Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dembski in Kansas

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

. . . Dembski is the author of “The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design” and a senior fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle.

Organizers asked three Kansas University scientists critical of intelligent design to also speak at the event, but all declined.

Brown said organizers could have used corporate funds distributed by the university for the event if there had been KU scientists on the roster. Brown said he offered to change the speaking format to make the invitation more attractive to the KU professors, but that didn’t work.

MORE

Comments
Actually, woctor, jboze made a profound point. A religious claim and a scientifically falsifiable claim may sound alike and even be worded identically, but they are different. First, science can not ascertain the meaning of a religious claim because the meaning may be discerned spiritually for all science knows. (imagine science trying to refute Nostradamus, as an extreme example) Second, a religious claim would have to be judged within teh context of that religious paradigm-- not the empirical paradigm. Observations of an empirical nature may not be reliable in a religious context. Third, an experiment could not even be set up, because the very act of trying to "test" a claim would taint the experiment. You can't observe God in action unless He lets you. For example, you can't test the claim that blessed wine literally becomes the blood of Christ when ingested. Maybe it would have if you hadn't taken it for that purpose or made someone else vomit so you could seek a sign. All this adds up to the fact that science can not determine that a religious claim is false. Now consider that the big fat argument against intelligent design is that it is supposedly a religious claim with zero scientific applicability. The basis for the "religious" label is an arbitrary assertion: that no scientific means of inferring design could possibly exist. This cold, insecure assertion is a poor substitute for reason. It's quite a racket, actually. First claim that something is religious (just because you say so) and then fall back on the inability of science to analyze religious things. Then you can label it "unscientific" as well as "religious." But let's see how this same technique could have been applied historically. Hundreds of years ago someone could have hypothesized that little living things were the cause of rot in food. They could have been laughed at and their idea could have been characterized as an appeal to monsters, ghosts or demons. The idea could be labeled religious and it could be said that science doesn't concern itself with such stories of the supernatural. It could be said that science has no possible means of examining the claim. Yet science does examine the claim. The claim is true. How do you justify the intolerance?RyanLarsen
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT
RyanLarsen says: "If a claim is religious, it's not refutable." Not true. If my tribe fights your tribe, and I claim that my god will guarantee victory for my side, then my claim is religious and it is refuted if your tribe wins. "If I claim that God created the world 100 years ago, how are you going to refute that?" You're right, THAT claim is not refutable. But young-earthers go further: they say that the Earth was created in the last 10,000 years, AND they say (at least most of them say) that God would not deliberately deceive us by "planting the evidence" to make it look older. The young-earthers' claim is refutable, and in fact has been reftuted by science. So while some religious claims are not refutable, many are, and thus jboze's objection carries no weight.woctor
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
"Creationists make debatable and refutable claims" If a claim is religious, it's not refutable. If I claim that God created the world 100 years ago, how are you going to refute that? If I claim that God created the world 10 minutes ago, how will you refute that? You can't.RyanLarsen
January 17, 2006
January
01
Jan
17
17
2006
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
jboze3131 wrote: "...if it’s religion and there’s nothing to debate, does he take issue with Ken Miller who claims to have refuted IC?" jboze, Creationists make debatable and refutable claims (that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, for example), but creationism is still clearly religious and Bible-based.woctor
January 16, 2006
January
01
Jan
16
16
2006
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT
hey, excellent point about MillerRyanLarsen
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT
If ID is a religion, it's the world largest! Because a google search shows ID supporters who are agnostic, atheist, jewish, christian, islamic, hindu, and more. ID isn't religion, considering ALL these various forms of religious ideas and even people who have no religious ideas or just don't know (agnostics and atheists) support ID. Calling in religion and refusing to debate the issue is cowardice, and I doubt that you can show that and win a debate with many people, let alone Bill. Problem is- if it's religion and there's nothing to debate, does he take issue with Ken Miller who claims to have refuted IC? Or Matske who makes the same claim? Were these two men working science to disprove religious claims? Just saying that sounds silly...it's an issue of trying to have your cake (it's not science!), and eating it too (I refuted it scientifically!)jboze3131
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
Right, evoluck, and the rabbit is the one running from the eagle because it doesn't want to have to eat the eagle alive...RyanLarsen
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
"Seems clear to me Krishtalka is admitting he can’t win the debate" Then you just obviously don't know anything about Krishtalka - he would eat Dembski alive.evoluck
January 15, 2006
January
01
Jan
15
15
2006
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
From the article: .... Leonard Krishtalka, director of KU’s Biodiversity Institute, said he was one scientist who declined an invitation to debate Dembski. “There is nothing to debate,” Krishtalka said. “Intelligent design is religion thinly disguised as science and does not belong in the science classroom.” Krishtalka said debates are rarely about truth, but about winning. “In order to win, one has to get down and dirty in these debates,” Krishtalka said. “I refuse to make either science or religion into a circus or into cheap entertainment.” .... Seems clear to me Krishtalka is admitting he can't win the debate.Red Reader
January 14, 2006
January
01
Jan
14
14
2006
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
Dave, As a design engineer, I can see how you could use cooption (as you know, intelligent designers can see the advantage of something several steps down the line). However, I don't understand how natural selection could use cooption on a biochemical level. Humor me here for a sec. Let's take Behe's mousetrap analogy. Miller says that one of the parts (I forget which) could be used as a hairclip. Okay, fine, but as soon as we add another part (like the base) to it we have lessened it's ability to act as a hairclip. This doesn't matter to an intelligent designer working toward a different function, but natural selection wouldn't be having any of it. Natural selection would be trying to preserve the hairclip function and, therefore, would get rid of the additional part we've added. Natural selection would actually be working against the function we are trying to get to. Another example: an old board is propped up in a junkyard and you think it would be perfect for a gocart base. So, you walk up to grab it but realize that it is being used as a door by a homeless person who has fashioned a bit of a dwelling for himself. You say, "well, when he sees this gocart that I'm going to make, he'll understand." So you put fashion an axle to the board. You can see the gocart in your mind. But the homeless man walks up and says, "what are you doing to my door?" You try to explain how cool the gocart will be, but all he can see is that the board no longer fits his doorway. He tells you to take the axle off. You have no choice. In this scenario, the homeless guy is like natural selection. As long as the board functions as a door, it will be selected for that function.RyanLarsen
January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
Ryan Miller is making the case for cooption. In principle it's physically possible. The odds of it happening without direction is in question. Cooption certainly makes for better odds. However, it still boils down to this. I can probably rig up a working gocart from parts scavenged from refrigerators and washing machines. That's cooption. However, there isn't a chance in hell that a tornado ripping through an appliance junkyard is going to assemble a gocart from the pieces. The assembly instructions in and of themselves are complex specified information even in the case of having a bunch of subassemblies used for disparate purposes available for building blocks. Design engineers (my profession) use cooption all the time. If this were part of a patent proposal (I was a patent maven at Dell and reviewed for fitness probably close to 1000 patent abstracts) I'd shoot it down for failing to pass the obviousness test. Cooption is obvious. The goofy evolutionary biology community seems to think coming up with cooption as an argument against design is like some big revelation that should shut all us design experts up once and for all. Sheah, right. But in this case the NeoDarwinian narrative apologists don't even have the TTSS for a subassembly as the flagellum appeared in nature before the TTSS.DaveScot
January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
Oh, and also: I was wondering why no one ever brings this up in responses to him.RyanLarsen
January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
Thanks, Dave, the information you provided IS interesting but I'm not a biologist and the predator question wasn't really a serious point. In the case of TTSS, you are surely correct. But the point I was trying to make isn't just about the TTSS and the flagellum. It's that EVEN IF Ken Miller could somehow prove that something like the TTSS could have existed prior to a structure that he is trying to account for at the time, it wouldn't help his case at all. It fails on principle, not just on circumstance. In other words, this is the argument I would be making if the TTSS HAD come before the flagellum. In essence, Miller has it stuck in his mind that transitory functions (which differ from the function he is trying to account for) are somehow helpful. The point I am laying out is that they actually make the matter worse. Miller claims that the transitory functions give natural selection something to act on, but (as I pointed out in previous posts above) they only serve as competitors, not allies.RyanLarsen
January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
"Devil's Advocate" is one my favorite movies. Al Pacino's performance as Beelzebub was SO GOOD. Of course my favorite Hollywood Satan is Elizabeth Hurley in "Bedazzled". Yowzah!DaveScot
January 13, 2006
January
01
Jan
13
13
2006
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT
We're just playing a little game of "Devil's Advocate" here, Dave. :)crandaddy
January 12, 2006
January
01
Jan
12
12
2006
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT
Ryan says: "Anyway, I’m still interested in whether you agree that the TTSS would be “dead weight” when the bacteria is living in a “selectable function”-free zone." As far as I know, it could be. If the structure truly provides no selective advantage (or the energy expenditure required to use it negates any advantage it does provide), I would be inclined to say that; yes. Of course, I'm no expert on the matter.crandaddy
January 12, 2006
January
01
Jan
12
12
2006
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT
What's all the fuss about the TTSS? Flagella appeared in nature before the TTSS so it's pretty obvious the TTSS devolved from the flagellum rather than flagella evolving from TTSS.DaveScot
January 12, 2006
January
01
Jan
12
12
2006
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT
Ryan "But what predators do they have other than immune systems?" Protozoans are the major consumers of bacteria. So are people that eat yogurt and cheese. Bacteria are the largest portion of the biosphere and millions of animals incorporate them into their meal plans. Bacteria also get viral infections and the infectious particles in that case are called bacteriophages. There's some debate over whether viruses are really alive so don't quote me on bacteriophages being predators.DaveScot
January 12, 2006
January
01
Jan
12
12
2006
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT
Ryan "But what predators do they have other than immune systems?" Protozoans are the major consumers of bacteria. So are people that eat yogurt and cheese. Bacteria are the largest portion of the biosphere and millions of animals incorporate them into their diets. Bacteria also get viral infections and the infectious particles in that case are called bacteriophages. There's some debate over whether viruses are really alive so don't quote me on bacteriophages being predators.DaveScot
January 12, 2006
January
01
Jan
12
12
2006
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
Ryan "But what predators do they have other than immune systems?" Millions of animals eat bacteria including everyone who eats yogurt and cheese. Bacteria comprise the largest portion of the biosphere by mass and lots or organisms take advantage of this by making them an important part of their diet. Protozoans are the major consumers of bacteria. Bacteria even get viral infections. Viruses that infect bacteria are called bacteriophages.DaveScot
January 12, 2006
January
01
Jan
12
12
2006
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT
Yes, in fact bacteria are known for putting all kinds of crap to good use. You are what you eat. For that matter, I don't even know if the TTSS actually has any survival benefit to the bacteria-- unless they use it against their predators. But what predators do they have other than immune systems? Anyway, I'm still interested in whether you agree that the TTSS would be "dead weight" when the bacteria is living in a "selectable function"-free zone. The way I see it, even if Miller were correct (which we have every indication to believe that he is not) the existence of a transition with a different function fails on principle. The function will either compete or be dead weight. Either way, it offers no advantage so there is nothing for Miller and his ilk to boast about!RyanLarsen
January 12, 2006
January
01
Jan
12
12
2006
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
I recently thought of something - is it not possible that the absence of the TTSS could be beneficial to the organism. Maybe the substances expelled though the structure could be used by the organism in the great quest for survival and reproduction. Hey, it's possible, right? :)crandaddy
January 12, 2006
January
01
Jan
12
12
2006
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Hey Crandaddy, Thanks for replying. Sadly, yes, there are some claims that just won't drop, lol. I see the reasoning in your devil's advocate playing, but let me add a thought. If the bacteria wandered into an area where there was no selective advantage to the TTSS, it would then be dead weight~ a waste of resources and space. It would be selected against, no? Even if it were only mildly selected against, it would still worsen the already substantial problem of assembling the enzymes for the flagellum. Further, only the bacteria that are living in the "zone of no TTSS advantage" would have even that good of odds. Tell me what you think.RyanLarsen
January 11, 2006
January
01
Jan
11
11
2006
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
Hi Ryan, Keith S., an opponent of ID who was once a contributor to this blog, recently provided this link to a presentation given by Ken Miller at Case Western University. I was surprised to see that he is still espousing the same old "TTSS was an evolutionary predecessor" argument that he has been pushing for some time. I had been under the impression that the debate over the flagellum's origin had moved beyond this. I'm not a biologist, but the only way I can see that this can work is if a strain of bacteria with the TTSS entered into an environment in which this structure provided no selective benefit. Random mutation would then be free to work on constructing the flagellum without having natural selection "weed out" the intermediate forms. Even so, it seems like a long shot. None of the intermediate steps could provide any substantial selective disadvantage to the organism, and I question the ability random mutation would have had to produce just the right proteins and place them in just the right positions for the flagellum to work.crandaddy
January 11, 2006
January
01
Jan
11
11
2006
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
taciturnus, here's a more precise URL: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/ootc200601110906.aspruss
January 11, 2006
January
01
Jan
11
11
2006
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
This is an aside to Dembski. I didn't know where else to put it. Completely off-topic here, but perhaps you could explain why it is that when Ken Miller or another Darwinist argues that an IC structure (like the flagellum) could have had a predecessor with a different function (like TTSS), no one bothers to point out that such a structure with a different function would be an evolutionary competitor, not an ally? Once a function is selectable, Darwinism dictates that the course that will follow will be a refinement of that function-- eg, the "transitionary" structure would not start to accumulate enzymes for a different function, as they would hamper the selectable function that exists, and would therefore be discarded by selection. Not only would selection not be working towards the function we are after, it would actually be working against it. Why doesn't anyone point this out?RyanLarsen
January 11, 2006
January
01
Jan
11
11
2006
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
Off topic: There is an exchnage going on between Tom Bethell and John Derbyshire over I.D. at National Review Online: http://corner.nationalreview.com/ Cheers, Dave T.taciturnus
January 11, 2006
January
01
Jan
11
11
2006
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply