Dembski interviewed over Design of Life

_{David L. Hagen

December 14, 2007

Constitution, Education, Intelligent Design, Religion, Science, The Design of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Friday Five: William A. Dembski

by Devon Williams, associate editor, CitizenLink.org

‘Are there patterns in biological systems that would point us to intelligence?’

Leading scientist and mathematician William A. Dembski has devoted years to researching intelligent design.

He is a research professor in philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and has been featured on the front page of The New York Times. He has appeared on numerous radio and television broadcasts, including Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show and ABC’s Nightline.

Dembski talked to CitizenLink about his latest book, The Design of Life — which he co-authored with Jonathan Wells.

1. What is intelligent design?

The study of patterns in nature that are best explained by intelligence. But the focus is really on biology. Are there patterns in biological systems that would point us to intelligence? What we find is that we see design in everything from human consciousness, through the fossil record, through similarities between organisms, through various molecular structures inside the cell to the very origin of life — the origin of the first cell.

2. Tell me about your new book.

It’s a comprehensive overview of intelligent design, trying to make it clear what intelligent design is. There’s lots that’s been written about intelligent design, especially in the media and some of the scientific community, that’s often misrepresented. This really puts to rest a lot of those biased and misrepresented claims about intelligent design. . . .

4. Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer?

I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.

The focus of my writings is not to try to understand the Christian doctrine of creation; it’s to try to develop intelligent design as a scientific program.

There’s a big question within the intelligent design community: “How did the design get in there?” We’re very early in this game in terms of understanding the history of how the design got implemented. I think a lot of this is because evolutionary theory has so misled us that we have to rethink things from the ground up. That’s where we are. There are lots and lots of questions that are now open to re-examination in light of this new paradigm. . . .”

See full interview
———————-

Dembski’s answer to Question 4 is likely to be widely quoted – or misquoted out of context as: Dembski declares “The Designer of intelligent design, is, ultimately, the Christian God.”

This raises the challenge of the First Amendment’s preservation of the unalienable rights to religious belief and speech:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, . . ” (See annotations)
This includes rights to academic freedom.

* Do academic’s have the freedom to develop scientific theories in public institutions free from discrimination?

* Or can some people use government resources to forbid speech and religious practice by others based on the implications of the theories they develop in public institutions?

* Can some use government resources to forbid any theory that posits an intelligent agent, and, by government sanction, only allow theories that presume materialistic naturalism or philosophical naturalism?

Comments

I’ve also written elsewhere that the Christian God might use teleological organizing principles to implement his designs (e.g., that God does not need to specifically toggle the bacterial flagellum).
I would presume that the example given is a point of disagreement between yourself and Dr. Behe?specs_{December 15, 2007
December
12
Dec
15
15
2007
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

We all know the game that is being played. Someone in ID claims they have a religious belief and then someone then uses that to show that ID is religiously motivated. That way they can stain the research as religiously motivated and prevent it being considered as science. This has been tried so many times that its transparency is obvious. Based on this juvenile way of thinking, Newton's laws of motion are religiously based and thus suspect and maybe shouldn't be taught in schools. Newton was trying to figure out how God did it. So should Newton's laws not be taught because of their religious associations? Newton had some very strong religious beliefs and he definitely associated some of them with his science.jerry_{December 15, 2007
December
12
Dec
15
15
2007
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

With the shrill and vitriolic political debate surrounding ID and evolution, and this likelihood for misinterpretation and confusion, there is probably the need to clearly state and distinguish personal beliefs vs the presuppositions of scientific theories. e.g., "My personal religious belief is . . . " vs "The presuppositions of Intelligent Design are . . ." When Richard Dawkins asserts "God is a Delusion", does that establish philosophical naturalism and invalidate evolution? The fact that Dawkins is a scientist lends no credence to such an assertion, nor to its rationality, nor to its logic. Those issues have to be evaluated separately on evidence. e.g., Depak Chopra proceeds to debunk 'The God Delusion,'. Alister McGrath exposes "The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine." If one makes the a priori assumption of philosophical naturalism (there is nothing except nature), then one excludes and cannot test for or logically discuss intelligent intervention in nature. Conversely, consider ID Assumptions , particularly: 1) "Intelligence: Direct and indirect intelligent causes exist, including human beings and intelligent systems made by them." and 5) "Openness: Observable phenomena may be within open systems accessible to the input or intervention of intelligent causes, some of which may be detectable, and might be reproducible." These are permissive not exclusionary assumptions. i.e., together they allow that intelligent causation MAY exist. This allows modeling Intelligent Design AND testing it against atelic evolution. Note too the secondary assumptions: 7) "Identity: The identity of the intelligent cause(s) are uncertain." 9) "Beliefs: The beliefs of Open Science & ID theorists and practitioners are uncertain beyond the above assumptions." These were specifically added to clarify these issues of the presuppositions of the model vs personal beliefs of individuals. I strongly recommend clearly distinguishing such assumptions of scientific models versus personal beliefs which may/may not be the same. Thus William Dembski's personal belief in the Christian God and Richard Dawkins' personal belief that there is no god, must equally be set aside when evaluating the effectiveness of Intelligent Design and Neo-Darwinian Evolution as scientific theories in correlating and predicting empirical data and phenomena. Almost all of the founders of modern science had personal beliefs in the Christian God. That did not invalidate their scientific theories (despite the shrill opposition today against those who hold similar beliefs.) Neither can personal belief be used today to invalidate either Intelligent Design or NeoDarwinian Evolution.DLH_{December 15, 2007
December
12
Dec
15
15
2007
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

In the context of the interview, I was saying that I -- personally -- believe the Christian God is ultimately the designer behind the world. I've also written elsewhere that the Christian God might use teleological organizing principles to implement his designs (e.g., that God does not need to specifically toggle the bacterial flagellum). And I've stressed throughout my writings that there are alternative philosophical frameworks for making sense of ID. None of these considerations undercuts the scientific core of ID. Come on folks, it's no secret that I'm a Christian and that I have various motivations for pursuing ID (if you want to put me on the couch, please do the same with Dawkins).William Dembski_{December 15, 2007
December
12
Dec
15
15
2007
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

The problem here is this. If dembski goes down as saying that the designer is the "christian" god then i dont see how this is going to get tought in any public school. The agnostic/ahtieist community will be up in arms and have the quotations to support thier seperation of church and state arugment. Well, perhaps it wont change anything at all. Maybe all of the people who are against ID are already out demonstarting nas conflating it with creationism. And its not im goal to tell a man o his education level what to do or say about a thoery that he largely developed. Bottom line, i know dembski is a christian but i did't know that the ID WAS the christian god. In all od dembski's book that i have read he has made a strong effort to make clear that the ID does not have to be the christian god. I think we should all be a little confused and i hope dembski weighs in on this as he knows the implications of what he has said.Frost122585_{December 15, 2007
December
12
Dec
15
15
2007
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

First off, Dembski's statement is one of personal belief, not what "ID" as a whole believes. It simply isn’t what ID is about…ask Berlinski. Secondly, dave557 comes to this forum and expects to begin a discussion with a quote from PZ. I am entirely unconvinced by anything I read from a man who's well known because of his hatred and vitriol, not because of anything he has done in the way of science. His claim to fame is standing in the shadow of more intelligent and articulate atheists who people in the real world actually pay attention to.shaner74_{December 15, 2007
December
12
Dec
15
15
2007
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

"This raises the challenge of the First Amendment’s preservation of the unalienable rights to religious belief and speech:" Not really, because if I believe that Karl Marx is the creator of all life, it doesn't make ID communist. If it does, it's only because our arguments have been so degraded already. What is so annoying about this is that this is precisely the thing that evolutionocrats insist about evolution. Evolution is one thing, and despite that we want every lay person possible to believe in evolution, what a person believes about evolution is not ultimately evolution. Also "You only believe in a designer because you're religious" is not a scientific argument. It's not even a fair argument as a topic for debate. Unless your debate allows you to act as an authority on your opponent's motive. Logically, you can never be more of an expert on somebody else's motivation than they are.jjcassidy_{December 15, 2007
December
12
Dec
15
15
2007
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

I for one am glad that Dr. Demski isn't so afraid of the atheists that he doesn't acknowege the "One who gave us life." We are here for a reason, and the reason is not to worship meteralism and science.James Stanhope_{December 15, 2007
December
12
Dec
15
15
2007
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Don't some evolutionists believe in pan spermia, which is ID. How can evolutionists have it both ways and ID'ers can't have it anyway? I guess the rule is you can believe in anything, no matter how ridiculous it is as long as you don't believe in God.Peter_{December 15, 2007
December
12
Dec
15
15
2007
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

This poor writer, for one, is grateful for the clarity of Dr. Dembski's statement about the designer. ID can certainly mean different things to different people. This is what it means to him. The purpose of the wedge strategy is to focus the debate on the indisputable reality of design. Use science to expose the weaknesses in scientific materialism. At the same time, it is important for Christians to be clear about what they believe. And certainly Dembski, Behe, Johnson, O'Leary, et al, have been transparent on that score. ID is significant to those who believe that the heavens declare the glory of God, and that God's invisible qualities can be seen in everything that has been made. It is of vital importance philosophically because of the issues of sovereignty and purpose. The bluster of the old guard is losing its resonance. Common sense will prevail over theory in the end, and anyone with clear eyes and a clear mind can see overwhelming evidence of design in the complexity of the cell, the mystery of life, the beauty of nature, the reality of fine-tuning, not to mention the passingly strange phenomenon of the "I." The battle here is not for the hearts of the Dawkinses and the Harrises. There's no point in casting pearls before swine. The real battle is taking place in the court of public opinion, not in the pages of elitist party organs like Nature. And here ID is clearly on the rise.allanius_{December 15, 2007
December
12
Dec
15
15
2007
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

G'day Dave557, I believe that the new 'Design' book is not focusing upon delivering 'new' arguments but rather that it seeks to further explain the developments that have been witnessed since the last tome came out. This is another book in tightening the underpinnings of the ID hypothesis, and thsi will continue to garner strength through the years. As I mentioned before, Myers and co. deliver a lot of hand waving to somehow indicate that there is no issue, yet they spend an unbelievably inordinate amount of time trying to combat a foe that seemingly isn't there. "It ain’t convincing... " sayeth Myers, and he will now continue 'til his retirement and then some, trying to continually say that there is no elephant in the room. To your "the inconsistent ID/god position?!", I agree it *seems* to be problematic. I tried posting on this earlier, but as it sometimes does, everything crashed. Kairosfocus and Janice have certainly framed what I couldn't post earlier. One's personal belief will obviously provide degrees of bias, but ID research clearly can't and won't identify who/what the Designer is/was. That's a separate step outside the defines of ID. I don't consider you troll-like, but I do consider you are atttempting to get an answer free from strings-attached. Aren't we all! ID, to me, provides the framework, even a paradigm. What you do with it or believe about for ultimate causes is a different philosphical question unable to be answered within the ID parameters. Have a good one, Dave.AussieID_{December 15, 2007
December
12
Dec
15
15
2007
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

Dave557: I find this attitude utterly arrogant. Darwinists reject a God belief -- and they remain impartial and unbiased. Bill Dembski holds to a God belief and is therefore biased. Am I missing something here or is this an obvious double standard? If not, why not?Robo_{December 15, 2007
December
12
Dec
15
15
2007
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT}

dave557, There is no inconsistency because you're talking about two different things: a) ID research, which makes no claims, and can make no claims, about who or what the designer is, and b) an individual person's beliefs about who or what the designer is. No doubt a Muslim IDer would believe the designer is Allah and that person would be perfectly entitled to have that opinion. Other IDers believe the designer(s) come from elsewhere in the material universe. Dr Dembski is as entitled as anyone to draw whatever conclusions he wants to draw about the identity of the designer but those are not determined by ID research. They are determined by everything else he knows about life, the universe and everything.Janice_{December 15, 2007
December
12
Dec
15
15
2007
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT}

Dave 557: First, before accusing us of "Creationist" tactics of attacking the man, kindly first examine the behaviour of leading philosphers and scientists on the evolutionary materialist side of the ID debates:
Exhibit 1: Ms Barbara Forrest, in her presentations and claims at Dover and in related book and speeches etc. She insistently will not even get the basic defintion of ID straight, nor can she seem to distinguish between a worldview level opinion and a scientific statement. Exhibit 2: Mr Richard Dawkins' notprious and insisted upon asserion that those who differ with his evolutionary materialism are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.
Also, I think you need to do your homework first before coming to the site here and demanding that we drop a discussion while we bring you up to speed on the points and issues, ins and outs of the debate over ID. I suggest that for starters you could try reading the IDEA site's FAQs and primers. My own introductory summary on the issue from my own information theory and stat thermo-D based take on the issue -- which is always linked to my posts through my handle -- may also be helpful in seeing why for instance AussieID confidently observes that the old arguments had yet to be properly addressed by PeeZed [BTW that's how we read it over in the Caribbean, too.] On the issue of Dr Dembski's statement: 1] I, too, would have preferred a more cautious, hard to twist wording; given the known hostile rhetorical context. 2] But then, let us remember there are other sides the the overall issue than just science. On science, Dr Dembski is in his own right a PhD level mathematician with serious skill, experience and knowledge in areas relevant to the empirically based inference to design from complex, specified information. 3] Equally, he is a PhD level philosopher and holds an MDiv in Theology. So, on a worldviews level, comparative difficulties based assessment across live options, he has every qualification and right to stand up as an academic and state his own broader conclusions; which doubtless contribute to the fact that he is a Christian. 4] Having said all of that, this is likely to become a re-hash of the situation where Ms Forrest twisted Dr Dembski's earlier remark on the link between the scientific programme of ID and the theology of the LOGOS in Jn 1, where "in the beginning was THE WORD." That is, he adverted to the fact that the Christian worldview has always been that Information and Reason Himself are foundational to and informed the origin and structuring of reality as we experience it. 5] Science now empirically supports that. [cf my always linked on pervasiveness of information, on OOL, on body plan level biodiversity and on the fine-tuned organised complexity of the life facilitating cosmos we inhabit.] 6] So, a fully qualified research-level Scholar who happens to be a Christian has every right to observe based on his professional level work, that this rather risky claim made ever so long ago by one of the theological founders of the Christain faith, circa 90 - 95 AD, has been astonishingly supported by empirical scientific findings over the past 50 or so years. 7] To see the force of that, consider what evo mat advocates would be saying if it had tuned out that life did not exhibit functionally specified, fine-tuned complexity at cellular levels, or that body-plan level innovations were not based on huge injections of information [not to mention appearing characteristically suddenly in the fossil record, e.g the Cambrian revolution], or that the physics of the cosmos was not fine-tuned etc. (Ms Forrest's stragatems read like "heads I win, tails you lose" rhetorical tactics to me!) 8] As to motivation changing [with hints of hidden agendas], I simply point out that when one does science as science, one argues to best, empirically well-warranted best explanation. Here, one knows that chance, necessity and agency all act as causal factors. So, on IBE, which factor[s] best explain[s] OOL, body plan diversity and cosmological fine tuning? 9] So soon as one imposes methodological naturalism as a cut-off to the obvious best explanation for CSI, agency, one is on question-begging philosophical grounds. The rebuttal to that is a philosophical exercise [as is addressed and further linked on in my always linked]. 10] So phil is inherently a part of the issue, and so also, the worldviews which phil sets out to analyse. In that broader context, Dr Dembski is perfectly in order to state his considered, empirically anchored wordview level, theistic opinion and conclusion. 11] That is not a matter of motivation-level bait and switch tactics, but instead it is a mature reflection on the wider issues implicated in scientific research programmes -- which as Lakatos reminds us, have a belt of theories and the like surrounding a worldview level core. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 15, 2007
December
12
Dec
15
15
2007
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

dave557: I have not yet read the book, and so how can I, or anybody else here who has not read it, answer your question? If you want to know if I am surprised that PZ Myers did not like the book, well, I am not surprised. Guess why? I don't know if the book gives new arguments. Probably not, because it seems to be a summary of the presently known arguments, and of course I think that we, on this blog, should know them well. But that's not true of everybody. What Myers calls "the same old bluster that Wells and Dembski have been pounding their fists over for the last decade" are in reality the strict and absolutely convincing arguments of ID. They are true, strong, scientific and undeniable. They have never been really addressed by Myers and the like of him. About Dembski's inconsistency. I don't think Dembski is inconsistent. If you read all his writings, including t6he theological ones, it is pretty clear that he has always believe that the designer is the christian God. That's his opinion, and he has a right to it. If he feel like expressing that opinion in an interview, I respect his right, although he could probably have made some more clear distinctions. But Dembski is not the leader of a movement, so his opinions are just that: his opinions. His scientific work, instead, belongs to us all, and is in no way dependent on his opinions. You cite: "ID research is carried out “without speculating about the nature of the intelligence.” That's true. It has always been true, and will always stay true. The great lie of darwinists is that a scientific research may be disqualified by "motivations". Scientific arguments are disqualified only by errors, not by motivations. Science is about the research for truth. If a researcher, for his own beliefs, is convinced that truth is in some way, and he investigates reality to verify if some hypothesis, compatible with his general view of reality, may explain scientific facts better than another one, that does not disqualify his work in any way, if his work is scientifically sound. This game of accusing people because of their "motivations" is really bad. It is not only anti-scientific, but also against any principle of respect of human values. Motivation are absolutely personal, and should not be used to criticize actions. Please, Myers and co, have the courage to criticize actions and ideas for their own merit, and not for "motivations". I will never criticize Myers if, let's say, he reaches some great scientific acoomplishment (not likely, but possible), only because he is an atheist and probably his atheism is a strong motivation of his actions. Or some other because he accomplishes his research only for the love of money, ot to be liked by girls. If their accomplishment are scientifically good, I am not interested in their motivations. So, Dembski has done a terrific work in science. His analysis of CSI and of design inference is of fundamental importance to contemporary thought, and not only to biology. If his christian faith has been his motivation, I am very happy of that. If he feels like declaring it, he is welcome. ID is not a political movement. It is science. Dembski is not a leader. He is a very respected thinker. I love his scientific work, and respect his theological work, but I am interested only in the former, not in the latter. Ah, and please, when you become aware of some "new" argument from PZ, please let me know. I have become a litlle bit tired of his old non-arguments.gpuccio_{December 15, 2007
December
12
Dec
15
15
2007
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT}

Thank you AussieID for not treating me as a infantile troll. But if the old arguments are watertight and so influential, surely other books previously published would have the (predicted by Dembski and others) effect? More importantly though is the inconsistent ID/god position?!dave557_{December 15, 2007
December
12
Dec
15
15
2007
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT}

dave557 - have YOU read the book yet? I haven't. You may have to provide us with which elements are unsatisfactory, and hopefully explain why they are not convincing to you. That, as you say, there are no 'new arguments' does not negate that the 'old arguments' aren't powerful or correct. Evolutionary textbooks seem to bring out a lot of 'old arguments' ... I believe that 'Design' wishes to explain the developments and bring them up to date, maybe an over-arching publication of what ID is, than rather what it is not. It may be tightening up/defining the current thought rather than bringing in new ideas.AussieID_{December 15, 2007
December
12
Dec
15
15
2007
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT}

I said that there are no new arguments in the book and that Dembski's position on ID motivation changes. Please respond directly to my points - and not skirt around them.dave557_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT}

Wow, great creationist tactics, ignore what I said and then insult me. Dembski has said in terms of ID and the designer: ID research is carried out "without speculating about the nature of the intelligence." The designer "could be space aliens. There are many possibilities." Inconsistent.dave557_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT}

I, too, saw this as a personal belief statement like idnet.com.au suggested. ID as a "scientific, intellectual, and cultural project", does not identify the designer. Yet, as an individual, you may consider who or what the Designer is or was. Dr Dembski uses his scientific acumen and his theological studies and identifies his Designer. Others will use the same tools and come up with something/one different. dave557 notes "...the fact that the book, presents nothing more then the old ID arguments." That's fine, because the old arguments had yet to be properly addressed by PeeZed (Australian inflection) Myers anyway. Anyone wise enough can see that Myers is just trying to hand wring the same stuff that ultimately is bringing up more questions, heated debate and less convincing retorts by the evolutionised hierachy. Again, if ID is so easy to deny, why can't he (and the others) properly do it? I Think he Doth Protest tooooooooo Much.AussieID_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT}

Dave557 It seems you have haven’t been able to come up with anything we haven’t already heard multiple times, and that has failed every time to convince anyone in the ID community with a scrap of sense.idnet.com.au_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT}

Silly old me, I was always under the impression that ID was cold, hard science. ID had nothing to do with god. Time and time again Demski and others have denied religious motive. Oh well, guess I was wrong. More interestingly, is the fact that the book, presents nothing more then the old ID arguments. PZ Myers (gasp!) says "I've got the book he's talking about, and I'm partway through it. It ain't convincing. It's the same old bluster that Wells and Dembski have been pounding their fists over for the last decade; there's absolutely nothing new in it, just more rehashed chest-thumping from failed religious revolutionaries; I predict it will die a rapid death, simply because the IDers haven't been able to come up with anything we haven't already heard multiple times, and that has failed every time to convince anyone in the biology community with a scrap of sense"dave557_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

The quoted part "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God." could be punctuated differently and I think that probably is what Dr Dembski was saying. "I believe God created the world for a purpose, the Designer of intelligent design, is ultimately, the Christian God." Dr Dembski may wish to arbitrate on the matter. It seems like a statement of personal belief, including other information, not a conclusion from the scientific data alone.idnet.com.au_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT}

Well done Bill. Great stuff! Zoe: this leaves you and me and all others who embrace ID on another level where we can finally shake the cursed monkey off our shoulders and talk about why you believe what you do and why Bill believes as he does. At last, one day at least, we will be able to have open dialog about this stuff. Let the debates begin I say! :-) You aren't going to persecute Bill are you, and stifle free dialog about all this stuff, Zoe? May the best man win! As for Bill being biased for ID because he is a Christian? Does this also cut the other way? e.g that [sarcasm] real [/sarcasm] scientists cannot be objective? And what about the reader of this? Does your belief system stop YOU being objective, or is it only Bill who will be suspect?Robo_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

PlatosPlaything, This statement of Dembski's bothered you: “The Designer of intelligent design, is, ultimately, the Christian God.” Even though I'm a Christian and believe that, it bothered me too in terms of the context of the interview. It would be better if he had phrased the first two paragraphs as: "It may be known that I'm a Christian, but the focus of my writings is not to try to understand the Christian doctrine of creation; it’s to try to develop intelligent design as a scientific program."StuartHarris_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

As you know, I’m a pagan ID supporter. Where does this leave people like me . . . You now have the methodology to justify your belief in whatever divine or non-divine designer you can imagine. Now all you have to do is justify sacrificing to idols.tribune7_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT}

"The Designer of intelligent design, is, ultimately, the Christian God." Umm, that bothers me. This founder of the movement is not saying, "ID proves design, and in my opinion the designer is Jesus," but, as a fact, the designer is Jesus. As you know, I'm a pagan ID supporter. Where does this leave people like me -- as well as the scores of Jews, Muslims and atheists who support ID? And as for academic freedom: yes, of course academics have the right, even in a public institution, to develop theories with controversial conclusions. But they do not have the right to tell my children that science says that Jesus made the world. Because, to put it bluntly, he didn't. That, as far as I'm concerned, is simply a fact. Moreover, ID shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that design events have occurred. But in principle it can never infer that that designer was Jesus. In fact, as I've said before, the evidence seems to point to a multiplicity of competing designers, which points more directly to polytheism than any Abrahamic monotheism. Peace, Zoe.PlatosPlaything_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT}

I look forward to reading this book. Though I admit Dembski would have drawn a clear distinction between who he believes the designer is (the Christian God) and who ID proponents could believe the designer is (Any being with a sufficiently advanced intelligence capable of shaping nature on this scale.) I personally believe what Dembski does, but at the same time I don't think ID can prove that, or (unless I'm mistaken) that ID touches on identifying the designer.nullasalus_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

I hope it's the later statement in Dembski’s answer to Question 4 that gets widely quoted: "We’re very early in this game in terms of understanding the history of how the design got implemented. I think a lot of this is because evolutionary theory has so misled us that we have to rethink things from the ground up." We have been very much misled for decades in both the academic and popular environments about how we can talk about, and even use, phrases like "evolution", "natural selection" and "common descent". We have been misled to believe that a denial of Darwinian Theory is equivalent to a denial of one or more of those three phrases. Getting people to understand why it is not equivalent is the central epistemological challenge the ID movement has to overcome.StuartHarris_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

Yeah, wow, Im kinda shocked. Not that Dembski believes in the Christian God but that he is saying as on eof the founders of the modern movement that it is in fact about not only the big G but the christian big G.Frost122585_{December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Friday Five: William A. Dembski

Leave a Reply