The Oklahoma Daily reports on Dembski-Ruse Debate

_{William Dembski

March 2, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Here’s the story:

oudaily.com/news/2009/mar/02/design-debate-draws-crowd-laughs-catlett

Dembski-Ruse

Comments

Ruse is clearly confused about ID when he states that it is unscientific simply because, in the case of Dembski, the designer is thought to be God. But that does nothing to suggest that you cannot arrive at a designer without invoking God. The thought behind ID is to find evidence of design, not to say who specifically the designers is. Clearly ID does have scientific merit. I'm guessing Dembski pointed that out too, but you know, the article decided to ignore that point. (At least, I'm assuming it was ignored, because a counter isn't made by Dembski within the article.)Domoman_{March 4, 2009
March
03
Mar
4
04
2009
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

It appears that Ruse does not understand science because he asks for proof- ie he wants to meet and test the capabilities of the designer(s). The only way we know that the builders of Stonehenge had the capability to build it is Stonehenge itself. Designers, successful designers anyway, have the capabilities to design what it is they are designing. Duh. But anyway Mr Ruse why don't you focus on the capabilities of nature, operating freely. Ya see that is the way to falsify ID- to remove the requirement for a designer by demonstrating nature, operating freely is sufficient.Joseph_{March 3, 2009
March
03
Mar
3
03
2009
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

#7 Tribune7 & #11 uoflcard Well said!pharmgirl_{March 2, 2009
March
03
Mar
2
02
2009
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Until recently science didn’t require a cause to be produced for an accurate description of nature. No cause is required for the First Law Of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang, biogenesis etc. and nobody seems to say those things aren’t science.
EXACTLY. It's like if we discovered some alien technology. Even though it is obviously intelligently designed, by the popular ID critic's scientific definition (which has been invented to combat ID theory), we wouldn't be able to reasonably claim it was intelligently designed until we learned EXACTLY how it was made, or at least made a testable hypothesis of how it was made.uoflcard_{March 2, 2009
March
03
Mar
2
02
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

“Science does not allow for miracles,” [Ruse] said.
I wish I knew the context of this quote. Does he mean that science authoritatively rules out the possibility of miracles? Or just that science cannot study miracles? I would tend to agree with the latter, while I would be disturbed at the former. Regardless, I don't think ID is based on the study of miracles, but based on the evidence that intelligent processes may have occurred (although ID really makes no commentary on whether it was a miracle, or just intelligently designed by a truly naturally evolved organism, or something else no one has ever thought of).uoflcard_{March 2, 2009
March
03
Mar
2
02
2009
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Is there a video or audio of this debate by any chance?Gods iPod_{March 2, 2009
March
03
Mar
2
02
2009
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

I didn’t think the article was all that bad. I didn't catch any misspelled words. OTOH, I read it quickly.tribune7_{March 2, 2009
March
03
Mar
2
02
2009
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

“Science does not allow for miracles,” he said. Until recently science didn't require a cause to be produced for an accurate description of nature. No cause is required for the First Law Of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang, biogenesis etc. and nobody seems to say those things aren't science.tribune7_{March 2, 2009
March
03
Mar
2
02
2009
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

"[Ruse] pointed out that many intelligent design theorists, including Dembski, are committed theists, and whether they acknowledge that intelligent design is religious or not, it relies on the idea of God and therefore isn’t science." The recognition and inclusion of God is the definition of genuine science while the exclusion of God is the definition of pseudo-science or anti-science. But I am glad to see Ruse plainly tell the world what honest and educated people already know: Darwinian evolution excludes God. This objective fact exposes Christian evolutionists to be genuinely ignorant, confused or deluded. There is no other explanation for Christians who support a biological production theory that says their God is absent from reality and nature, that is, the same theory that Richard Dawkins supports. RayR. Martinez_{March 2, 2009
March
03
Mar
2
02
2009
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

Although almost completely devoid of anything informative, I didn't think the article was all that bad. At least the writer, though demonstrating a typical apparent bias, didn't castigate or ridicule Dembski and at least referred to his arguments as providing a scientific case. We've seen much, much, worse.Charlie_{March 2, 2009
March
03
Mar
2
02
2009
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

That was a daft article.GilDodgen_{March 2, 2009
March
03
Mar
2
02
2009
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

Yes, that report did seem a little skewed didn't it?StephenB_{March 2, 2009
March
03
Mar
2
02
2009
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

From the title of the article and the missing Dembski quotes, we can infer intelligent agents hard at work carefully designing this one-sided piece of journalism. Purpose, belief and identity of agents, albeit irrelevant, might be to sway its readers into believing that Intelligent Design is a farce.absolutist_{March 2, 2009
March
03
Mar
2
02
2009
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

“Science does not allow for miracles,” I can think of no greater "miracle" than to have something come from nothing.IRQ Conflict_{March 2, 2009
March
03
Mar
2
02
2009
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply