“The Ego and the ID”

_{William Dembski

February 4, 2007

Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

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

Here’s a piece about ID in the UK that came out a few days ago. Note especially the comments after the article.

The Ego and the ID
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 30/01/2007

Why I hate this intelligent design story. It’s simply IDiotic, writes Richard Fortey

Scientists have found themselves trapped into appearing to be unreasonable in their pursuit of rationality. A snare has been cleverly set by the proponents of Intelligent Design in their quest to prove that Charles Darwin got it wrong.

The vast majority of scientists feel nothing but distress that the teaching of Intelligent Design has been promoted in a number of our schools, particularly the faith schools apparently beloved by Tony Blair. Fundamentalists of both Islamic and Christian persuasion meet on this rather implausible common ground. Both these groups of religious hard liners deplore Darwin and all his works.

MORE

Comments

late_model, Bill is usually pretty busy, so I took it upon myself to start a thread on the topic. See: If the universe is a computer, who is the computer Maker?scordova_{February 5, 2007
February
02
Feb
5
05
2007
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

Late_Model, thanks for the linktribune7_{February 5, 2007
February
02
Feb
5
05
2007
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Wow, the Dawkins thing mentioned above is a good read!Robo_{February 5, 2007
February
02
Feb
5
05
2007
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

John A. Wheeler is very much for real. Although he is approaching 100. He is supposedly the person that coined the term "black hole".late_model_{February 5, 2007
February
02
Feb
5
05
2007
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Is this Wheeler thing for real??? COSMIC SEARCH: Do you think there can be any progress on this problem? Wheeler: One of the conditions, I think, for advance in this field, as in any field, is believing that advance is possible. What I hope I'm creating is a sense of faith that it can be done. Faith is the number one element. It isn't something that spreads itself uniformly. Faith is concentrated in a few people at particular times and places. If you can involve young people in an atmosphere of hope and faith, then I think they'll figure out how to get the answer. Faith and hope are absolutely central to everything one does. My comment: Faith? Isn't that what Richard Dawkins is always trying to assassinate? Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. :-)Robo_{February 5, 2007
February
02
Feb
5
05
2007
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Has anyone seen this article about Dawkins in the UK Mail on Sunday? It's well worth a read: http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=433628&in_page_id=1770rabbite_uk_{February 5, 2007
February
02
Feb
5
05
2007
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

From the article: "They might say that proteins are too darn complicated to have arisen by natural selection alone. This kind of assertion drives rationalists crazy, because it is impossible to refute by a critical experiment." I think this is a telling admission; Let the record show that there is no possible experimental evidence that proteins can develop by mutation and selection. Yet not to believe that this is what happened is somehow unscientific. Also from the article: "The problem for scientists is that when this additional design factor is added it serves only to suppress questions - and science is all about tackling questions head-on." This is just not true. Postulating the possibility of design only multiplies the interesting questions that can be asked and investigated. One of my favorites is whether it might be possible to identify any "fingerprints" among different lifeforms which may point to different minds behind the different designs, analogous to computer wordprints accurately identifying authors. And of course we still are left with the very investigatable questions of how life arose or got here in the first place; preprogrammed common descent vs sequential introduction of DNA/organisms, how it developed; how new programs were introduced, etc. etc. (These sorts of questions are addressed by panspermia)http://www.panspermia.org/dacook_{February 5, 2007
February
02
Feb
5
05
2007
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

I feel rather 'dim' to have thought that. Since, the comments were potentially anonyous anyway. :PJGuy_{February 5, 2007
February
02
Feb
5
05
2007
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

Nevermind my last commment. I see, the debate is interesting if not just entertaining on their own.JGuy_{February 5, 2007
February
02
Feb
5
05
2007
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

William, Were you interested in the commments overall? or Because one of the first commenters named "Tasman Walker", who might be the same Tas Walker that is associated often with articles promtoed on Answers in Genesis? - I was wondering it you were curious whether this might represent a softening up of biblical creationist to ID theory in general.JGuy_{February 5, 2007
February
02
Feb
5
05
2007
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Note the language of the conspiracy nut: "a snare has been cleverly set by the proponents of Intelligent Design..." Thus, those who rant that ID is mere creationist pretension, only "appear" to be unreasonable. Riiiiiiiiiiight. Which, mais bien sur, only goes to show the insidiousness of the conspiracy. So, ID proponents are both IDiots--stupid, lazy, ignorant fools, seeking to shove their evil pseudoscience qua religion down our throats-- while at the same time being insidously clever, "tricking" REAL scientists (to wit, the ones who reject Design as a valid mode of causation) into seeming irrational. So, the ID proponent is both Machiavellian and dumber than a sack of hammers. In other words, we're Wyle E. Coyote. Or maybe George W. Bush.TerryL_{February 5, 2007
February
02
Feb
5
05
2007
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Miller: I think the biggest difference, and the most direct way to pinpoint that difference, is to say that creationists inevitably look for God in what science has not yet explained or in what they claim science cannot explain. Most scientists who are religious look for God in what science does understand and has explained. So the way in which my view is different from the creationists or intelligent design proponents is that I find knowledge a compelling reason to believe in God. They find ignorance a compelling reason to believe in God. After all the years this guy has been involved in the subject, I'm amazed he'd say something like this. I wonder if he can articulate the methodologies used by creationists and those used by IDists. Someone should call him on it, in the next debate.tribune7_{February 5, 2007
February
02
Feb
5
05
2007
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

That is more from John Archibald Wheeler. Full interview is here: http://www.bigear.org/vol1no4/wheeler.htmlate_model_{February 4, 2007
February
02
Feb
4
04
2007
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT}

More from Archibald in an interview. It appears he is struggling with ID in a broad sense. COSMIC SEARCH: A few years ago you asked the question: "Are life and mind irrelevant to the structure of the universe, or are they central to it?" Have you found an answer? Wheeler: No, I'm one of the most baffled men in the world on this subject. There is a line of investigation involving the anthropic (or man-related) principle -- the idea that the universe has to be much as it is or life would be impossible. Not only life as we know it, but any life at all would be impossible. On what else can a comprehensible universe be built but the demand for comprehensibility?late_model_{February 4, 2007
February
02
Feb
4
04
2007
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

"Scientists" (at least some, and therefore the quotation marks) have found themselves trapped into appearing to be unreasonable because they have refused to pursue the evidence where it leads.GilDodgen_{February 4, 2007
February
02
Feb
4
04
2007
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

Interesting note in an interview with Ken Miller. Does Dr. Miller's objection here really apply to many of the arguements of design which reflect not necessarily a proof but the best inference from the evidence? ActionBioscience.org: In your book, Finding DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s God, you write, Ã¢â‚¬Å“in nature, elusive and unexplored, we will find the Creator at work.Ã¢â‚¬Â How is your view different from that of creationists or proponents of intelligent design, who argue against evolution? Miller: I think the biggest difference, and the most direct way to pinpoint that difference, is to say that creationists inevitably look for God in what science has not yet explained or in what they claim science cannot explain. Most scientists who are religious look for God in what science does understand and has explained. So the way in which my view is different from the creationists or intelligent design proponents is that I find knowledge a compelling reason to believe in God. They find ignorance a compelling reason to believe in God. Full article may be found here: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/miller.htmllate_model_{February 4, 2007
February
02
Feb
4
04
2007
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

Hey Dr. Dembsi could you look at starting a new thread on information especially given recent mentions in the Feb 2007 WIRED. Could someone start a new thread on an segment in the new WIRED Magazine (FEB 2007). It is a part of the What We DonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Know About . . . On page 121 it has a segement on John Archibald Wheeler a collaberator of Niels Bohr and Albert Eienstein. He proposes that information gives rise to Ã¢â‚¬Å“every it - every particle, every field of force, even the space continuum itself.Ã¢â‚¬Â The article also asks if information is possibly more fundamental than matter itself. From my small primate mind this appears to be very ID friendly language. The article also has another segment on information not being able to be destroyed in black holes. Is this a corner being turned? Maybe Dr. Bill could weigh in on information being more fundamental than matter and not being able to be destroyed even in black holes.late_model_{February 4, 2007
February
02
Feb
4
04
2007
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

A seriously ironic title considering how once Freud was as revered as Darwin and considering how far he has fallen.tribune7_{February 4, 2007
February
02
Feb
4
04
2007
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply