“The Wiesel 38”

_{William Dembski

September 16, 2005

Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

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

I’ve already adverted to the 38 Nobelists who decided to go after ID to discredit it before the Kansas State Board of Education (go here; and here for their amazingly candid letter). The questions you should be asking yourself are these:

Why did Elie Wiesel (or whoever put him up to it) put so much energy into getting these Nobel winners to sign that letter?
Why don’t they instead put the energy into presenting scientific rebuttals against our side?
Why does the other side look increasingly to peer pressure?
Doesn’t that choice — to allocate resources to PR instead of scientific rebuttals (which they always accuse Discovery of doing) — reveal that something is seriously amiss with standard evolutionary theory?
And why didn’t the opposition in Kansas offer these Nobel winners AS WITNESSES — they would have gotten plenty of press (a lot more than our side) and their views would have been reported accurately (unlike our side)?
Why didn’t they expose themselves to questioning? What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of dignifying our position? They just did with their letter.

Comments

For DonaldM The link is http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/13/t/002523.htmlAlan Fox_{September 19, 2005
September
09
Sep
19
19
2005
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

Hello all, I have just been the victim of a Panda`s Thumb lynch mob at my website because of an essay I wrote laying out some laymans arguments against Darwin in the American Thinker. (This whole thing was ginned up; I had little response for several weeks to this piece, then PZ Myers lit into me.) If anybody would like to help, I certainly wouldn`t object. www.tbirdblog.blogspot.combirddog_{September 18, 2005
September
09
Sep
18
18
2005
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

DonaldM You said previously I also wonder, how many of these laureates knew and understood what they put their name to? IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m willing to bet there will be some retractions forthcoming from this one. I suspect some of them werenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t given all the details. And I suggested we could ask them. I'll post a thread on ARN so, if you like, you could suggest suitable phrasing for the question.Alan Fox_{September 18, 2005
September
09
Sep
18
18
2005
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox writes: "We could ask them, Donald. I like Ã¢â‚¬Å“HorsesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ TeethÃ¢â‚¬Â issues. Do you really see PT as all PR and this blog as setting out the science? Really?" I made no comment whatsoever regarding this blog. As for PT, yes, I see very little in the way of science there. It's whole purpose is to sway public opinion to a certain point of view regarding evolution, so any "science" presented is done within a PR framework. That is why PT exists. Heck, in the welcome message at PT, they liken the blog to a tavern for Pete's sake. Hard to see that as serious science in contrast with, say the "Telic Thoughts" blog.heDonaldM_{September 17, 2005
September
09
Sep
17
17
2005
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

Schwalmo: Some questions are easily answered. Some are purely rhetorical.William Dembski_{September 17, 2005
September
09
Sep
17
17
2005
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

It gets me so angry that they are wasting their time on such garbage. They should stick to what they know. I've set up a modest experiment to test these theories rather than just write letters willy-nilly, and I'm looking for web-volunteers to help. a modest experimentBob Davis_{September 17, 2005
September
09
Sep
17
17
2005
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

> Why did Elie Wiesel (or whoever put him up to it) put so much energy into > getting these Nobel winners to sign that letter? a similar question: Why did Dr. Loennig, a german ID-supporter, fill more than 70 pages http://www.weloennig.de/Nobelpreistraeger.pdf just to show, that nobel laureates are sympathetic to any sort of some type of designer?El Schwalmo_{September 17, 2005
September
09
Sep
17
17
2005
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

Of note, Curl and Kroto who signed the list share the 1996 Nobel Prize with Richard Smalley in Chemsitry. This is Richard Smalley's Position on ID: https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/107 Salvadorscordova_{September 17, 2005
September
09
Sep
17
17
2005
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

I would be interested to know how many courses in evolutionary biology are required these days for physicists, chemists, medical doctors, and economists. Why would I accord their opinion on a scientific question (evolution vs ID) with any greater respect than I would for any other non-specialist or layman? If 38 evolutionary biologists were to offer an opinion on, say, supersymmetry, macro-economic theory, or any other non-biological topic, would these guys pay the slightest bit of attention to it? This is not to disparage the intelligence or character of the Nobel Prize awardees. However, I suspect they are offering an opinion on a topic about which they may actually know very little, and based really on their commitment to materialistic explanations of nature.Aquila_{September 17, 2005
September
09
Sep
17
17
2005
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

In the Wiesel 38 Nobelists there are 4 Nobel Prize for Peace. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s nice: 4 Nobel Prize for PEACE hard work to boost the WAR between IDers and Darwinists.niwrad_{September 17, 2005
September
09
Sep
17
17
2005
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

It isn't logically derived, either, at least as regards the purported necessity of the "unguided and unplanned" predicate. One of the problems with hardcore neoDarwinism is that although it begins with empirical data, it then makes unnecessary inferences therefrom, usually on the strength of an incomplete and badly-patched model of biological causation. On the other hand, the Wiesel 38 might have meant "logically derived in the inductive sense", as one might derive the possibility or (with the help of probabilistic axioms) probability of a certain antecedent (the TOE) from a given set of consequences (the data). But if so, then in not qualifying their statement accordingly, they are, at the very least, guilty of a misleading omission. In that case, they are either deliberately lying by omission, or they have such a poor grasp of logic that they must literally have stumbled onto the insights for which they were rewarded by the Nobel Prize Committee (leaving one to suppose that they were steered to those insights by an intelligence beyond their ken). In any case, it's looking rather bad for the credential-fixated, accolade-oriented standard bearers of mainstream science.neurode_{September 17, 2005
September
09
Sep
17
17
2005
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

Just wondering -- if Darwin's General Theory of Evolution is so 'scientific' established, how come no Nobel Prize on Evolutionary Biology signed this letter?Enezio E. De Almeida Filho_{September 17, 2005
September
09
Sep
17
17
2005
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

"logically derived" At least they were honest enough to admit the theory isn't testable by saying it's logically derived. Had the letter said "logically derived and empirically tested" they'd be penning their name to a deliberate fraud instead of a specious bit of atheist political commentary. The logic behind the derivation is flawed and there is much "confirmable evidence" that disputes the derivation. Other logically derived narratives fit the "confirmable evidence" better. Whether other logically derived narratives can be tested remains to be seen. As Professor Emeritus of Biology John A. Davison says: "There are currently two kinds of organic evolution hypotheses. Those that have been tested and failed and those that have not been tested."DaveScot_{September 17, 2005
September
09
Sep
17
17
2005
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

DonaldM wrote I also wonder, how many of these laureates knew and understood what they put their name to? IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m willing to bet there will be some retractions forthcoming from this one. I suspect some of them werenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t given all the details. We could ask them, Donald. I like "Horses' Teeth" issues. Do you really see PT as all PR and this blog as setting out the science? Really?Alan Fox_{September 17, 2005
September
09
Sep
17
17
2005
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

Bill askes: "DoesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t that choice Ã¢â‚¬â€ to allocate resources to PR instead of scientific rebuttals (which they always accuse Discovery of doing) Ã¢â‚¬â€ reveal that something is seriously amiss with standard evolutionary theory?" This isn't new. Panda's Thumb is nothing but PR (it sure as heck doesn't offer much in the way of actual scientific discussion). Recall that the first "critique" of Steve Meyer's paper in the PBSW was a long post on PT and that that post became the most often referred to critique of Steve's paper. In other words, an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal is considered "critiqued" and "demolished", not by some further research or study in another peer reviewed journal, but by a blog post on a third rate website! I recall at the time thinking what a slick PR move all that was on the part of the PT crowd, and the NCSE. Now with this Nobel letter, they're doing it again. It's smoke and mirrors.DonaldM_{September 16, 2005
September
09
Sep
16
16
2005
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

The letter says, "Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." I would be most interested to know how any of these nobel laureates know scientifically that the evolution is an unguided, unplanned process. For that matter, how do any of them know scientifically that the properties of biological systems are such that the apparent design we observe throughout those systems can not be actual design even in principle. How can it be that 38 of the, supposedly, smartest people on the planet not know the difference between a philosophical and a scientific statement? A bad argument is a bad argument regardless of who makes it. I also wonder, how many of these laureates knew and understood what they put their name to? I'm willing to bet there will be some retractions forthcoming from this one. I suspect some of them weren't given all the details.DonaldM_{September 16, 2005
September
09
Sep
16
16
2005
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

Elie Wiesel's participation was not expected given previous comments regarding the Nazi project. Interesting. PR is the only the darwinists have right now. Science is the last thing they want to talk about.Conspirator_{September 16, 2005
September
09
Sep
16
16
2005
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

Wiesel has won a Nobel Prize for Peace. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a great thing but does that assure us that Wiesel has a so huge scientific skill? Ã¢â‚¬Â¦niwrad_{September 16, 2005
September
09
Sep
16
16
2005
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

And I misspelled misspelled. Don't you just hate when that happens?DaveScot_{September 16, 2005
September
09
Sep
16
16
2005
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

Bill, you mispelled weasel.DaveScot_{September 16, 2005
September
09
Sep
16
16
2005
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: They're dogmatic enforcement of methodological naturalism as "science" can't withstand the scientific scrutiny that Intelligent Design theory poses, so they're forced to resort to lame red herrings such as this. (Off topic) I just had a brainchild for your "Darwinalia" product line that I simply HAD to pitch to you. You know those mechanical circus monkeys with the cymbals? Well, make one with Darwin's likeness, and have it play some funny little jingle, too! It'll be a hoot! I guarantee they'll fly off the shelves! The reason I'm posting this idea on this thread is because I want to be sure you see it. Davidcrandaddy_{September 16, 2005
September
09
Sep
16
16
2005
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

The Desperation Cometh.DaysofNoah_{September 16, 2005
September
09
Sep
16
16
2005
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply