Goodbye Wedge, Hello Vise

_{William Dembski

November 8, 2005

Evolution, Intelligent Design}

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

The first mention of the Vise Strategy appeared on this blog here. I devised the Vise Strategy to aid the Thomas More Law Center in interrogating the ACLU’s expert witnesses in the Dover Trial. Since all witnesses in that trial have now been called (all that remains is for Judge Jones to render his verdict), I am making available the full-blown Vise Strategy here.

Comments

The lawyer described cross ex ok as far as it went but the truth is that in cross you get to use the authority of the witness for your own view. So in cross your questioning must be very precise: you must use leading questions; the questions should be framed so the answer is always yes; each question should build on the last question; the questions are formed is sequences; these sequences are designed to form conclusions; the questioner should have backup info to force the yes answer required - if the answer is no the questioner should forcefully defend the answer by previous testimony facts or authorities and the discrepancies used to impugn the witness; This can be better than the direct exam because with leading questions the witness is forced to use your words exactly as the testimony but it is the opposing witnesses authority and testimony. So you build your case in the words of the opposing witness using that witnesses peculiar strengths and previous testimony. You only use what can be defended with that witness;crp_{November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

Hi mmadigan, could you give me some examples of questions that 'darwinites' are so anxious to avoid? I'll do my best and try and get some answers to some of them. FYI I accept the current scientific explanation although I am not a scientist myself, so in that respect I am probably what you would call a 'darwinite'.steve_h_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Dr.D, that Vise is your best work since the explanatory filter. Bravo. It is plain to see why the darwinites so anxiously avoid questions.mmadigan_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

i see links to this story where theyre claiming the vaticans comments were a rejection of intelligent design and creationism. of course, creationism fits best with the bible- i dont know how you can deny that. genesis isnt written as a fairy tale narrative just to prove a point...its written as plain history. if its not, then why did christ say he was the final adam to come to the world- that he was a direct descentdent of adam (the first man CREATED by God)? the vatican seems like it might be out of touch with biblical teaching...tho, in some perverse manners its grasping at straws to defend PART of the genesis record? i dont get it. can anyone shine some light on these issues in regard to the theology and what the vatican is really supporting and rejecting??jboze3131_{November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT}

russ: "ES = Evolutionary Sophist." Close. It's good as far as it goes, but it doesn't captures her essential conceitedness. Thanks for the effort.jay_{November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

This paper may prove to be more valuable than we realize. The more these questions are pressed in public arenas (conferences, the internet, the media etc), the more people we begin to see the evasiveness and illogical reasoning of the anti-crowd. Thanks to Bill for bringing together in one place the myriad of questions that many of us have been asking for a long time. It is good to have them side-by-side and worded in the right way. It is just these sorts of questions that reveal the true philosophical presuppositions behind the anti-ID arguments. Once those presuppositions are flushed out, maybe, just maybe, real discussion can begin.DonaldM_{November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

NeoDarwinism, PostDarwinism, The Pope, and Other Dangerous Ideas The Vatican has issued a strong condemnation of creationists. In the meantime, others conte...Dean's World_{November 9, 2005
November
11
Nov
9
09
2005
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

Considering the decision in Kansas, now may be a good time to try out The Vise on our friends at Pandas Thumb. A few less turns might be needed to make 'em pop.Lurker_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

So, Bill, how are the "Darwin in a Vise" dolls comming along? Don't forget, I get the first one :). Look at the very first comment here: https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/321 Davidcrandaddy_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

How about ES = Evolutionary Sophistruss_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

Dawkins agrees with Bombadill!: "It is raining DNA outside. On the bank of the Oxford canal at the bottom of my garden is a large willow tree, and it is pumping downy seeds into the air... It is raining instructions out there; it's raining tree-frowing, fluff-spreading algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is the plain truth. It couldn't be any plainer if it were raining floppy disks." (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 111) Alternate abbreviations?: RD = Reductionist Devil ES = Evolutionary ________, Elitist _________ (Need assistance on this one.) KM = Kidding-himself Monotheistjay_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

What's really interesting in the interview on pgs 18 and 19 is that Dr. Scott regects entire classes of arguments, not based on the argument, but based on the fact that a creationist has used the argument before. She basically says that anyone using an argument which has been used by a creationist is giving bad arguments BY DEFINITION. "I mean, the position Berlinski advocates _has been advocated by those who on the purpose prong of Lemon are definitely intending for religious establishement_." Goodness! Now, a smart person would have turned that back at her, and pointed out that by the same line of thinking, Dawkins himself would have excluded all evolutionary thought from debate, being as he is so religiously atheistic. Anyway, it's interesting that Scott will say an argument must be removed simply because a creationist has used it. Wow.johnnyb_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

"If I made a sculpture of a rock, and I went out of my way to make it look non-descript, could you detect design? " Irrelevant. The explainitory filter can give false negatives. Specified complexity is a sign of intelligent design, not a definition.MGD_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

tester puts these arbitrary rules on science that make no sense. that and he/she says: "Of course ID is religious, almost all the people that believe it are Christians" too bad that the top darwinists out there are all atheists. most people consider atheism a religion of sorts itself...so, darwinisn is now a religious idea, correct? AGAIN i have to ask how you explain a man like anthony flew who now believes in god because of the science underlying design in the world. we will, once again, pretend he doesnt exist i guess. also- can we get some examples of information content being created from nothing...as is supposedly the case with DNA.jboze3131_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

A better analogy would be a computer program, in light of the data that is DNA. Would you have me conclude that mindless unguided mechanisms produced sequentially coded digital information? If so, detail for me, how this has been tested and/or observed.Bombadill_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

taster, when we peer into the cell we find extraordinarily complex machinery and digital code. In any other realm of experience, when we encounter information like this, we make a logical inference to a designer. If it is logical to attribute design to stone carving, it is logical to infer design in the cell.Bombadill_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

Woese and Doolittle? On page 11 there was a question about Woese and Doolittle with regards to Universal Common Ancestry. I have not heard of their work. Could someone point it out to me? Thanks. Jonjohnnyb_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

"and assert" - is how my second question should read. *quickly pours more coffee, sans decaf.Bombadill_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

[I'm happy to report that tasterschoice and thesun are no longer with this blog. --WmAD] taster, how do you support your claim that "ID is religious" when ID simply observes specified & Irreducible complexity in biological systems? If I drive by Mount Rushmore and asserting that the carving is the result of intelligent agents rather than wind & erosion... does this make me religious? And what am I to do with agnostics like DaveScot and the countless other ID proponents? Could it be that you're just spewing the same old tired rhetoric?Bombadill_{November 8, 2005
November
11
Nov
8
08
2005
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply