Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design

2007 — Buckle your safety belts!

Spread the love

Happy New Year to all UD regulars. I expect 2007 to be a bang-up year for ID. Here are three things in particular I’m looking forward to in the coming year:

  1. A new ID friendly research center at a major university. (This is not merely an idle wish — stay tuned.)
  2. The publication of Michael Behe’s book with Free Press: THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION.
  3. The publication of the sequel to OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE, authored by Jonathan Wells and me and titled THE DESIGN OF LIFE: DISCOVERING SIGNS OF INTELLIGENCE IN BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS.

P.S. I would also say that I’m looking forward to debating Barbara Forrest, but I’m giving 5 to 1 odds that she won’t even start negotiations for such an event, much less show. Since she has charged me of cowardice (see here), it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I’ve appointed DaveScot to negotiate details of the debate (take it away Dave!).

20 Replies to “2007 — Buckle your safety belts!

  1. 1
    scordova says:

    I expect 2007 to be a bang-up year for ID.

    Me too, Bill. These new materials and the colossal communication infrastructure being built to transmit existing materials will be persuading the peer-review committees of tomorrow. These peer-review committees of tomorrow are found in the schools and universities of today, and that’s where the action really is. The beauty is that these modes of education and enlightenment cannot be stifled by Darwinists lobbying legislatures and school boards. It took only one book like Denton’s Evolution a Theory in Crisis in the hand of Behe or Wilder-Smith’s Cybernetic Approach in the hand of Kenyon to effect a major change in their views of naturalistic evolution. There is every reason to expect that the story of Behe and Kenyon should play out over and over again if given the opportunity…

    It’s been heart-warming watching pro-ID students quietly matriculating through the system the last few years. I expect that it will only increase.

  2. 2
    Krauze says:

    Don’t forget the publication of Mike Gene’s book, The Design Matrix. He’s been having some problems with the printer, but it should be out sometime this year.

  3. 3
    crandaddy says:

    Forrest won’t debate you, Bill, and the reason is quite ironic–She’s a COWARD! Please do take every opportunity to hang it over her head. Perhaps even a counter on the front page would be appropriate.

  4. 4
    Mats says:

    Barbara won’t debate Bill Dembski bkz she knows she can’t make any good out of it. So why risk it?
    If the debate DOES happen, be sure to have a moment where both debaters can cross-examine each other.

  5. 5
    idnet.com.au says:

    Isn’t there a line in the first Matrix “Buckle your seat belt Dorothy. Kansas is going Bye Bye.”? Is this a prophesy about the Dover decision?

  6. 6
    DaveScot says:

    So far Kevin Padian was the only one brave enough to reply to me re the debate challenge where he ordered all the others on the address list to not respond.

    I found it amusing he called me “cerberus”, the three headed dog that guards the gates of hell. Maybe Kevin was channeling the World War I Germans who nicknamed us Marines “Teufelhunden” (Devil Dogs). It’s a name we assume proudly, Kevin. Thanks.

    In honor of your association with Darwin and Kitzmiller, and your apparent position of authority within the anti-ID ranks, I shall henceforth call you Monkey Boy, HPFIC ( Head Poo Flinger In Charge).

    😆

  7. 7
    kairos says:

    Bill I would add a 4th point:

    4. More and more interviews, books and conferences by NDE supporters trying to persuade audience that evolution is as certain as the sun in the sky.

    After reading that Peter Schuster (agnostic and NDE supporter) did attend to the meeting with the Pope about evolution last September providing the reasons for darwinism towards a Church too much oriented towards design, I downloaded the slides of his lecture:
    http://www.tbi.univie.ac.at/~p.....1_1-12.pdf
    If that is the best darwinists are able to provide I see good future.

  8. 8

    Mats: Actually, I would like Forrest to have Eric Rothschild there (head ACLU attorney in the Dover case) and an attorney of my choice there as well. Then Eric can do the deposition of me that the other side has been crowing about, and our side can finally implement the Vise Strategy on Forrest. What fun. Let’s be sure it’s all video taped and made available online. I’m up for it Barbara — how about you?

  9. 9
    Forthekids says:

    Dear “cerberus”,

    Please, oh please work very, very hard at getting this debate to transpire….in the midwest if at all possible.

    I’d give just about anything to see some of this misinformation Forrest et. al. keep throwing at us to be cleared up in a public venue.

    Keep us updated!

  10. 10
    crandaddy says:

    I would very much like to see this thing get set up in Kansas. That’s close enough to me that I might be able to go!

    This is good that Bill is challenging Forrest to a debate. I can think of no better way to meet her charge of cowardice head-on. She’s lost the right to call him a coward, and now the ball is in her court.

  11. 11
    Douglas says:

    Goshen College in Indiana would be a good venue. (Not that I am associated with Goshen College – I just live nearby.)

  12. 12
    Douglas says:

    Krauze,

    “Don’t forget the publication of Mike Gene’s book, The Design Matrix. He’s been having some problems with the printer, but it should be out sometime this year.”

    He’s welcome to borrow my printer – it works fine.

  13. 13
    GilDodgen says:

    I’ve read Forrest’s writings. She comes across as, at best, a second- or third-rate intellect. She is not even close to being in the same league as Dembski, Behe, Johnson, or Meyer.

    I suspect that she is aware of this. How could she not be?

  14. 14
    Joseph says:

    Krauze:
    He’s been having some problems with the printer,

    Have him check the cable. Next check the ink levels- oh yeah- check the paper. Then call Douglas.

    I would check to see if someone has paid-off or leaned-on the printers to stop the book.

    I would say the only way to get Babs to debate is $$$. That would also give her an “out” after taking a beating- “I did it for the $$$”.

  15. 15

    It seems to me that a debate with Dembski and Forrest could be sponsored by a variety of different university or college groups, including the Federalist Society or the American Constitution Society, both of which co-sponsored debates I’ve had at Cornell Law School and UCLA Law School. The first was on the constitutionality of teaching ID in public schools and the second was on stem cell research. Both events were well-attended and moderated by wonderfully fair gentlemen. The students–on both sides–were respectful and intelligent, and both my opponents were engaging and gracious.

    It would be interesting to see how Forrest defends the philosophical roots of her case, which she avoids (probably not intentionally, since I don’t think she realizes what they are). For example, she accuses some ID advocates of being duplicitous. But why is duplicity wrong? Is it a behavior inconsistent with how human being ought to ideally act? If so, then she has knowledge of an immaterial idea to which human beings ought to conform. (“Ideals” have no empirical referent). But then she has the problem of why ought human beings conform to an immaterial idea at all? Is it because human beings flourish best–achieve their end–by engaging in certain practices and habits? This cluster of assumptions seems teeming with design.

    I’m not saying that Forrest may not have naturalistic answers–even good naturalistic answers–to these queries. What I am suggesting is that she should have to answer these important questions, since they seem to be logically prior to the success of her entire naturalistic project. Of course, plaintiff’s counsel in Kitzmiller does not care about these sorts of questions. And that’s why we expect from them sophistry and not philosophy. But we should expect philosophy from a philosopher. Don’t you think?

  16. 16
    JGuy says:

    William D.,
    If Barbara doesn’t debate you. I’ll switch hats to accomodate Barbara by standing it to debate you.

    As my evolutionary planning guide, I’ll use, appropriately, the aide of the premiere lorem ipsum website (http://lipsum.com/) to generate my arguments & responses.

    If you accept… all I cna say is good luck, literally.

    And remember! …

    Donec sit amet mi. Pellentesque a risus. Integer tincidunt bibendum lacus. Nunc nunc ipsum, tempus eget, porta ut, vestibulum et, magna. Etiam et metus fringilla risus pretium gravida. Maecenas pharetra nulla et turpis.

  17. 17
    Douglas says:

    Dr. Beckwith,

    “It would be interesting to see how Forrest defends the philosophical roots of her case, which she avoids (probably not intentionally, since I don’t think she realizes what they are). For example, she accuses some ID advocates of being duplicitous. But why is duplicity wrong? Is it a behavior inconsistent with how human being ought to ideally act? If so, then she has knowledge of an immaterial idea to which human beings ought to conform. (”Ideals” have no empirical referent). But then she has the problem of why ought human beings conform to an immaterial idea at all? Is it because human beings flourish best–achieve their end–by engaging in certain practices and habits?”

    You have to realize – it’s just her DNA talking.

  18. 18
    DAISHI says:

    “It would be interesting to see how Forrest defends the philosophical roots of her case, which she avoids (probably not intentionally, since I don’t think she realizes what they are). For example, she accuses some ID advocates of being duplicitous. But why is duplicity wrong? Is it a behavior inconsistent with how human being ought to ideally act? If so, then she has knowledge of an immaterial idea to which human beings ought to conform. (”Ideals” have no empirical referent). But then she has the problem of why ought human beings conform to an immaterial idea at all? Is it because human beings flourish best–achieve their end–by engaging in certain practices and habits? This cluster of assumptions seems teeming with design.”

    I believe this is in line with the TAG argument for God, in that no one can argue from a moral position of what is right and wrong, if right and wrong are entirely subjective. Rather, it exposes a reliance on an absolute measure of right and wrong that the individual would otherwise reject with their philosophy.

  19. 19
    Mats says:

    Daishi,
    The TAEG (Transcendental Arguement for the Existence of God) aplies also to science and the laws of logic. The naturalistic/materialistic worldview cannot account for the sucesses of science.

    Check the great debate ->
    http://veritasdomain.wordpress.....at-debate/

  20. 20
    Michael Heath says:

    Regarding the publication of THE DESIGN OF LIFE: any current peer-reviewed articles to support the findings of your new book that I could read now or will this be new research findings never before published?

Leave a Reply