. I'm not just trying to get people to see what us "onlookers" see when we come to a site like this...woodford
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
champignon, Did you know that character assassination is a fairly common 'go to' tactic used by neo-Darwinists, and atheists in general, when they can't answer the science;
Argument Ad Hominem? (William Lane Craig) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX3beh6g1Qg
champignon did you know that Darwin inspired lawsuits, of which NCSE is a major player, seek to shut down free speech??
On the Fundamental Difference Between Darwin-Inspired and Intelligent Design-Inspired Lawsuits - September 2011 Excerpt: Darwin lobby litigation: In every Darwin-inspired case listed above, the Darwin lobby sought to shut down free speech, stopping people from talking about non-evolutionary views, and seeking to restrict freedom of intellectual inquiry. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/on_the_fundamental_difference_050451.html
again I ask you champ; Why is it that,,,
"Evolution is the only 'scientific theory' that needs laws to protect it!"
??? further notes: Though the evidence against neo-Darwinian evolution is overwhelming, even to the point of complete falsification,, anyone who dares openly question the sufficiency of neo-Darwinism to explain all life on earth, in the public school classroom, is persecuted, and if not protected by tenure, fired,, as this following documentary, book, and article, clearly point out:
EXPELLED - Starring Ben Stein - Part 1 of 10 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj8xyMsbkO4 Slaughter of Dissidents - Book "If folks liked Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," they will be blown away by "Slaughter of the Dissidents." - Russ Miller http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Dr-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405 Origins - Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk Academic Freedom Under Fire — Again! - October 2010 Excerpt: All Dr. Avital wanted to do was expose students to some of the weaknesses inherent in Darwin’s theory. Surely there’s no harm in that — or so one would think. But, of course, to the Darwinian faithful, such weaknesses apparently do not exist. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/academic_freedom_under_fire_-_038911.html
Moreover, the fraudulent tactics used by neo-Darwinists in the courtroom to sway opinion their way can only be appropriately described as 'sleazy theatrics';
"A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception": Immunologist Donald Ewert on Dover Trial - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-20T15_01_03-08_00
In this following podcast, Casey Luskin interviews microbiologist and immunologist Donald Ewert about his previous work as associate editor for the journal Development and Comparitive Immunology, where he realized that the papers published were comparative studies that had nothing to do with evolution at all.
What Does Evolution Have to Do With Immunology? Not Much - April 2011 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-04-06T11_39_03-07_00
The deception, from neo-Darwinists at Dover, did not stop with immunology;
The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information – Casey Luskin – March 2010 http://www.discovery.org/a/14251
bornagain77
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
So what, in your view, is the significance of that "perverse" introduction? What was the "store" he gave away?Elizabeth Liddle
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
But of course, look up Boltzmann brains popping spontaneously into existence etc.kairosfocus
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
Liz @ 2.1.l, I don't think you grasp the significance of the interchange. Dawkins, responding to a scientific question about origins, INTRODUCED the theological element himself, albeit in the most perverse way. Dembski is responding the perversity of that non-scientific, theological intrusion.StephenB
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
1- Wikipedia openly admits it is not a credible source and taht people need to do the research, mainly by following the references given, as well as looking for missing data 2- Seeing that your only "purpose" seems to be to attack "KF", you have been filtered out when you first arrived. But because it is a slow day an exception has been made.Joe
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
This is a serious question I would appreciate someone to answer: Is it conceivable, in principle, that unicorns, pink pixies and other products of human fantasy could be found in one or more of the infinite number of multiverses? Or does the fact that, at least pending their discovery in some multiverse, they would appear to be gratuitous figments of human imagination, disqualify them from the application of the word, 'theory', as in 'scientific theory'? Or would they, perhaps, merit qualification as 'scientific conjectures'? Pardon me if I stress 'science' here, but, to the eternal shame of such thinkers as Einstein, Planck, Bohr and Godel, who evidently did not view empirical science as the ultimate paradigm of knowledge and understanding, our secular 'fundie' friends know so much better, as they nveer tire of assuring us. 'But...But... it hasn't been tested and peer-reviewed!'Axel
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
F/N: Onlookers, NCSE has zero credibility, much like Talk Origins, Anti Evolution, Wikipedia and similar ideological Lewontinian a priori materialism talking point dispensers on these matters; save when they testify against their known interest and/or are backed up by other more reasonable sources.
This is a curious comment, given that just a few days ago KF (when challenged on his own credibility), thought that logic and facts should speak for themselves. So if KF doesn't think Wikipedia is credible (and yes he may have a point), but why should we think KF himself is a credible source? Why should I wade through pages and pages of inaccessible and unreadable text just for no other reason than KF has appointed himself as a self-identified authority? Again I know nothing about this person "KF" - his publishing history, his credentials, his qualifications, and given the enormous time commitment and hard work required to digest his "logics and facts", I am not yet convinced it is a good investment of my time. My opinion is that if KF wants to reach out to his audience he should at least learn to write in a more accessible way, otherwise "natural selection" is going to filter him out...woodford
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
KF, BA77, If you dispute the facts of Dembski's implosion as laid out in the NCSE article, then back up your claim. Show us the factual errors.champignon
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
as to this comment;
because there are no tests for a non-material designer, as IDists freely acknowledge,,,
Actually, contrary to what many presuppose about the detectability of a transcendent Creator, the fact is that there is clear scientific evidence within reality, and even within molecular biology itself, that gives clear indication that reality, and molecular biology is the handiwork of a transcendent, non-local, beyond space and time, Creator;
Quantum Entanglement – The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145
The falsification for local realism (materialism) was recently greatly strengthened:
Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism - November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm
(of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for 'spooky' forces, as Einstein termed them — forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.) Quantum Mechanics has now been extended by Anton Zeilinger, and team, to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it:
‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011 Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm Falsification of Local Realism without using Quantum Entanglement - Anton Zeilinger http://vimeo.com/34168474
Further notes:
Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Big Bang (i.e. for a Theistic Origination and Sustaining of this universe https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agaJIWjPWHs5vtMx5SkpaMPbantoP471k0lNBUXg0Xo/edit
Moreover, the same 'spooky' quantum entanglement/information that originally falsified local realism (reductive materialism) as the true foundation for reality has now been found in molecular biology on a massive scale;
Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US
The following video gives a bit clearer explanation as to exactly why it is so 'spooky', to use Einstein's infamous word, to find quantum entanglement/information in molecular biology on such a massive scale:
Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182
Quantum entanglement/information in molecular biology simply requires a cause beyond time and space to explain its existence within molecular biology which is not within the Darwinian framework of atheistic materialism to explain!!! Thus though God refuses to be a 'circus performer', for atheists by giving miracles on demand to prove He is God, the plain fact is that the 'miracle' of reality itself is more than enough 'scientific' evidence for the existence and reality of God!!! music:
Flyleaf - All Around Me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN0FFK8JSYE
bornagain77
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
He reveals that he does not understand Dawkins' point - by thinking that Dawkins has "given away the store", he gives away his own. Dawkins' point is that there is nothing intrinsically unscientific about proposing intelligent design as a hypothesis to account for life. Proposing a non-material designer, however, is, because there are no tests for a non-material designer, as IDists freely acknowledge - ID, as people keep reminding us, is not about the identity of the designer but about the detection of design. However, by failing to understand Dawkins' point, he reveals himself as not a scientist, but a theologian - someone who disagrees with Dawkins not on the grounds of design detection, but on the grounds of whether or not the designer is non-material or not. That is not a scientific question, it's a theological one.Elizabeth Liddle
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
Actually I think Dawkins clearly reveals that he is 'not a scientist at heart' in the clip:
Richard Dawkins Vs. Ben Stein - The UFO Interview http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4134259/
bornagain77
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
Please explain how Dembski gives away the store by using Dawkins words? And the scientific academy has its own problems finding positive evidence for its position.Joe
January 28, 2012
January
01
Jan
28
28
2012
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply