Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“The Great Debate” — Scott & Trefil vs. Sisson & Dembski

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

“Should public schools teach Intelligent Design along with Evolution?”
http://www.bu.edu/com/greatdebate

Wednesday, November 2, 2005, 6:30-8:30 p.m.
Tsai Performance Center, Boston University
685 Commonwealth Avenue

Visit this page to view a live webcast of the debate:
http://realserver.bu.edu:8080/ramgen/encoder/greatdebate.rm

The Debate Participants:

Affirmative

Edward H. Sisson, Esq.
Partner, Arnold and Porter, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Sisson advised witnesses at the Kansas evolution hearings.

Professor Bill Dembski, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture

Nick Barber
Broadcast Journalism major, Boston University College of Communication

+++++++++++++++++

Negative

Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D.
Executive Director, National Center for Science Education.

Professor James Trefil, Ph.D.
Robinson Professor, George Mason University;
co-author, Dictionary of Cultural Literacy.

Neil St. Clair
Broadcast Journalism and Political Science major, Boston University College of Communication and College of Arts and Sciences.

Comments
Doran writes in 27: “DaveScot brings up the sensible question of how to *balance* public opinion and established science.” Doran then grudgingly concedes that even dodos like DaveScot still have the right to vote, influence policy, etc etc. But “balance” is a standard Soft Underleft term. It always means rule by elites and very strict adherence to elite culture codes. Balanced history means suppression of Western culture. Balanced coverage means mandatory airing of elitist views. Balanced wilderness plan means excluding Commoners and locals. Balanced grading system means no grades Balanced admissions means racialist or genderist rather than objective criteria. Balanced sex mores means placing the moral environment under control of deviants, (minorities by definition). Balanced judicial selection means the minority party, the losing party, the unpopular party should choose. Balanced funding means taxing Commoners to promote elitist agendas Balanced discussion of biological origins means exiling Design arguments down the hall to history class or psychology class. When used by a small, (invariably tax-supported) activist group, Balance is always a synonym for “money” or “power,” as in the sentence: “We need more Balance.” When used by representatives of powerful institutions, Balance always means absolute authoritarian control and rigid orthodoxy. Where this has been accomplished, the resulting system is said to be “diverse.”pmob1
November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
I saw the debate, and I understood her to say that Behe now opts for the name “sudden emergence theory” instead of “intelligent design theory” for the same concept. She did this to assert that he is trying to hide the designer. This is the impression I got.
Makes me wonder what Behe might have actually said. Given the way his statements get distorted or misquoted by the anti-ID crowd, something seems amiss here.al Bill, do you know what Eugenie was talking about?DonaldM
November 6, 2005
November
11
Nov
6
06
2005
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
i should also note that if greyshade continues to distort what behe has said of ID, im wondering if he thinks its okay to distort what any darwinist says from now on and proclaim that it is a religious concept... considering the fact that the most famous darwinists have proclaimed that the theory means an end to belief in god. i quoted prof. provine from cornell who said that the theory means no afterlife, no purpose and no meaning to the universe (clearly a religious statement, not a statement based any way in science), and we've all heard richard dawkins who said darwinism allowed him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist (also a religious statement with no basis in science as it is usually defined- tho, as i commented before, the definition needs to be much more broad unless scientists want to leave out large areas of knowledge that might or might not be based on a purely naturalistic model of the world). so, if the top darwinists are adding religious and philosophical values to the theory, then its safe to say, under greyshades definition of how things are labeled, darwinism is purely a religious concept itself.jboze3131
November 5, 2005
November
11
Nov
5
05
2005
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
btw- this nonsense about science being limited to purely naturalistic activities needs to be tossed aside for good. if a scientist was in the lab and god came down from heaven and had a chat with him and allowed himself to be studied, by the naturalistic model the scientist wouldnt be able to scientifically investigate him. the funny thing is- science attempts to tackle the "supernatural" all the time when they go out and claikm theyve debunked ghosts, hauntings, ESP, telepathy, psychic powers, etc. BUT, the problem is- science can never possibly debunk these ideas, since too many within science want to stick to a narrow minded view of science. if these things existed, and they were beyond natural phenomenon, then science, by this definition, could have no part in it. so, if youre going to claim ID is a religious theory, then you also have to limit science and say that scientists can never debunk ghosts, hauntings, everything else i mentioned, and much much more.jboze3131
November 5, 2005
November
11
Nov
5
05
2005
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
forget greyshade, he still cant be honest about what behe said. greyshade said:
"I have suggested that it’s ironic to see a religious debate on an ID blog, and that for one of the main proponents of ID - Dr. Behe - ID is in fact a religious concept. That’s based on Dr. Behe’s sworn testimony that he believes the intelligent designer to be God. "
Behe did NOT say that ID is a religious concept. the SCIENCE and the design inference is the ID...the designger being God to him is the other branch of knowlede- religion. theres a line between the two that is distinct, no matter how you want to distort his claims. you say that he admits ID is a religious concept, but you know thats an outright lie. you seem to demand of behe that he support ID, yet then you want him to turn his brain off and not have any other knowlede via any other branch of knowlede which would lead him to find that the designer, for him, is God. youre showing all the insane rantings of an anti-religious zealot, wanting more than anything to dishonestly twist behe's words into things he never said. ID has its limits...same thing with darwinism, tho most dont want to admit that limit with darwinism and demand it be taken into the philosophical worldview beyond science. youre claiming that, because behe knows ID has limits, and his knowledge of God comes from religion (another brance of knowledge) therefore ID is a religious concept and thats what behe thinks. nonsense. not only nonsense, but blatant lies on your part. and how on earth is it ironic that religion is discussed on an ID website? funny how atheist websites often link to darwinist sites...and its funny how darwinian sites often proclaim life has no meaning or purpose (aka atheism!) youre demanding a double standard (what a shocker). of course ID and darwinian evolution both have religious implications...few people would find it odd that the two go hand in hand to some degree in that both theories impact religious ideas. again, ill say, until you can be honest about what behe said- dont expect too many people to take you seriously.jboze3131
November 5, 2005
November
11
Nov
5
05
2005
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT
Greyshade, That's a very well thought-out demonstration; I'm impressed! I think you did about as well as you could have done, but I'm afraid I'm not convinced. I agree that if ID does, in fact, exist in nature, it poses serious problems for atheism as you pointed out very well. But is it not to say that if there is no (logically) possible way a finite, corporeal designer to have created an instance of irreducible or specified complexity, then there is no possible way for it to have come into existence at all by any means that are constrained by natural possibilities? Use your imagination, Greyshade; it seems to me that what you postulate is an argument from ignorance. In order to establish that theism and ID are logically fused together one must prove one of two things: 1) That some phenomenon exhibits a property that cannot possibly have occured via any action constrained by natural physical laws. 2) That some phenomenon performs a function that transcends such laws - in other words, that it performs a miracle. (Many concepts of psychological dualism fit this bill.) Davidcrandaddy
November 5, 2005
November
11
Nov
5
05
2005
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
Greyshade, You make some unfounded assumptions. I do not agree that we know the designer cannot have used trial and error. All trial and error processes are Darwinian? Intermediate forms made by a designer before the best solution got figured out does not mean that evolution could have produced it, any more than a buggy could have been produced by accident just because we had them before cars. By the way,I like and an also skeptical of the frontloading idea.avocationist
November 5, 2005
November
11
Nov
5
05
2005
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
crandaddy, I note you say that I should "Demonstrate that intelligent design investigation is inseperable from theism in general" which is carefully worded. I am going to demonstrate instead why ID itself is inseperable from theism. I have paraphrased quite a bit of this from other sources. I am going to talk about ID here as it sells itself - i.e. an 'alternative' to evolution, and I'm going to use some of the (ahem!) 'icons' of ID for my demonstration. The example I'm going to use is mainly the bacterial flagellum, but I will also talk about complex biochemical systems in general (blood clotting is just one example). ID says that the bacterial flagellum is 'irreducibly complex' and demonstrates 'specified complexity'. Note that I don't personally think that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, but for the purposes of this argument we will assume it is. Because the flagellum is irreducibly complex it cannot have been designed in stages or tested along the way - because if it could have been it wouldn't be irreducibly complex. If it had intermediate forms with testable function, then it could have been produced by evolution. So ID - by it's very nature - assumes that the flagellum appeared fully functional. The design for the flagellum cannot have evolved through trial and error (otherwise it's 'darwinian') - it was produced whole and entire. The design produces a structure that will stand the test of time - 3.5 billion years no less - and will be self-repairing (by the bacteria itself). Let's call it 'rarified' design. Note that this kind of rarified design is very different to human design. Human designers use trial and error to find something that works. Once they have found something that works they can communicate that to other human designers, who can use that knowledge as the basis for their next design. Even the next incremental step in the design will require testing to see if if works. This is why we have test pilots. Many good human designs fail - such as the one that killed Sergei Korolev on the launch pad in 1966, ending the Soviet race to the moon. Human design is a process of trial and error, and passing on successful approaches to students. Each time something is thought of that might work, it relies either on past experience, that is, trial and error, or some leap, large or small, that is not guaranteed to be successful until it is tried out. Individually we learn by personal experience; corporately we learn by the experience of many. This is as true in engineering, science, medicine and technology as it is in graphic, cultural, and musical art. Compare that to what is required of the design of the bacterial flagellum. The design is utterly unlike human design. It does not involve trial and error or learning. Human designs are fragile - they work only in the conditions for which they are designed, if they work at all. Rarified design is robust - it works in many conditions. Human design requires tinkering to keep it working - you have to repair human designed machines after a while, or replace them. Rarified design produces a bacterial flagellum that can be repaired by the bacteria itself. In fact, there doesn't actually seem to be that much in common between human design and rarified design. It does makes me wonder if the 'design inference' is viable at all... So, what can be say about the designer? The designer cannot be working from trial and error, from inductive inferences, from what is known to what is not, because if the designer was - how would we distinguish it from evolution? No, our designer is producing irreducible complexity, in one go. And the designers designs need to be able to take predict all possible future functions of a flagellum (I believe the ID community called this front loading) - no tinkering is allowed (otherwise the design wouldn't be irreducibly complex). This kind of rarified design - including the predictive nature, the self repairing ability, and the fact that the design works first time - requires several orders of magnitude more intelligence than that possessed by human beings. And this is just for a simple example such as a flagellum. If we consider some of the more complex biochemical pathways that the designer 'must have' designed (because they are allegedly irreducibly complex) the orders of magnitude of front loading just keep getting higher. This one is a quote: "Now the combinatorial complexity here is huge. In a given litre of chemicals, there are some very large number of molecules, each of which has some astronomical number of possible combinations. In order to front load, the Designer had to foresee not only all possible combinations of molecules in organisms, but also in their environments, select the "functional" ones that met the Designer's design goals (excluding, for example, those that permit organisms to flourish in vacuums or on the surface of molten volcanic lava, or whatever it is [the designer] wanted to exclude). Then it had to do this not only for a small volume of chemicals in solution, but over the surface of the earth for 3.5 billion years." The only thing we can assume from this is that the Designer is not limited by cognitive restrictions, time available and natural processes - and the only thing that could possibly fit into this category is an omniscient being. So that leaves ID firmly in the theistic realm (you don't find omniscient beings in science, something about a lack of evidence I understand). The kind of design postulated by ID could only be performed by an omniscient being.Greyshade
November 5, 2005
November
11
Nov
5
05
2005
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT
jboze3131, I have not yet suggested that ID is a religious idea and nothing else. I have suggested that it's ironic to see a religious debate on an ID blog, and that for one of the main proponents of ID - Dr. Behe - ID is in fact a religious concept. That's based on Dr. Behe's sworn testimony that he believes the intelligent designer to be God. How the hell can Behe's beliefs about the identity of the designer have nothing to do with his theories on design? ID makes a special effort not to mention who the designer is (seperation of church and state and all that) and then - under cross - Behe admits he believes the designer is God. Oops.Greyshade
November 5, 2005
November
11
Nov
5
05
2005
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT
DaveScot, you said: "Behe compares the design of the flagellum to the design of a mousetrap. How is that religious?" Disengenious poppycock mate. Behe says that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex and therefore must have been designed. Behe says that he believes the designer is God. So Behe believes that the bacterial flagellum was designed by God. That requires a belief in God - i.e. it's religious. And it's not in any way ad hominem to suggest that - for Behe at least - ID is religious concept.Greyshade
November 5, 2005
November
11
Nov
5
05
2005
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT
"'Scott said that Behe has lost faith in 'intelligent design' as a phrase and is now promoting 'sudden emergence theory'.' This is news to me. Is this correct?" I saw the debate, and I understood her to say that Behe now opts for the name "sudden emergence theory" instead of "intelligent design theory" for the same concept. She did this to assert that he is trying to hide the designer. This is the impression I got. Davidcrandaddy
November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
Eeek! Is that true about Behe "losing his faith in ID"? Anybody verify this??? Say it ain't so. :-(Bombadill
November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
"Besides, a certain Dr. Behe recently said under cross-examination that he believed the intelligent designer to be God. Would it be ad hominem to suggest that for Dr. Behe ID is a religious idea? He said it himself!" ----------- greyshade- you seem to be intent on being dishonest to make bogus claims that ID is a religious idea and nothing else. can you please explain the IDers who DONT believe the designer is god? do you want to pretend they dont really exist? behe stating that he thought the designer was god has nothing to do with ID, which is a fact that some have to have pounded into their brains daily before they understand the concept. youre demanding that behe not name the designer of his own personal life? why? hes a christian- of course he thinks the designer is god. ID doesnt look to find the designer but the DESIGN itself, and it knows its limits. to follow this thru to its logical conclusion, you must now attack darwinists who go outside the realm of science and proclaim that darwinism means that there is no meaning to life, no purpose, no afterlife, etc. those a religious and philosophical ideas. you dont attack those claims tho- you only attack the claims of IDers, distorting what they mean to advance that agenda. you know quite well that behe never said ID was a religious idea, as you falsely claim...he has said many times it is science and that it stops before naming the designer, because he doesnt think naming the designer IS science. but, of course, human beings take from many different branches of knowledge in what they believe...religion is the branch that tells behe that the designer he has found thru science is, indeed, god. next time, at least TRY to be honest (or try to lie a bit better). if youre going to make false claims of behe, i could easily distort your own quotes and post them as fact.jboze3131
November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
Behe compares the design of the flagellum to the design of a mousetrap. How is that religious? Darwin wrote in Species that any demonstration of complexity in organisms that could not be accomplished by successive small changes each with incrementally greater survival value would falsify his theory. Behe and Dembski attempt to do just that. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with taking up Darwin's stated method of falsification. I believe they've succeeded well enough to cast considerable doubt on Darwinian evolution being responsible for all observed diversity. The onus is on supporters of Darwin's theory to show a plausible, detailed path whereby some of the more complex cellular machinery could have self-assembled through Darwinian pathways. There's nothing religious in that challenge as it was a challenge formulated by Darwin hisself.DaveScot
November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Greyshade Quantum mechanics is some strange counter-intuitive stuff. Yet I understand it and believe it to be true. NeoDarwinian evolution on the other hand is straightforward and intuitive. I understand it and I believe it to be bounded to adaptive changes within closely related species and incapable of creating novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. So much for your Feynman quote.DaveScot
November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
I look foreward to it.crandaddy
November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
David/crandaddy, I will get back to you with my demonstration later (tomorrow), as long as I don't get banned first ;)Greyshade
November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
"Where did I ever mention Christians? What led you to the conclusion that I was talking about Christian beliefs and Christian religions?" We were discussing Christianity in the few posts prior to yours. Although you didn't mention Christianity by name, I do not consider unreasonable my presumption that it is what you refered to. "You would be better off challenging me to demonstrate that ID is seperate from theism in general, wouldn’t you?" OK. Demonstrate that intelligent design investigation is inseperable from theism in general "a certain Dr. Behe recently said under cross-examination that he believed the intelligent designer to be God." The key word there is "believed," Greyshade. Davidcrandaddy
November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Where did I ever mention Christians? What led you to the conclusion that I was talking about Christian beliefs and Christian religions? I wonder... You would be better off challenging me to demonstrate that ID is seperate from theism in general, wouldn't you? Besides, a certain Dr. Behe recently said under cross-examination that he believed the intelligent designer to be God. Would it be ad hominem to suggest that for Dr. Behe ID is a religious idea? He said it himself!Greyshade
November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Greyshade, "I also enjoyed the ‘how we should worship’ debate on the blog of the chief proponent of a ’subject that is in no way religious whatsoever’ (regardless of the beliefs of the major proponents and - by the looks of it - most of the followers). Oh the irony!" That's just where this thread drifted. We diverge in many different directions here. It is true that ID is more appealing to Christians than unguided evolution because it is ostensibly more compatible with Christian theism. Just for your smart remarks, I hereby challenge you with the task of demonstrating that intelligent design investigation is logically inseparable from Christian theism. Otherwise, you are guilty of a flagrant ad hominem. Davidcrandaddy
November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
This is a nice quote: "... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd. I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. " - Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988), from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and MatterGreyshade
November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
Greyshade "Found any evidence yet Dave? In 200 years of trying - there must be loads and loads and loads of it." I'm afraid the joke's on you. In 150 years of trying to peddle the Darwinian narrative of undirected evolution to the United States public 85% of the population doesn't believe it was undirected. What's wrong, buddy? Where's that overwhelming evidence you keep speaking of? It certainly hasn't overwhelmed a vast majority of those who've heard it. Underwhelming evidence would be the apt description. Denial is more than just a river in Egypt, Greyshade!DaveScot
November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
Someone named Ellery Schempp, Ph.D. posted his comments about the debate over at Panda's Thumb here: href="http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/the_great_debat.html" You can read that report for yourself, but one thing he wrote was "Scott said that Behe has lost faith in “intelligent design” as a phrase and is now promoting “sudden emergence theory”." This is news to me. Is this correct? What does this mean?DonaldM
November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
There's some amusing comments on here. Really enjoyable stuff. I do like 'Teaching ID does no harm to ones scientific understanding'. I thought 'evolution is not a complex concept' was good too. And DaveScot can always be relied on for a few pearls 'ID is still in it's infacy? - not really'. Found any evidence yet Dave? In 200 years of trying - there must be loads and loads and loads of it. I also enjoyed the 'how we should worship' debate on the blog of the chief proponent of a 'subject that is in no way religious whatsoever' (regardless of the beliefs of the major proponents and - by the looks of it - most of the followers). Oh the irony!Greyshade
November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Suggested subject for the next debate: "If intelligent design is not taught in public schools, then how can one possibly justify the teaching of the neo-Darwinian fabrication?"jay
November 4, 2005
November
11
Nov
4
04
2005
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT
Wow! Can someone explain what was with the first speaker for the affirmative? He went on and on about his mostly irrelevant personal experience, making only a very occasional point that advanced the affirmative posistion, until his time was almost completely up! Incredible! I don’t know if I have heard a worse debater. Apparently Jau agrees with me as he said "quoted" the fellow as saying "let me spend the majority of my precious time up here slowly and gratuitously babbling about myself. What, my times up? Already?!” But strangely, Jay's comment was not deleted, and mine was.bensonbear
November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
Josh, "i dont think christianity without a church means much to me. if you dont worship and take fellowship with others…share things with others who know your situation and such- it means less." Please understand that I don't oppose the Church (as in the body of believers established by Jesus Christ, Himself) - just the way mankind has corrupted it. Jay, Very nice caricaturization of the debate! I got the same impression. Davidcrandaddy
November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
Doran “ID is still in its infancy” Not really. The watchmaker argument, which is essentially what ID is, is at least 200 years old. What's changed is we know a lot more detail about the watch (it's far more complex than anyone suspected) and we have better mathematical tools to move the probability analysis beyond intuition, analogy, and logic (although for many of us intuition, analogy, and logic was sufficiently convincing).DaveScot
November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
If and when a transcript of this debate is available, please provide a link for us. Thanksmorpheusfaith
November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
Crandaddy I think you're quite right in comment #47. My personal experience is much the same as yours.DaveScot
November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply