“The intellectual equivalent of spray painting graffiti”

_{William Dembski

August 10, 2009

Education, Intelligent Design, Science}

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

The folks at RichardDawkins.net have their panties in a bunch over some of my class assignments (go here):

Thanks to Baron Scarpia for alerting us to this website, which outlines the rigorous academic standards [Quote-miners, please note: this is sarcasm] which William Dembski’s students have to achieve in his courses on Intelligent Design and Christian Apologetics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary:

http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm

If you follow the links, you will see that it is full of gems: we won’t spoil them for you by flagging them all up, but – just to whet your appetite – you will notice that, at both undergrad and masters level, there are courses for which 20% of the final marks come from having made 10 posts defending ID on ‘hostile’ websites! This could explain a lot.

You may be less amused at some of the questions in the final exam of the Christian Faith and Science module: http://www.designinference.com/teaching/2008_fall_sci-faith_mdiv/final_exam_10dec08.pdf. In particular, this one:

Trace the connections between Darwinian evolution, eugenics, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. Why are materialists so ready to embrace these as a package deal? What view of humanity and reality is required to resist them?

And this one:

You are the Templeton Foundation’s new program director and are charged with overseeing its programs and directing its funds. Sketch out a 20-year plan for defeating scientific materialism and the evolutionary worldview it has fostered if you had $50,000,000 per year in current value to do so. What sorts of programs would you institute? How would you spend the money?

It seems that sending my students to post on “hostile” websites, however, sticks especially in their craw. Slashdot has since picked up on it (go here — the keyword tags are precious).

Want to know how Darwinists really think? Go to the websites listed here and find out. Thus, when I require students to go to these websites and defend ID, it is sound pedagogy. Darwinists reflexively call this trolling (a projection of their own propensity to troll). One individual even emailed me that this is “requiring your students to participate in the intellectual equivalent of spray painting graffiti.” Nonsense. These sites provide a forum and, ostensibly, encourage discussion. My students go to these sites not to pretend to be something they are not but to defend their views — with civility.

In any case, I’ll make you a deal: let Darwinist, atheist, skeptic, freethinking, and infidel websites state prominently on their homepage the following warning — “Intelligent Design Supporters Strictly Prohibited” — and I’ll make sure my students don’t post on your sites.

Comments

Clive, please respond to the context of what I was saying. I said, I remember when this blog was run by Dembski. You were responsible for a policy shift when you took over, which you know full well, since you posted about dissenting comments now being allowed at UD. Please don't rewrite history.Anthony09_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee, Good quotes. I'm all for a return to a natural theology that is sensitive to science (meaning reality --- as in the science of Galileo and Newton et al --- not the materialism that masquerades in the name of "science"). But whatever the case it is true that there are unresolved theological controversies, i.e., we don't know everything---even everything important---as yet. Of such is the question addressed in Plantinga’s little book (Does God Have a Nature?) I mentioned above. No matter which side you might want to come down on I think it is worth knowing what the controversy is. You're right that "Non-believers (often) make irrational statements about the nature of God ..." My point, however, was to commend Lenoxus 20 for an exception to this rule. Sectarian believers---not meant as a slur by the way---tend to miss things that those of other persuasions (including the rare but honest atheist) will catch. PS: In 27 above the sequence "Proverbs" plus 8 plus ) came out as "Proverbs" plus a funny face.Rude_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Anthony09,
Clive, the irony is simple: that someone who encourages dissenters to post on other blogs does not allow dissenters to post on his own blog.
The real irony is that you wouldn't be able to say that if what you say is true.Clive Hayden_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Rude, "1) God does not transcend reality, and 2) God does not transcend his word." God does not transcend reality because He is the ultimate necessary reality without whom there would be no reality. It's not a religious statement, but a logical reality statement. Non-believers (often) make irrational statements about the nature of God because they can't see through the filters of their own faith in empty non-explanatory materialism to the reality of faith based on the evidence of an ultimate reality. "Is the conclusion that the universe was designed -- and that the design extends deeply into life -- science, philosophy, religion, or what? In a sense it hardly matters. By far the most important question is not what category we place it in, but whether a conclusion is true. A true philosophical or religious conclusion is no less true than a true scientific one. Although universities might divide their faculty and courses into academic categories, reality is not obliged to respect such boundaries." Michael Behe "I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena. It has been an exercise in what is traditionally called natural theology. It has had no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor did I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason not of faith." Antony FlewCannuckianYankee_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

Graham (#19) asked: "Jeez, do people really have time to waste on this stuff ?" They have lots of time between all the paradigm-shifting research programs they're running and writing up all the results which prove intelligent design.PaulBurnett_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Clive, the irony is simple: that someone who encourages dissenters to post on other blogs does not allow dissenters to post on his own blog.Anthony09_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Lenoxus 20:
As an atheist, I feel that the paradox of the stone is probably the single stupidest common argument against God’s existence. It is better to convert it into the question “Which kind of omnipotence is God’s: that which can defy logic or that which can’t?” Since most people settle on the second, it’s silly to argue about the first — especially by assuming the second (God can’t defy logic because God can’t defy logic). Discussion can occur after one of the two has been settled on.
What a concise, commonsensical statement. Often an open minded nonbeliever—that rarest of breeds these days—can display more wisdom than a closed minded believer. Those who believe that God isn’t even limited by logic have a terrible time reconciling God with the evil in the world. The Bible presents God as a living, conscious, volitional person. The Greeks gave us the notion of eternal forms which today translates into mathematical realism/platonism or the broader tripartite realm of logic, esthetics & ethics of Charles Sanders Peirce. So which is it? The theological caricature of the biblical God as utterly and totally omnipotent who can have his cake and eat it too if he so wants (probably in violation of Proverbs 8) or the realm of eternal verities logical and otherwise? Heretic that I am I’d opt for both, and recent I came across Alvin Plantinga’s little book, Does God Have a Nature? (Aquinas Lecture 44, Marquette University Press), and was pleasantly surprised to find a philosopher of the same opinion. If God transcends logic in the sense that he created it, why didn’t he make a world of gain without pain? Why not a compatibilist world where all the choices of free agents are guaranteed to turn out good? Oh, but you say, actions have consequences. But if the Deity determined in advance all possible actions and their consequences, why not make it a little less painful? No, all that makes sense to me is that God and logic are coeternal and that God does not transcend the latter. Let me suggest that there are two things that God does not transcend: 1) God does not transcend reality, and 2) God does not transcend his word.Rude_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

brembs, Resubmit the questions, and do it where you do not mock, and I'll allow them through.Clive Hayden_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

I remember when this blog was run by William Dembski. He allowed NO dissenting comments.
It's still like that. I teach science courses at our university. Earlier this morning I had a couple of polite questions about Mr. Dembski's course. Now, it is gone.brembs_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Anthony09,
Tajimas @ 9: You bring up a good point. I remember when this blog was run by William Dembski. He allowed NO dissenting comments. There is some deep irony here.
And the irony is what?Clive Hayden_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

I happen to use a rock to seek for "The Truth". What is Truth? To varying degrees everyone looks for truth. A few people have traveled to distant lands seeking gurus in their quest to find “Truth”. People are happy when they discover a new truth into the mysteries of life. People who have deep insights into the truth of how things actually work are considered wise. In the bible Jesus says “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” So, since truth is considered such a good thing, let us look for truth in a common object; a simple rock. A rock is composed of three basic ingredients; energy, force and truth. From Einstein’s famous equation (e=mc2) we know that all matter (solids, liquids and gases) of the universe is ultimately made up of energy and therefore the entire rock can "hypothetically" be reduced to energy. E=mc²: Einstein explains his famous formula - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7Sg41Bp-U This energy is “woven” by various complex, unchanging, transcendent, universal forces into the atoms of the rock. The amount of energy woven by these complex interactions of various, unchanging, universal forces into the rock is tremendous. This tremendous energy that is in the rock is clearly demonstrated by the detonation of nuclear bombs. This woven energy is found in each and every individual “particle/wave” of every atom, in the trillions upon trillions of atoms in the rock. While energy can be said to be what gives “substance” to the rock, energy in and of itself is a "non-solid" entity. In fact, the unchanging, transcendent, universal constants/forces, that tell the energy exactly where to be and what to do in the rock, can be firmly stated to be the ONLY solid, uncompromising "thing" in the rock. Yet there is another ingredient which went into making the rock besides constants/forces and energy. An ingredient that is often neglected to be looked at as a “real” component of the rock. It is the transcendent and spiritual component of truth. If truth did not exist the rock would not exist. This is as obvious as the fact that the rock would not exist if energy and/or unchanging force did not exist. It is the truth in and of the logical laws of the unchanging forces of the universal constants that govern the energy in the rock that enable the rock to be a rock in the first place. Is truth independent and dominant of the energy and force? Yes of course, there are many philosophical truths that are not dependent on energy or force for them to still be true. Yet energy and unchanging force are precisely subject to what the "truth" tells them they can and cannot do. To put it another way, the rock cannot exist without truth yet the truth can exist without the rock. Energy and force must obey the truth that is above them or else the rock can’t possibly exist. Since truth clearly dictates what energy and/or unchanging force can or cannot do, it follows that truth dominates energy and unchanging force. Energy and unchanging force do not dominate truth. It is also obvious that if all energy and/or force stopped existing in this universe, the truth that ruled the energy and force in the rock would still be logically true. Thus, truth can be said to be eternal, or timeless in nature. It is also obvious that truth is omnipresent. That is to say, the truth that is in the rock on this world is the same truth that is in a rock on the other side of the universe on another world. Thus, truth is present everywhere at all times in this universe (Indeed, Science would be extremely difficult, to put it mildly, if this uniformity of truth were not so). It has also been scientifically proven, by quantum non-locality, that whenever something becomes physically true” (wave collapse of entangled electron, photon) in any part of the universe, this “truth” is instantaneously communicated anywhere/everywhere in the universe to its corresponding "particle". Thus, truth is “aware” of everything that goes on in the universe instantaneously. This universal instantaneous awareness of a transcendent truth also gives truth the vital characteristic of being omniscient (All knowing). This instantaneous communication of truth to all points in the universe also happens to defy the speed of light; a “truth” that energy and even the unchanging force of gravity happen to be subject to (I believe all fundamental forces are shown to be subject to this "truth' of the speed of light). This scientific proof of quantum non-locality also proves that truth is not a “passive” component of this universe. Truth is actually scientifically demonstrated, by quantum non-locality and quantum teleportation, to be the “active” dominant component of this universe. Thus, truth is not a passive set of rules written on a sheet of paper somewhere. Truth is the “living governor” of this universe that has dominion over all other components of this universe and is not bound by any of the laws that "truth" has subjected all the other components of the universe to. Truth is in fact a tangible entity that enables and dictates our reality in this universe to exist in a overarching non-chaotic form so as to enable life to exist (Anthropic Principle). Truth, which is shown not to be subject to time in any way by quantum non-locality, has demonstrated foresight and purpose in the Anthropic Principle for this temporal universe and, as such, can be said to be "alive" from the fact that a "decision" had to be made from the timeless/spaceless dimension, that truth inhabits, in order for this temporal reality to become real in the first place. i.e. truth is a major characteristic of the necessary Being, "uncaused cause", the Alpha, that created all reality/realities. The fact that quantum teleportation shows an exact "specified dominion" of a photon energy by "a truth" (actually truth is shown to be "a specified truth of infinite information" in teleportation) satisfies a major requirement for the entity needed to explain the "missing Dark Matter" in that the needed explanation would have to dominate energy in just such a similar fashion, as is demonstrated by teleportation, to satisfy what is needed to explain the missing dark matter. Moreover, that a photon would actually be destroyed upon the teleportation of its truth (infinite specified information) to another photon, is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics. This is direct empirical validation for the law of conservation of information since a truth exercised dominion of a photon of energy which cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means, and provides another primary evidence that "the truth" is the foundational entity of this universe (i.e. truth cannot be created or destroyed). The fact that simple quantum entanglement shows a "coherent long-range universal control" of energy, by "a truth", satisfies a major requirement for the entity which must explain why the universe is expanding at such a finely-tuned degree in such a manner as it is. Thus "transcendent eternal truth" provides a coherent picture of reality that could possibly unify all of physics upon further elucidation. Well, lets see what we have so far; Truth is eternal (it has always existed and will always exist); Truth is omnipresent (it is present everywhere in the universe at all times); Truth is omnipotent (it has dominion over everything else in the universe, yet is not subject to any physical laws); Truth has a vital characteristic of omniscience (trtuh is aware of everything that is happening in the universe); Truth is active (it is aware of everything that is happening and instantaneously makes appropriate adjustments); and Truth is alive (Truth has created a temporal universe from a reality that is not subject to any physical laws of time or space for the express purpose of creating life; Anthropic Principle) Surprisingly, being eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient. active and alive are the foundational characteristics that are used by theologians to describe God. Thus, logically speaking, spiritual/transcendent truth emanates directly from God. So in answer to our question “What is Truth?” we can answer that truth comes from God as far as the scientific method is concerned. To bring this into the focus of the Christian perspective, Jesus says that He is “The Truth”. In regards to what is currently revealed in our scientific knowledge, this is a VERY, VERY fantastic claim! If Jesus is speaking a truth, which I believe He is from the personal miracles I’ve seen in my own life, then by the rules of logic this makes Jesus exactly equivalent to God Almighty as far as our reality is concerned. Well,,, Is Jesus the author of this universe and all life in it??? Though this is somewhat difficult to bear out scientifically, personally I believe He is since all the foundational truths in what could be termed the "transcendent" philosophy of human character and behavior (i.e. Love your neighbor as yourself, Don't bear false witness etc..etc..), have found their ultimate authority and expression in Jesus Christ life. i.e. by His "sinless life" and by His resurrection from the dead he has set the standard for "righteousness" and has indeed testified to "philosophical truth's" primacy and authority over this material realm. Plus, I find extreme poetic justice in the fact Jesus has overcome death and entropy by leading a totally sinless, and thus in essence a totally decay-free, life. I also find it extremely logical and poetic that we too can escape death and decay by accepting this “living eternal truth” of Jesus atoning sacrifice into our hearts. Of course, there is also this powerful passage at the beginning of John, which has now been scientifically confirmed by many lines of evidence, that bears solid witness to the fact that Jesus is Lord. John 1:1-4 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men." John 1:12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— Myself, I find the evidence that Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth to be overwhelmingly compelling as well as a source of great Joy. Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Refutation of the "hidden variables" argument that is used by materialists in trying to explain quantum phenomena Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show In comparison to classical physics, quantum physics predicts that the properties of a quantum mechanical system depend on the measurement context, i.e. whether or not other system measurements are carried out. A team of physicists from Innsbruck, Austria, led by Christian Roos and Rainer Blatt, have for the first time proven in a comprehensive experiment that it is not possible to explain quantum phenomena in non-contextual terms.....Quantum mechanics describes the physical state of light and matter and formulates concepts that totally contradict the classical conception we have of nature. Thus, physicists have tried to explain non-causal phenomena in quantum mechanics by classical models of hidden variables, thereby excluding randomness, which is omnipresent in quantum theory. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm further note: the experiment I cited finally conclusively proves "reality" is not independent of the observer, and shows that our "material" reality does not "materialize" from the "higher dimensionality wave" until observation, or combination of observations, is exercised. Correct? Quantum Mechanics - The Limited Role Of The Observer - Michael Strauss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elg83xUZZBs What i find interesting is that all of this may be found to tie in to 4-d space-time cosmology in a very neat way that seems to be very satisfying and fairly easy to understand... COBE - WMAP Satellites - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huaS_iSITQs Earth As The Center Of The Universe - image http://universe-review.ca/R02-16-universe.htm I find it very interesting, from what we now know to be true from 4-Dimensional space-time cosmology, That each individual person/observer can be considered the "center of the universe" no matter where they are in the universe since, depending on where in the universe you are observing, the entire universe does in fact seem to "center" on you. Thus: Quantum mechanics tells us that wave collapse is “centered” on each observer, whereas 4-D space-time cosmology tells us the universe is “centered” on each observer,,,a rather interesting congruence in science, between the large and small, I would think! A congruence that they apparently have had an incredibly hard time joining mathematically (Penrose) further note: This following video and article give deep insight into what the image formation on the Shroud signifies for reality: A Particle Physicist Looks At The Turin Shroud Image - 4:25 minute mark of video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgvEDfkuhGg A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847bornagain77_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

Tajimas @ 9: You bring up a good point. I remember when this blog was run by William Dembski. He allowed NO dissenting comments. There is some deep irony here.Anthony09_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT}

JTaylor, "I don’t know if asking students to post on a web site as part of a course requirement is a precedent, but I’m guessing it’s unusual. But as to sound pedagogy – wouldn’t a more effective pedagogical strategy have been to have the students write five pro-ID posts and five anti-ID posts? I believe that’s a common debating strategy and I think would help students understand their (your) opponents point-of-view more effectively." That's a good suggestion - except that it would require Dr. Dembski's students to pretend to be someone they are not in order to post a supporting viewpoint. I don't think he's after that kind of "debate." Besides, they can all read the other posts to understand the opposing side. The trick is in learning to strongly debate their own point of view under the pressure of a hostile environment. I think it's an excellent experiment. I wish I had thought of it.CannuckianYankee_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT}

As an atheist, I feel that the paradox of the stone is probably the single stupidest common argument against God's existence. It is better to convert it into the question "Which kind of omnipotence is God's: that which can defy logic or that which can't?" Since most people settle on the second, it's silly to argue about the first — especially by assuming the second (God can't defy logic because God can't defy logic). Discussion can occur after one of the two has been settled on. Anyway, I have to thank Dr. Dembski for making me ponder my previously unquestioning support of eugenics, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.Lenoxus_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT}

Can God make a stone etc... Jeez, do people really have time to waste on this stuff ?Graham_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT}

I would like to weigh in on what James bond said about the " can god create a stone so big God cant lift it" objection. Actually this is a circular argument fallacy called "begging the question"- which means the question really is "could there be a rock so heavy God could not move it?" to which the obvious theological answer is NO. So what the logician does is beg the question but phase it in regards to God's own power. SO the answer is he could not make such a stone because such a stone could never exist- and omniscience and omnipotence only apply to possible reality- not impossible reality. This is basically a form of the liars paradox - and this shows the problem with proofs in formal logic- an imperfect mental tool of mortal men- but not a problem with God.Frost122585_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT}

To Anthony09 (#14), The fallacy of the complex question, You might have added that its also like asking when you stopped beating your wife.Graham_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

My view is that what they thinbk about Dembski's classes- or how they feel and react to his encouragement of students particippating in the public debate about the controverssey, is really a small and insignificant level to the ID movement. I am far more interested in what Steve Meyer said on Coast to Coast regarding how ID could be used in conjunction with design strategies to investigate nature at an even deeper and more hueristically fruitfull level. Hopefully in the future this will be fruitfull and we will derive simpler and more important truths about nature because of ID. I think it is interesting to take a deeper look at how we can define specificity, how it can be more objectivily defined and detected- and how this all applies to the NFL theorems. All of this seems to point to a new direction that really is cutting edge in science. All of this and the one other interesting thing that Steve said about the question he still feels is unanswered which is "how does mind effect matter?" This leads into how did the designing intelligence really design specified complex novelty in nature. Perhaps we are leading down a spiritual ally there- like In Oleary's book about the spiritual brain. I am looking forward to how this all progresses.Frost122585_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

JamesBond
All this Christian apologising and theologiolisering is fine and dandy, but it STILL doesn’t explain whether God could create a stone so big that even he can’t lift it!
You might like to read this article, entitled Anything you can do, God can do better by Campbell Brown and Yujin Nagasawa. I'll quote the abstract:
The Paradox of the Stone is a familiar argument that purports to show the incoherence of the notion of an omnipotent God. This paper argues that the paradox loses all force once one accepts two plausible principles regarding the nature of divine omnipotence. The solution to the paradox proposed here is importantly different from the traditional one proposed by such philosophers as Mavrodes, Mayo and Plantinga. The paper also considers, and rejects, a common strategy for bolstering the paradox, one that appeals to an apparent ability that is lacked by God yet possessed by ordinary folk. It is argued that the strategy rests on an equivocation.
vjtorley_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

Trace the connections between Darwinian evolution, eugenics, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. Why are materialists so ready to embrace these as a package deal? What view of humanity and reality is required to resist them?
That is called the fallacy of complex question. I would think that, as an educator, you'd try to teach your students to avoid fallacies, not provide examples of them yourself.Anthony09_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

Dembski: "Thus, when I require students to go to these websites and defend ID, it is sound pedagogy." I don't know if asking students to post on a web site as part of a course requirement is a precedent, but I'm guessing it's unusual. But as to sound pedagogy - wouldn't a more effective pedagogical strategy have been to have the students write five pro-ID posts and five anti-ID posts? I believe that's a common debating strategy and I think would help students understand their (your) opponents point-of-view more effectively.JTaylor_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

PZ Meyers is precious.lamarck_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

Hey Dr. Dembski, Do you think I can get some credit for a grade from you to? I've posted at least a few hundred times on hostile sites. Shoot I even had a site set up to mock me that I had run across,,,that should count for extra credit...LOL Evolution: Redefined- Geoff Moore and the Distance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVwFYpFemE4bornagain77_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

I see PZ Myers has responded to this post.PaulT_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

You don't find it at all hypocritical that while you were making it a course requirement for your students to post on "hostile" websites, you were running your own with an iron fist, disallowing or deleting all criticism?
There are plenty of other forums where I mix it up with Darwinists. Think of this blog as my playground. If you have to take a whiz, do it elsewhere.
Tajimas D_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

"All this Christian apologising and theologiolisering is fine and dandy, but it STILL doesn’t explain whether God could create a stone so big that even he can’t lift it!" Well, of course he can. That stone is the atheist mind.Matteo_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

All this Christian apologising and theologiolisering is fine and dandy, but it STILL doesn't explain whether God could create a stone so big that even he can't lift it!JamesBond_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

It seems that sending my students to post on “hostile” websites, however, sticks especially in their craw. Slashdot has since picked up on it (go here — the keyword tags are precious).
PZ also has a thread up on this, and it looks like he's almost developed a bunker mentality after hearing about Dr Dembski's assignment. I think he's afraid of getting shown up on his own blog by an undergraduate, just like the storyline of that classic Chick tract, Big Daddy. Expect PZ to wield the banhammer much more liberally from now on.herb_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski, you are the example to us all of patience, slowness to anger, professionalism, and working unashamedly for one's convictions. We should all, when the bozos start getting us down and we feel like either lashing out in anger or retreating, appreciate the tremendous job that Dr. D. is doing in the face of more crap than most of us will probably ever have to deal with and try to emulate him. Keep it up, Dr. Dembski - what you are doing really matters and the way you do it inspires.landru_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski "Sketch out a 20-year plan for defeating scientific materialism and the evolutionary worldview it has fostered if you had $50,000,000 per year in current value to do so." How would you answer this question Dr. Dembski? I realize that there is obviously no 'right' answer here, but since you've set this as a test question you must have given it some thought.JTaylor_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply