Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Significance of the Dover Decision

William Dembski
December 20, 2005
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Judge Jones rendered his verdict in the Dover case today. On September 30th I blogged what I thought would be ultimate significance of Dover — go here. Even though media and bloggers are now analyzing the decision in depth (for the full decision, go here or here), I have little to add to what I wrote in September, so I’ll just leave it there.

Comments
"I used to NOT, but now I do. What is your point? And besides, what is it that you think you know?" I'm saying a more sure knowledge of God is superior to just faith. Proof that physical reality cannot exist outside of some sort of consciousness, for example, would be a very positive benefit to the world, in my opinion. And I think that previous guy might be right about the use of the word faith. For example, in Russian, the word 'vera' means faith, trust, and belief. Remember we are dealing with translations. “Wouldn’t dying and finding out there is a God (or dying and finding out anything at all) be marvelous good news?” It depends. " On what? If I were an atheist and died, how surprised I'd be to die and find that death was a bugaboo after all. I'm sure there would be hearty laughs all around.avocationist
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT
PiB, “Yes. Well…maybe. That’s been extended by judicial precedent to mean more than Congress. That’s pretty well established. Try again” If judicial precedent can “extend” the law, then judicial precedent can “retract” the law. So we can just move closer to “rule by judges” I guess. I assume that’s your preference. Frankly, I don’t think the judiciary has standing to do either. Only the people, through their representatives (legislative branch) can extend, retract or otherwise alter any of the law. The judiciary only has standing to ensure that we the people follow our own rules: that which we have “extended,” “retracted,” “enacted,” “rescinded.”pmob1
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
"I used to have faith in God, but now I know." I used to NOT, but now I do. What is your point? And besides, what is it that you think you know? "Surely, you do not imply any threat here, do you?" No. "Wouldn’t dying and finding out there is a God (or dying and finding out anything at all) be marvelous good news?" It depends.PjB
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
"True, irreducible complexity would definitely prove the existence of a designer, but where would then be faith?" Oh, how improved would be faith! I used to have faith in God, but now I know. I promise you, knowledge is infinitely superior. "‘I’d rather live my life believing there is a God and upon dying, find out there isn’t one, than to live my life believing there isn’t a God and die and find out there is one.’(paraphrase)" Surely, you do not imply any threat here, do you? Wouldn't dying and finding out there is a God (or dying and finding out anything at all) be marvelous good news?avocationist
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT
keiths: "Nice try, PaV. If anyone wants to see what he really posted, and my refutation, go to.... His post was on December 20, 2005 at 8:27 pm. I guess I should be grateful. This is as close as I’ve ever seen PaV come to admitting he was wrong." Since you were noticing times, you would have been well served to have noticed that my post under this heading was: Dec 21st @10:13 AM, while your response to my post you referred to above was: Dec 21st@ 10:49 AM. Since the subject of the prior heading was no longer being discussed, and as this heading was more appropriate to what I wanted to post, and since you hadn't as yet addressed my prior post, I simply moved over. Now, about this "admitting he was wrong" thing, would you like to go first? BTW, I am very busy at this time, and will respond and post as time permits.PaV
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
Why do you ask?Benjii
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
logan are you a theology student?Mr Christopher
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
DaveScot writes: "I know exactly what the Santorum Language is and didn’t say it was anything different. It’s more like a suggestion but it’s an official suggestion...he compromised by just getting it included in a non-binding attachment." You said it was "in" the legislation, Dave: "The school board’s decision to include ID hypothesis in the evolution section of biology needs to be based solely on the “Santorum language” in “No Child Left Behind” legislation..." Regarding the reversal of his character judgment of Judge Jones: "He bit the hand that fed him like a mangy cur. I made a poor character judgment. Or rather George W. Bush made a poor judgement by appointing him." And Jones went from "good old boy" to "mangy cur" on the basis of a single court opinion you happened to disagree with. "No points for you. Better luck next time, Keith." Are you actually keeping score? That would explain why you've been so grumpy lately. "You’re saying not a single Darwinian in the whole world holds these views?" Josh was railing against "chance worshippers", a derogatory term you yourself use to refer broadly to "Darwinists". Do you really think he was referring to just a few wayward folks? Look at what he wrote: "I often wonder what chance worshippers think of women who cannot have children- they’re sort of link the ultimate lack of purpose and meaning- it’s almost a waste of space, food, and oxygen if we carry the theory out to its logical end."keiths
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
Keiths wrote: "I’ll say it again: Darwinian theory is descriptive, not normative." That's true. But it *is* regularly used as a basis for drawing normative conclusions. Many of these are utterly bizarre, as when Professor Malcolm Potts of U.C. Berkeley argues that adultery is normal and natural, or Professor Peter Singer of Princeton argues that bestility is morally permissible -- both conclusions being justified partly on the basis of Darwinian evolutionary theory. It is therefore not obviously unreasonable to think that Darwinism does have normative implications, and I think Josh was trying to point out one of these. There is surely nothing wrong in pointing out the doctrines to which someone else's views commit them, even if they don't admit those views openly.Logan
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
daveScot you said: Nope. You’re surrounded by intelligently designed objects. Your computer, for instance. Was it designed by a supernatural intelligence? Of course not. Nothing about the design and construction of living things requires a supernatural creator. I'd agree that the *immediate* cause need not be supernatural, but is it turtles all the way down? Doesn't there have to be a "last stop"? If something is an "intelligent cause", is it not, at least most likely, a composition of some fairly complex, most likely irreducibly complex, components. And thereforefore, the "design filter" would predict it was also designed.es58
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Anyone see nutjob PZ Myers recent post where he said he dreams of going back in a time machine and kidnapping the Biblical Abraham and dropping him off somewhere (he wouldn't kill him, he notes)...he also mentions he wouldn't try to interfer with Hitler in any way. http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/so_lets_make_sure_it_doesnt_get_that_bad_here/ Sickening beyond belief. How the university allows such hate on their campus, no one knows. This is precisely what I said before about one side of this debate being 1. dishonest as can be, and 2. hate-filled beyond belief. I see that all those who comment to this piece of garbage seem to agree. I wonder if that means that since so many Darwinists seem to be so hateful towards religion that makes Darwinism a religious theory? If we go with Jones' logic, I'm afraid it might be.Josh Bozeman
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
How can you fight and win a court battle when a judge does not want to see the facts as they are, but as he wishes them to be? No doubt judge Jones' willingness to buy a straw man argument made the job of mischaracterizing ID easier for the plaintiffs. Those exploring ID with faith-based motives should not be discouraged by this. Nor should they be surprised. Judge Jones' action and reasoning demonstrates the lengths to which a faith (a priori) commitment to scientific materialism can handicap sound thinking. It highlights the need to identify ID's vocal opponents, first and foremost, by their faith commitment to scientific materialism. All scientists have faith commitments. ID proponents who have Bible-faith commitments don't venture so far as to declare evolution unscientific purely because of the faith-motivations of its proponents. This teaches us of the great need to free the rising generation from the pernicious and intolerant doctrine of scientific materialism. Other faith based motives for studying Origins are far more restrained and judicious.Mick
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
KeithS
Here we have Josh nobly railing against the cold and heartless views of “chance worshippers” who see infertile women as barren husks and sick patients as “flesh robots.” It’s funny how often the proudest crusaders are simply tilting at windmills. When you point out to Josh that Darwinians hold these views nowhere
You're saying not a single Darwinian in the whole world holds these views? Did you ask them all or are you just making stuff up again?DaveScot
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT
mmadigan "This injudicious judge has offended many more people than he intended, watch for reaction from real scientists and non secular, traditional american citizens. It is irreducible!" First the courts judged creation science and I didn't care because it wasn't my science. Then the courts judged intelligent design and I didn't care because it wasn't my science. Then the courts judged my science and there was nobody left to care. Federal courts determining what is and is not science is not a good thing.DaveScot
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT
BTW, when do they institute book burnings? I like to follow current events, and that's logically the next step.Josh Bozeman
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PDT
Every bill stamped with that mark...yet 2 sentences for high school students and an option of reading a book should they choose- forbidden. Reminds me of the Chinese scientist who said in the US you can criticize the govt but not Darwin. And In China you can criticize Darwin but not the govt. Sad state of affairs we have here.Josh Bozeman
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT
2 words. David Souter.Josh Bozeman
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT
Gumpngreen asks: “I just had a thought…does anyone know what US law says about the government promoting religious views that are held by all religions?” You mean like putting the words "In God We Trust" on most of our money? U.S. laws says that's okay. Or maybe you mean like putting the words "One nation, under God" in the pledge of allegiance? U.S. law says that's okay too. Go figure.DaveScot
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT
Comment by keiths — December 21, 2005 @ 3:13 pm "Sorry, Dave. The Santorum language is NOT part of the bill. It’s only part of the attached report. It’s not legally binding." Sorry Keith, but that's a straw man. I know exactly what the Santorum Language is and didn't say it was anything different. It's more like a suggestion but it's an official suggestion and it was included because they needed to include it to get enough votes for the bill to pass. Santorum was jockeying to make it part of the bill proper and it was in a version that didn't make it so he compromised by just getting it included in a non-binding attachment. Now you know more about it. "Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks." Yeah so? He bit the hand that fed him like a mangy cur. I made a poor character judgment. Or rather George W. Bush made a poor judgement by appointing him. No points for you. Better luck next time, Keith.DaveScot
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT
Keiths, this is precisely what darwinism says. Even Darwin himself realized that his theory meant that man has no real ethics or values, and Darwin asked the question of himself- if he's the result of a mere purposeless accident, as is the case also with his mind, how could he even trust what he was proposing? Provine from Cornell said that NDE theory means that humans have no point, no purpose, no meaning. George Gaylord Simpson said the following:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is already evident that all the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic or, in a proper sense of the sometimes abused word, materialistic factors. They [that is, the objective phenomena of the history of life] are readily explicable on the basis of differential reproduction in populations [that's natural selection], and the mainly random interplay of the known processes of heredity [that's random mutation, the other major element in the Darwinian picture]. Therefore, man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.
So, yes, the theory does come to this logical conclusion. If you rewind the tape of evolution, as Gould once said, and reran evolution- humans would never arise at all. Why not treat people like the mere gene carriers they are? Peter Singer has no problem with it. E.O. Wilson has no problem with it. They're just being honest about the only logical conclusion for a theory that says man is a pointless accident with no meaning but to carry genes to make more genes, tho even these genes have no real meaning or purpose other than to stay alive and eventually die- hoping to make more DNA in the process...nothing more, nothing less. You can hardly ague with the statements above and dozens more like them and worse if you do just a quick google search. If the only meaning to life is to carry genes, under the theory deformed babies are useless- Peter Singer even says this, and he's respected by many. E.O. Wilson says we have no use but to carry genes...Dawkins says the same thing, but that our genes actually control us and the hope is to evolve genes nor actual species. If a woman cannot have a child, she IS useless if humans only purpose is to carry and make more genes. A retarded baby has less significance than a chimp says Peter Singer. I could go on with more quotes and points, but I think you get the point.Josh Bozeman
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT
"Even though the Dover ruling is not nationally binding, how does ID get in the public science classroom now?" Comment by Mr Christopher — December 21, 2005 @ 3:02 pm By not repeating the mistakes made in Dover.DaveScot
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT
"If ID doesn’t isn’t part of science as methodological naturalism, doesn’t this mean that the only alternative is that it uses supernaturalism, that it appeals to the supernatural?" Comment by beervolcano — December 21, 2005 @ 2:02 pm Nope. You're surrounded by intelligently designed objects. Your computer, for instance. Was it designed by a supernatural intelligence? Of course not. Nothing about the design and construction of living things requires a supernatural creator.DaveScot
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT
"Actually they are simply working with what already exists. All they are doing is taking an existing life form and modifying it to see if it will still live." Comment by beervolcano — December 21, 2005 @ 1:44 pm Going for a minimum set of genes - the simplest (or thereabouts) possible living thing. This is a big milestone for nanotechnology. I bet you didn't know that.DaveScot
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT
For someone who complains so vociferously about strawman arguments, Josh is awfully good at constructing them. Josh writes: "Try dealing with patients as a doctor if you think that humans are nothing but flesh robots controlled by DNA, with no point or purpose on earth besides multiplying more DNA, then dying and fading into oblivion. I, for one, would prefer the doctor who sees me as being imporant for more than my reproductive capability- for having a purpose and meaning for being alive. I often wonder what chance worshippers think of women who cannot have children- they’re sort of link the ultimate lack of purpose and meaning- it’s almost a waste of space, food, and oxygen if we carry the theory out to its logical end." Here we have Josh nobly railing against the cold and heartless views of "chance worshippers" who see infertile women as barren husks and sick patients as "flesh robots." It's funny how often the proudest crusaders are simply tilting at windmills. When you point out to Josh that Darwinians hold these views nowhere but in his head, he faults them for failing to "carry the theory out to its logical end." If we think as Josh says we "logically" should, we're morally bankrupt. If we don't, we're intellectual cowards. I'm beginning to think Josh doesn't like us. Josh, "what is" has no necessary logical or moral relation to "what should be". Consider: The fact of genocide in Darfur does not mean we should encourage it. An anthropologist studying cannibalism is not obliged to eat people. The Christian belief that humans are sinful does not mean they should promote evil. A belief that humans are used as vehicles by their genes does not mean we should treat them contemptuously as mere gene carriers. I'll say it again: Darwinian theory is descriptive, not normative. Pretending otherwise is itself an act of intellectual cowardice by those who, fearing they cannot defeat the theory on intellectual grounds, attempt to do so dishonestly on moral grounds instead.keiths
December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT
PjB- good points. I'm sorry, but saying this is just offensive. For someone to claim that someone not buying into, let's say common descent...that will in no way hurt them. This stuff is used mainly for one thing- to support its teaching. It's become almost dogmatic. That essay Dembski linked to said that it's hardly ever used. I'd wager that even most graduates of universities hardly ever deal with the subject. Why would you? You don't need to know any of that to treat a patient as a doctor, to perform surgery, to catalog insects, to work in physics, to do much of ANYTHING in science. The whole Bio Evo is the backbone of all biology is even absurd. That's like saying a creationist with 20 graduate degrees is somehow less of a scientist and less able to compete in the market place of ideas than an undergrad who totally accepts common descent and thinks humans are the result of a mere cosmic accident and nothing more. I'd say that in most professions, the doctor who sees himself and fellow humans as having a meaning and purpose for being here would do better at many things. Try dealing with patients as a doctor if you think that humans are nothing but flesh robots controlled by DNA, with no point or purpose on earth besides multiplying more DNA, then dying and fading into oblivion. I, for one, would prefer the doctor who sees me as being imporant for more than my reproductive capability- for having a purpose and meaning for being alive. I often wonder what chance worshippers think of women who cannot have children- they're sort of link the ultimate lack of purpose and meaning- it's almost a waste of space, food, and oxygen if we carry the theory out to its logical end.Josh Bozeman
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
Mr. Christopher asks: "So, why not take that galvanized Christian community and the new influx of cash and offer to underwrite any legal fees the Dover board might get stuck with if they lose an appeal and appeal the case?" Mostly because the Dover board has no reason to appeal, now that the voters have kicked out the pro-ID members and earned the wrath of Pat Robertson and his God. This, ironically, is probably a good thing for ID, because I suspect an appeal would fail, amplifying the damage done to the cause. ID needs to find a better test case than Dover to push up the appeal chain (and maybe to the Supreme Court).keiths
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT
Look, Mr Dembski said this today - "This galvanizes the Christian community,” said William Dembski, a leading proponent of the theory and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think-tank that promotes intelligent design research. “People I’m talking to say we’re going to be raising a whole lot more funds now.” So, why not take that galvinized Christian community and the new influx of cash and offer to underwrite any legal fees the Dover board might get stuck with if they lose an appeal and appeal the case?Mr Christopher
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
What I would like to see is the TMLC offer to pay the legal bills the Dover board would be stuck with if they lost an appeal and for them to appeal it. Or the DI could offer to cover the cost. I mean if ID *is* scientific it should not lose an appeal, right? This ruling must be a fluke if ID is really science and not supernaturalism? So...Let's start the appeal process of course the Dover board has to agree to that but someone will have to offer to pick up the legal fee in case they lose the appeal. Anyone else? Seems simple to me.Mr Christopher
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" "That’s Congress buddy. Congress can’t establish a State religion. You, on the other hand, can endorse whatever you want. School boards can endorse whatever they want, within their state’s law. It’s none of your business what they do. It’s none of the court’s business what you do." I'm not a lawyer, but I've heard that the courts have ruled that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states. (That makes sense if you think about it. If something is a basic human right, then the government shouldn't be violating it at *any* level.)chaosengineer
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT
"I should mention the argument that students that learn ID couldnt compete in science is absurd." I have to agree with this one. The Chief Scientist in the UNIVERSITY research center where I work is a creationist. It doesn't matter! The guy is brilliant and is responsible for much good work. As a matter of fact, his brother, another PhD creationist supervised my thesis. We received a patent for that work. It is good work and good science.PjB
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply