The Designer’s “Skill-Set”

_{William Dembski
November 29, 2005

Evolution, Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Evolution
Intelligent Design}

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

In September, Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show devoted several programs to the topic of evolution (“Evolution, Schmevolution — Who’s Right, Who’s Full of It”). What’s more, I appeared on one of those programs (go here and here).

In those programs, Stewart & Co. had some lines that were not only funny but also memorable. The one that sticks out poked fun at ID: “We’re not saying that the designer is God, just someone with the same skill-set.” That line is now being reused on the debate circuit, with Eugenie Scott, for instance, deploying it this November at a debate at Boston University (go here).

Although the line is funny, it is not accurate. God’s skill-set includes not just ordering matter to display certain patterns but also creating matter in the first place. God, as understood by the world’s great monotheistic faiths, is an infinite personal transcendent creator. The designer responsible for biological complexity, by contrast, need only be a being capable of arranging finite material objects to display certain patterns. Accordingly, this designer need not even be infinite. Likewise, that designer need not be personal or transcendent (cf. the “designer” in Stoic philosophy).

Bottom line: Jon Stewart & Co. are funny people, but their one-liners are no substitute for clear thinking.

Comments

Dan "Deism states that God wound it up and walked away." Not necessarily. I found the following article helpful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Historical and modern Deism is defined by the view that reason, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God. Deists reject both organized and revealed religion and maintain that reason is the essential element in all knowledge. For a "rational basis for religion" they refer to the cosmological argument (first cause argument), the teleological argument (argument from design), and other aspects of what was called natural religion. Deism has become identified with the classical belief that God created but does not intervene in the world, though this is not a necessary component of deism.
DaveScot_{November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

PuckSR is no longer with this blog. --WmADWilliam Dembski_{November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

PuckSR, Your statement about ID being Deism is False. It is very simple, the Designer sould have tuned everything perfectly to his will to have the best possible outcome for creatures he deeply cares about. He could have even programmed it for redemtpion. Deism states that God wound it up and walked away. This Designer could have wound it up and watched his masterpiece unfold. You clearly do not understand Deism. DanDan_{November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

mentok You might be interested in this http://www.crystalinks.com/holouniverse1.html It's a reprint of a SciAm article. Unfortunately SciAm seems to have truncated all its online content and now demands a digital subscription for everything.DaveScot_{November 30, 2005
November
11
Nov
30
30
2005
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT}

did he claim that his opponent beat him...or did he claim that he did better than him doing better in a debate--being more prepared and speaking more clearly beating or winning in a debate--actually defeating the points of your opponentPuckSR_{November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT}

"I have never read on a pro-ID site that the ID proponent lost the debate." At IDTF, I read an entry where Paul Nelson admitted that his opponent did better than him.anteater_{November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

sorry...that should read: I have never read on a pro-evolution site that the Evolution advocate lost the debatePuckSR_{November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

I hate modern debate....seriously...i hate modern debate Let me explain.... I have never read on a pro-ID site that the ID proponent lost the debate. I have never read on a pro-Evolution site that the ID proponent lost the debate. We have abandoned the concept of debate...the idea that you were actually trying to convince your opponent. Debate does not work when you are trying to sway the masses. Debate works when you are trying to sway your opponent. Now, granted, normally your opponent does not change his mind...but turning public debate into some awkward form campaigning just seems wrong. I believe the decline of public debate coincided with the decline of the American attention span. When we suddenly lost the ability to listen to a 3 hour discourse objectively...we lost the ability to appreciate a good debate.PuckSR_{November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT}

I'm hearing this debate between Peter Ward and Steve Meyer. Meyer is crushing him!!! Go Steve and ID!Benjii_{November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

My professor came in today and blasted ID. As a business professor, he totally digressed from business and focused on science. He called the ID movement a group of Bast****(I would rather not write this, but you know the word). I was offended, however, I didn't say anything in order to avoid more digression. I consider him a nut in the first place anyways! Nonetheless, it shows how ignorant people really are. He accused ID of kidnapping politicians in order to serve their ploy. What a bag of lies? Shows how low higher education has really become.Benjii_{November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

I do not think that they are compatible. ID and Evolution The theistic evolutionists use something similiar to Pope Benedicts "Intelligent Project". ID is distinctly suggesting that biological evolution could only occur with the assistance of an "intelligent agent". If ID were merely suggesting that at some point an intelligent designer 'setup' the system..then ID would merely be relabeled Deism...not similiar to Deism...but Deism. ID must be suggesting that the "intelligent agent" is an active force that is necessary for any evolution. Also, DaveScot, consider that if ID is compatible with Evolution, then ID would not be a controversy to evolution...but a new sub-theory of evolutionPuckSR_{November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

It's amazing to me how many people (including some supporters) publish commentary about ID when they clearly have no idea what the claims of ID are. The only 'radical' claim of ID is simply that in some cases intelligent causation can be reliably inferred from empirical data. ID doesn't even challenge methodological naturalism, unless an intelligent cause is by definition a supernatural cause.BenK_{November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

"One of the issues that I seldom see addressed on this blog is the possibility that Ã¢â‚¬Å“intelligent designÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â actually could be compatible." I've made note of that on several occasions. It's how theistic evolutionists reconcile the two. It's what Albert Einstein and many deists believe. ID doesn't discount these. ID merely posits the evidence of design is detectable in nature and provides a methodoloy for making design inferences.DaveScot_{November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

mentok We talk of the *observable* universe. No one knows what's beyond the observable universe. It might be infinitely more of the same or might not be. You really need to crack those books I mentioned on another thread.DaveScot_{November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Rob "If the designer is not God, then who (or what) created the designer?" If life is the result of chance interactions of matter, who or what created matter? You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. Sorry.DaveScot_{November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

John Stewart has to be one of the clearest thinkers around! One of the issues that I seldom see addressed on this blog is the possibility that "intelligent design" and "evolution" actually could be compatible. After all evolution is a simple, elegant, and powerful way for an intelligent designer to solve the problem of speciation. This, of course, would substitute a different creation story for the ones currently proposed by convential religions, but at least it would be a creation story that is more in line with the evidence.doctormark_{November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

RobG re my post - I was saying that the argument between ID and evolution has involved id being likened to a religon on different occassions in different posts. ID says nothing about God or who the designer is ..it just states that there is design detected -thats it.Any other inferences are your own. The monolith is on the moon we infer design but thats all we can infere.what else can be said ? As a matter of fact I belive I exist as an expression of Gods will.but that does not change design detected or no design detected. WortmHerder outWormHerder_{November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

Consider Roy Clouser's definition of religion (from The Myth of Religous Neutrality): A belief is a religious belief provided that: 1) it is a belief in something as divine per se no matter how that is further described, or 2) it is a belief about how the non-divine depends upon the divine per se, or 3) it is a belief about how humans come to stand in proper relation to the divine per se, 4) where the essential core of divinity per se is to have the status unconditionally non-dependent reality. Clouser's book has the subtitle "An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories." I am still reading the book, but I think Clouser is headed in the right direction. So the questions to be asked are: A) Is the designer unconditionally non-dependent? B) What about the matter he manipulates? A little truth table: A B ---------------------------------- Y Y - paganism of the dualist variety and also pantheism Y N - the great monotheistic faiths N Y - paganism of some other (monistic) variety (evolution) N N - ?? something else is god - the great quantum fluxuation (evolution) It seems ID is compatible with just about everything and does not demand any particular answers to the questions.hlwarren_{November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

And the infinite hyper dimensional conscious computer's name is Deep Thought? ;)Gumpngreen_{November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

I watched the Daily Show and I was surprised to hear that lady on the panel with Bill Dembski say that the universe is a virutal reality. She was chuckled at. But I have the same belief. I don't know who she is and what else she thinks but I have for some type believed in a virtual universe model. It goes a little something like this: From my understanding space time is eternal and infinite, having no origin and no end. That is the nature of reality. If anything exists infinity has to exist. Many cosmologists believe that the universe is finite, they believe it had a beginning and therefore it is limited in size. When I had a debate with some physicists on this I asked: What happens when you come to the end of the universe? Is there a wall there? What is the defining characteristic which would enable you to know that you have come to the end of the universe? Let's say that you have taken a space ship to the end of the universe, what defines the end? How do you know when you have reached it? Does space no longer exist there? Is there a dividing line between space time and non space time? What exists on the outside of the universe? If you were able to walk up to the edge of the universe and walked through it where would you be? Well some of them answered that nothing exists there. I pointed out that by definition nothing doesn't exist. Nothing is not something. So beyond the universe nothing cannot exist because nothing doesn't exist. One of them was an expert mathematician and he agreed with me saying that everything that we have experience of in the universe exists within a boundless reality. People may theorize about a finite universe but there is no actual observation of a finite universe. We have never seen anything that exists in anything but a boundless universe. Until we experience otherwise i.e that something in our universe does not exist in a boundless reality, it is therefore an axiom that the universe is infinite. So that is the starting point of my virtual universe theory. Here is the rest. That infinite eternal space time exists in more dimensions then what we can perceive using our 3 dimensional technology (We know that there are other dimensions existing which we cannot perceive with 3 dimensional technology i.e our mind and conscious awareness). That is a major problem in trying to understand the origin of matter and energy. If you cannot perceive the origin then you can come up with crazy theories like saying matter and energy came from nothing. The fact is that matter and energy come from another dimension. It is that dimension which is the source of our 3 dimensional universe. In that dimension the laws of physics as we know them do not apply. Also the nature of that dimension is that it is an infinite unified energy field. That field became conscious in some unknown manner and developed intellect and eventually was able to create our 3 dimensional universe. All matter and energy in our 3 dimensional universe is a transformation from a sub quantum (extra dimensional) state into a quantum state. It is controlled at the sub quantum level and the quantum level. In a sense matter can self organize because there is more to matter then what we can perceive. Matter has as it's substratum the extra dimensional conscious field of energy and it is that consciousness which organizes matter into the varieties found in our 3 dimensional universe. That is how God created all living things. All matter is controlled at the sub quantum level by a conscious aspect which is all pervading and a unified field. Matter is essentially part of a living being. That living being transforms sub quantum energy/itself and creates matter. At that stage matter is essentially alive. It has a brain and it has an energetic source which controls it's every movement at the quantum level and larger. In a very real sense we live in a virtual reality. Our universe is a virtual world existing within an infinite hyper dimensional conscious computer. Just like a computer can control what you see in a virtual reality due to it's control over the pixels, in a similar way God controls matter in our universe.mentok_{November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

RobG, Your statement is false. The designer could be an alien intelligence. DanDan_{November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

If the designer is not God, then who (or what) created the designer? Eventually your argument is going to have to get back to God creating an intelligent being. Therefore you are espousing a religious view of creation and not a scientific one.RobG_{November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

DaveScot totally agree with your post I have never really understood the inference of ID = Religon mantra that is used in preference to robust argument against ID. As far as I see it ID is about detecting design thats about it ? Please correct me if I am wrong. WormHerder outWormHerder_{November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

ID doesn't speak to: 1) creation of matter 2) immortal soul 3) immoral conduct 4) moral conduct 5) salvation 6) heaven 7) hell Etcetera. If ID is religion it's a brand new one that addresses none of things that all other religions are concered with. If ID is religion it deserves a spot in the Guiness Book of Records as the world's sparsest religion. Remember how Behe got grilled on the stand in Dover for a definition of science? In a court of law concerned with whether ID qualifies as religion for 1st amendment purposes the grilling should be for a definition of religion, not science. ID doesn't qualify as a religion.DaveScot_{November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply