Intelligent Design Uncensored hot off the press

_{William Dembski

May 3, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

My newest book, Intelligent Design Uncensored, co-authored with Jonathan Witt, is now available. You can purchase it here at Amazon.com. It provides a nice overview of the scientific issues at stake but then also deals with the cultural spillover as it relates to both the theistic and atheistic evolutionists.

Comments

Truism is no longer a truism here.Clive Hayden_{May 5, 2010
May
05
May
5
05
2010
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

BiPed, Allow me to interject here. The problem with your questions (all three of them) is a typical shortcoming of ID: you have not defined "information". Without a concrete definition, statements or questions about it are meaningless and best left ignored. Your next problem is using the example of human acts of synthesis as evidence of a creator's ability. Even if your argument was correct, all you'd have demonstrated is that humans are the only know entity that could've created life... but humans ARE life: catch-22!racingiron_{May 5, 2010
May
05
May
5
05
2010
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

You guys are still messing with that troll? I told you, it's a waste of time responding to his trash statements. It makes for dull conversation; he doesn't have anything intelligent or original to say. But carry on, you're free to engage him if you like toying with dead mice. AtomAtom_{May 5, 2010
May
05
May
5
05
2010
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Truism,
...provide even the most basic, simple, straight forward evidence of any sort, on any level, of a creator?
I did. Life is either the result of chance or design. Life operates by information. The source of that information is either chance or design. You have no chance explanation for the information, nor even a conceptualization of how chance could have created it. On the other hand, all meaningful information is the product of perception. All information of our material universe is a semiotic abstraction of reality. Perception and abstractions are phenomena which are associated only with an agent. There is not a single recorded instance in all of human investigation where this has not been found to be true. Perhaps it as just too obvious for you to understand. But now that I've pointed it out to you, deal with it.Upright BiPed_{May 5, 2010
May
05
May
5
05
2010
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

Truism, Life is either the result of unguided forces or its not. To answer that question we have to answer the issue of information, since it is the information within DNA which organizes inanimate matter into living things. I can tell by your last rambling post that being confronted with three simple (but direct) questions on that front was plainly more than you could handle. The first question was: Do you have any empirical evidence that shows evolution is capable of the onset of information processing within the cell? The answer to that is "no". The second question was Do you have even a conceptual path that would lead to semiotic information processing by unguided means? The answer to that question was "no" as well. The third question was What do we do with the universal knowledge that chemistry cannot form a semiotic abstraction of itself? And once again the answer is “no”. Now here is the interesting part. The first question is just straight up – do you, or anyone else, have any information which shows that information processing can arise from inanimate matter. This is just a baseline question. Its intent is simply to put the cards on the table. If you had any such information, I am certain you would take immense pleasure in dealing me a death blow with the greatest flair imaginable. Materialists would toss their kids on their shoulders and write songs in your honor. But, you can’t…because its not there. The second question is far worse than the first. It represents a general reduction in the requirements for proof. Not only can you not provide any actual evidence of information processing rising up from inanimate matter, but you can not even conceive of it. And no one else can either. Hello? Researchers are impressively learning how to synthesize some of the various parts of the system (by means of intense investigator input). But not a single one of them can provide an even a conceptualization of how chemical compounds might begin to provide semiotic meaning for other chemical compounds. Not one of them has even a wildest picture of how chemical compounds might organize themselves into function by means of that information. In other words, once we’ve achieved the artificial synthesis of all the parts necessary for metabolism and replication, we still won’t have a program operating the system. And this result is based upon everything we know – not upon what we don’t know. So all your special pleading about future knowledge quickly falls into an appropriate perspective. And by the way, the assumption that chemical compounds can assign organizational meaning to other chemical compounds is an unproven thesis. By constantly referring to future knowledge as a means to support the thesis, you put the thesis itself in a position that it can never be proven wrong even if it is indeed wrong. It is never forced to a test of its validity, and is therefore a non-falsifiable assumption. To do this while blindly ignoring the fact we cannot even conceive of a way it could happen, is intellectually repugnant. So much for the heralded enlightenment you use to abuse others. Finally the third question is what a strategist might refer to as a corrective. Its intent is to cause you to attack yourself by checking your position. The narrative goes something like this: if we cannot provide the evidence in question one, and we cannot even muster a pathway to an answer in question two, then can we (at the very least) recognize that we are lying to ourselves in question three? Your answer has been duly noted.Upright BiPed_{May 5, 2010
May
05
May
5
05
2010
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

Truism< Thanks for proving my point exactly.bornagain77_{May 5, 2010
May
05
May
5
05
2010
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

Truism, To a man who rightly recognizes the stunning handiwork of God in the process of development in the womb, the video draws the correct feelings of awe, wonder, respect, and even yes, fear. But to the man who rejects belief in God they will ask such a question as you just asked and think it perfectly reasonable. Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 Psalm 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments; His praise endures forever.bornagain77_{May 5, 2010
May
05
May
5
05
2010
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

Fearfully and Wonderfully Made - Glimpses At Development In The Womb http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/29073325bornagain77_{May 5, 2010
May
05
May
5
05
2010
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

Phaedros in 27: "How about life begins when it begins, by which I mean when the process itself is underway. In other words, fertilization." What? You mean the sperm and egg are dead? Or do you mean when something (the fertilized egg) is present that can develop into a human being? But what if that egg divides a few times and we split it into TWO groups of cells, each capable of developing into a human being? (This is how identical twins are formed.) Where did the extra human being come from? Come to think of it, it's only a matter of time and money until we can take an unfertilized egg, double its single stranded DNA and turn it into a human being sans fertilization. (It happens in "lower" animals already without human intervention.) How about this definition: Eggs, sperm and fertilized eggs are all human flesh. It takes a lot more development before anything remotely like a spirit exists. When that spirit is finally present, the human flesh becomes a human being.warehuff_{May 5, 2010
May
05
May
5
05
2010
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT}

Truism,
Upright BiPed, ok, ok, you don’t deny evolution! Let me clarify.
No clarification is needed. You took a position that you could not defend. That was clear from the very start.
Reality is, the sheer volume of evidence for evolution versus zero evidence for a creator makes the debate rather moot.
For you to call the debate moot, you'll first need to go back to the previous post and answer the question asked. I'll be happy to repeat it here: "[Do] you have any empirical evidence that shows evolution is capable of the onset of information processing within the cell?" Now, if you cannot address this issue with observable evidence, then your claim that this issue has been addressed (and is therefore moot) is both deceptive and illogical. Evidence for one thing does not constitute evidence for another. So, can you address this central issue or not?
Nitpicking the gaps and saying ‘no scientific evidence so must be creator’ is not an argument with any foundation or proof.
Of course, the alternative you suggest is that we label those observations as "gaps" which we already know evolution does not have a chance in hell of explaining, then we may plug in evolution to explain them. Personally, I find that method of science to be less than convincing. And what should we do with what we already know to be true? For instance, we already know that meaningful information about the universe exist as an abstraction of the universe; it does not exist as particles within the matter of the cosmos. Therefore it requires perception in order to exist at all. Similarly, we already know that inanimate chemistry does not contain the capacity to assign or create the semiotic content of information. We also know that such meaningful information has been instantiated into matter by means of the aperiodic sequencing of nucleotides within DNA. Likewise, we know that such coding system are boundary conditions which are inaccessible to chemical origins. This knowledge is based upon the entire recorded history of human investigation, and has never even come close to being falsified. We can’t even muster a mere conceptual means of falsifying it. So what should we do with it? A poster on another thread suggests it can be summarily ignored as the collateral damage of professional expedience among group-think ideologues. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask for your own answer. What do we do with the knowledge that chemistry cannot form a semiotic abstraction of itself? Should we just ignore it for political expedience, or do you have a more creative means of favoring intellectual blindness? - - - - - - - - Now so far I’ve had to repeat my questions over and over in order to get you to address them. Forgive me for believing this situation is unlikely to change. Yet in an effort to help, I will quickly summarize what it is that is being asked of you. a) Do you have any empirical evidence that shows evolution is capable of the onset of information processing within the cell? b) Do you have even a conceptual path that would lead to semiotic information processing by unguided means? c) What do we do with the universal knowledge that chemistry cannot form a semiotic abstraction of itself?Upright BiPed_{May 5, 2010
May
05
May
5
05
2010
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT}

"...life begins when it can breath by itself."
NOTICE: Please get your parents' permission before posting comments on this blog.Apollos_{May 4, 2010
May
05
May
4
04
2010
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT}

" life begins when it can breath by itself. " Say what? That's an awfully convenient definition of life. Who agreed on that one? How about life begins when it begins, by which I mean when the process itself is underway. In other words, fertilization.Phaedros_{May 4, 2010
May
05
May
4
04
2010
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT}

Truism is a PT troll. Is that a truism? Tip: If you are gonna engage him, make sure you consult with James Caan so you can get a heads up on the con, er I mean Truism's solid analysis and explanation. here's the slight of hand shell game, I mean how evolution is explained: Which piece of evidence matches to which definition of evolution at what given point in time? You have to get your eyes checked though beforehand because Truism's hand-waving, I mean sleight of hand, er I mean logic and consistent, reasoned, flawless analysis and explanation is something not to be missed.Oramus_{May 4, 2010
May
05
May
4
04
2010
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

I don't think your ad hominem attacks concerning abortion clinics, etc. are very helpful. However I will say this, it is a fact that the fertilized egg is a human being. Logically, then, abortion is murder.Phaedros_{May 4, 2010
May
05
May
4
04
2010
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT}

Truism, I don't deny evolution. And ID does not deny evolution. I've read Behe, Meyer, Dembski, Berlinski, Abel, Axe, Gene, and many others. None of them deny evolution. Hunter does not deny evolution. He, like the others, denies that evolution can accomplish all that has been attributed to it. That is a fairly easy position to take, since everything has been attributed to it. That includes the onset of semiotic information processing within the cell. Refuting your charge was easy. Now do you have any emperical evidence that shows evolution is capable of the onset of information processing within the cell? Do you have even a conceptual path that would lead to semiotic information processing by unguided means? If not, then why should it not be questioned? Why should causes already known to be able to create the onset of information processing be ruled out? On what grounds exactly should the only cause ever observed (throughout all human experience and investigation) to be able to create the observed effect be denied by you, for instance?Upright BiPed_{May 4, 2010
May
05
May
4
04
2010
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT}

Truism- Ever hear of civil discourse?Phaedros_{May 4, 2010
May
05
May
4
04
2010
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT}

Truism,
Defend my position, use empirical observations, shock horror face-palm.
So should I take from this comment that you think empirical observations are over-rated as a means to understand the universe? Is it that you now intend to defend your position by not providing any evidence to support it?
Unlike your perennial attitude, I learn. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that people like you dismiss mountains of factual, empirical, scientific evidence even when it’s presented six ways of sixpence. Because you have a closed mind, fully focused on fable and a single book.
Really, why that's just uncharitable and discourteous of me isn't it? Please allow me to get out of your way in defending your position. Let me help in your endeavor: God is dead, and the Bible is a fairy tale. Now can you tell me what truth is being denied?
You know the answer to the ‘manifest question’.
I think you have become spun around. You said truth was being denied. You sounded damn sure of it as well. I then asked the very next logical question - that would be what truth you are referring to. Shall I now become a mind-reader, or is there a reason you do not want to answer the question?
Yeah I can do it, so can many, many others. But what’s the point when the listener sticks their fingers in their ears and goes ‘la la la’.
I can assure you Mr. Truism, you have my complete attention. What truth is being denied?
So how about you show me empirical evidence, maybe even some facts and scientific evidence, peer reviewed by untainted people of the sciences; to prove creation/ID.
Sure not a problem. I would immediately point you to Doug Axe and David Abel. And I would just as quickly suggest you read Shapiro and Sternberg as well. However, none of that is going to answer what truth you say is being denied. So let’s cut to the chase. What truth is it that you were referring to?Upright BiPed_{May 4, 2010
May
05
May
4
04
2010
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

Truism, Lets see if you can actually defend your position, shall we? Oh, and I do hope you want to use emperical observations (the kind published in journals and indexed in academic records). I certainly intend to. I'll ask the manifest question: Exactly what truth is being denied? Can you do it?Upright BiPed_{May 4, 2010
May
05
May
4
04
2010
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

deric, Truism looked like he was trying to be funny. Humor requires an element of surprise, though...which Truism's tired attempt completely lacks. he needs originality. Simple 5-year old teasing isn't new from their side, so it doesn't come across as humorous, just boring. Notice that no one even bothered to respond to his trash statement until you did. AtomAtom_{May 4, 2010
May
05
May
4
04
2010
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski, speaking of "The End of Christianity," on page 111 you mentioned a sequel book that would explore divine trans-temporal action. Would you have any idea as to the release date of this? I thoroughly enjoyed "The End of Christianity," but this issue is sort of a keystone for your proposal, and one in which I have many questions.Tsinadree_{May 4, 2010
May
05
May
4
04
2010
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

#5 Truism - sarcastic denigration doesn't cut it as "rational argument". Read the book then come back with sensible (rather than senseless) comment. Perhaps then you will be taken seriously.deric davidson_{May 4, 2010
May
05
May
4
04
2010
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT}

I am a biblical creationist but thank you for being one of the agents of change on the issue of origins. You have rightly become famous and successful author. I.D. has been a great boon to biblical creationism. I always say its because the enemies, not opponents, of I.D in trying to discredit you to any potential audience say you are creationists like biblical creationists. We who believe in Genesis as a accurate witness of origins. Surely these enemies know you are a different species. So while the association with us does not hurt you upon listening to your answers it does help us. It has raised our credibility because of the serious attention I.D. has received amongst the very educated populace to some extent. our leaders have achieved but we have been helped up with the general impression put out that creationism is rising and gaining. What they meant for evil truly was turned to good. Cheers from CanadaRobert Byers_{May 3, 2010
May
05
May
3
03
2010
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT}

I meant to say will there be a nook version for Barnes and Noble. I noticed there was a Kindle version but the nook reader leaves the Kindle version in the dust.jerry_{May 3, 2010
May
05
May
3
03
2010
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski, Any chance of a Barnes and Noble or Kindle version. I ordered the book you co authored with Michael Ruse and find it much easier and cheaper to read a book on the computer using the Barnes and Noble reader. I have a Mac with a 24 inch screen. It also makes is so easy to search for something.jerry_{May 3, 2010
May
05
May
3
03
2010
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

Does it have a website like Meyer's book, and can we download the first chapter in PDF format like, for example, "Son or Hamas" and many other books?NZer_{May 3, 2010
May
05
May
3
03
2010
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

This is a fantastic book for the relatively short bit I've read so far.Clive Hayden_{May 3, 2010
May
05
May
3
03
2010
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

Awesome. When's the audio version coming out?Gods iPod_{May 3, 2010
May
05
May
3
03
2010
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski, You are now entering a Richard Posner like level of productivity. Remarkable.Jehu_{May 3, 2010
May
05
May
3
03
2010
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski, I looked at you amazon authors page. You have quite the collection going. I've enjoyed many of them very much. Especially "The End Of Christianity". William A. Dembski - Bibliography http://www.amazon.com/William-A.-Dembski/e/B001HMST62/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0bornagain77_{May 3, 2010
May
05
May
3
03
2010
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Hi. Dr Dembski. I look forward to reading this book. I bought "The End of Christianity" and thought it was one of the best books I have ever read. The tone was just right and the arguments were concise and accessible but still complete.andrewjg_{May 3, 2010
May
05
May
3
03
2010
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply