Darwinism Design inference Information Intelligent Design

Mathematician Kadanoff says people should think about Dembski’s thesis—instead of running the guy out of town

Spread the love

Hey, some of us were wondering whether Darwin’s tenure mob would actually stop ID theorist Bill Dembski from speaking at the University of Chicago.


Readers may recall that U Chicago evolutionary biologist (and Darwinism defender) Jerry Coyne was having a kitten about it on his blog, comparing the proposed meet to Holocaust denial.

Probably did Dembski a favour. His accusations were so crazy that the only sensible response would be to let the man come and speak for himself.

Anyway, this from Evolution News & Views’ account:

Dembski’s host, the distinguished physicist and mathematician Leo Kadanoff, ended the event by observing:

I think the ball is in the court of people who believe in evolution. They have to deal with these questions. …Bill has made his case and we should all go home and think.

Well said! But Darwinists for the most part prefer not to weigh the merit of serious challenges. More.

Feel free to discuss it here, especially if you were there yourself, or have got hold of an aud or tranny. We host comments; ENV doesn’t.

Meanwhile, let’s all remember Godwin’s Law: The person who is reduced to ranting about Hitler and the Nazis, or their vile works—in response to something he just doesn’t happen to agree with—should be viewed as having conceded the argument.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

12 Replies to “Mathematician Kadanoff says people should think about Dembski’s thesis—instead of running the guy out of town

  1. 1
    Moose Dr says:

    LOVE Godwin’s law. I had not encountered it before, so I asked our good friend Wikipedia about it. As for its authority, In 2012, “Godwin’s Law” became an entry in the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.

    The most interesting part of wiki is covered under “Corollaries and Usage” including:

    There are many corollaries to Godwin’s law… For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

    The No Free Lunch theorem, therefore, declares the victory!

    Even the name of this law is so iconic: God wins.

  2. 2
    JoeCoder says:

    Can someone summarize the thesis of Dembski’s new book, in a couple paragraphs or less?

  3. 3
    Upright BiPed says:


    there is this:


  4. 4
    humbled says:

    “I think the ball is in the court of people who believe in evolution. They have to deal with these questions. …Bill has made his case and we should all go home and think.”

    Oh man, to be a fly on the wall – lol.

  5. 5
    ringo says:

    The lengths that the Darwinist defenders go to in order to hold on to their “precious” belief system is creepy! Jerry Coyne and Nick Matzke remind me of Gollum from “The Lord of The Rings”. They will hold on to their “precious” at all cost! They desperately want all challenges to their theory to “shut up, and go away”! Creepy!

  6. 6
    ppolish says:

    Interesting that Dr Dembski argues “Col has implications for teleology in nature, consistent with natural teleological laws mooted in Thomas Nagel’s Mind & Cosmos.”

    The full title of Nagel’s book is “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False”. A bit of a tough read for me in parts, tbh, even after rereading the sentence while moving my lips. But it’s very clear Nagel is an Atheist.

    I think the real Scientific Debate will be between the Atheist IDers (Nagel etc) and the Theist IDers. NeoDarwinists will become scientifically extinct. Dembski sympathizing with the Atheist IDers bodes well for friendly future debates.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Stephen Meyer – Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 2 – video
    Here is part 1 for those who missed it:
    Stephen Meyer – Responding to Critics: Matzke Part 1 – video
    Cladistics Made Easy: Why an Arcane Field of Study Fails to Upset Steve Meyer’s Argument for Intelligent Design

  8. 8
    Sirius says:

    Can someone say what Dembski’s book is about, without just passing the buck . . . oops, I mean posting a link.

  9. 9
    anthropic says:

    Sirius, I think Dembski is going to argue not just that information is foundational (as opposed to matter), but that information itself is by nature relational. Quantum entanglement might be one example.

    I am NOT an insider at Discovery, I have not seen the galleys, and I could be wrong. But based on what I’ve previously read of Dembski and hints that I’ve heard, that would be my bet.

    Whether I’m right, wrong, or a mix (most likely), I also am impatient to read what he has to say.

  10. 10
    JGuy says:

    I’d like to see the talk in video. Does anyone here know if that’s expected to be available online?

  11. 11
    jstanley01 says:

    Here’s a ‘tube vid where I believe he’s laying the foundation along the lines that anthropic is talking about and of the preview of his book UB linked…

    Information and the End of Materialism

  12. 12
    JGuy says:

    Thanks jstanley01.

Leave a Reply