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
DaveScot, Re: Supernatural Genetic Engineers Tackle Synthetic Lifeform What a great point. I read the Ventner thing last night. It hit me between the eyes but I didn’t quite make the connection. Judge Jones III, King of duct tape. Dover biology teachers, their mouths sealed, their brains screaming VENTNER!! DESIGN!! INTELLIGENCE!! But no sound comes out except: “mmmmVVVV, mmmmmVVVVV, , mmmmmVVVV” Ah, education…pmob1
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
I should mention the argument that students that learn ID couldnt compete in science is absurd. Science in the US, in high schools, is already poorly done...and students are doing poorly in it compared to other countries. And thats science without ID. Further- they have creationists working in govt labs all over the nation. Were talking creationists here, not even ID- Id assume someone who doesnt support ID would have a big problem with creationism (as so many of them claim its the same thing, even if it isnt). Los Alamos Natl Lab has one or 2 creationists on staff doing important work. They havent been hindered with their views. To argue that students and scientists would be left behind is silly...even recent journals have had papers talking about how scientists rarely ever use Bio Evo in their work. Bill posted some weeks ago that article by one of them that said that Bio Evo surely is NOT the basis of all biology and that work rarely ever uses Bio Evo. This is merely a scare tactics by the high priests of science to paint ID and other aspects in a negative light.Josh Bozeman
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
DaveScot, re: That works for me. I must be getting soft in my old age. Yeah, but wait ‘til Mohammed and the Pentagram Earth Matron want to run the schools. But you know what? If you keep it loose and there’s still freedom and people duke it out amongst themselves, I think folks will figure it out. America is unbelievable.pmob1
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
"As a believer in naturalistic evolution why discuss spirituality at all, unless you’re interested in exploring that side of your being?" Because I believe that God is the cause of naturalistic evolution. I actually believe that there is both a natural creation and a spiritual one. However, I believe that they are both processes. God is a God of processes. "It is he that hath made us and not we ourselves." Ps 100:3 I actually learned this Psalm in PUBLIC elementary school. God made all of us? How? Through the PROCESS of natural birth. It really isn't hard to see that one can believe both in a God of Process and a God of Creation. It's really the same thing. Spirituality is important even to those of us who believe in natural evolution. After all, that's where it's all headed. This creation will be inhabited by God in the future (Rev 21:3) and we will be one with God. (John 17:11,22) This is God's great gift to his creation. But the unbelieving will not be a part of that.(Rev 21:8) But don't be upset. This is what they want. (Ps 2:3) Actually, everyone gets what they really want. (II Thess 1:8)PjB
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
PjB wrote: "What’s amazing to me is that folks that can’t tollerate the idea of natural evolution can teach spiritual evolution. You know, the idea that natural men and women can evolve into spiritual beings just by believing something." I think the use of the word "evolution" to charactarize the Christian concept of spiritual regeneration is probably not a great analogy. But your point is a valid one in the sense (at least) that belief in both naturalistic evolution and in spiritual regeneration require faith. But given that the precepts of naturalistic evolution reject any form of spirituality by default the point seems moot. And the analogy probably ends there anyway. As a believer in naturalistic evolution why discuss spirituality at all, unless you're interested in exploring that side of your being?dougmoran
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
The Established American Religion is shaken, not stirred...as pro-intelligent designers will be...mmadigan
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
"Only if Congress tries something funny is it your business and my business and all of our business." Yes. Well...maybe. That's been extended by judicial precedent to mean more than Congress. That's pretty well established. Try again.PjB
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
chaosengineer, you wrote: “If their motive is to teach Biblical Creationism, then that’s an unconstitional endorsement of religion.” Here’s what the law says, chaos, in case you missed it: 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. Only if Congress tries something funny is it your business and my business and all of our business. How are your reading skills? Do you get it yet?pmob1
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
What's amazing to me is that folks that can't tollerate the idea of natural evolution can teach spiritual evolution. You know, the idea that natural men and women can evolve into spiritual beings just by believing something. The real problem is a theological one and the poor Christian's can't see it (some can). They teach spiritual evolution on the one hand every Sunday in church and then object to natural evolution being taught in schools. Has anyone ever thought about the analogy between the spiritual creation and the natural creation? Can a natural man become a spiritual one by any process other than ex nihil creation? Only if a dinosaur can become a bird. You can't have it both ways. If there is a natural creation like you believe it to be, you know, made by God pretty much the way it is today; then, "if any man be in Christ he is a new creature." II Cor 5:17 Of course, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Yea right. By the way, Michael Ruse, you can use this if you want to...you know, against all those Bible thumpers. I'll point out your inconsistencies some other day.PjB
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
dougmoran writes: "I just heard a commentary on NPR about this decision that was surprisingly pro-ID." Doug, The commentator's name is Joe Loconte. The real audio file can be found at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5065062 Lawrence Krauss did one for the anti-ID side yesterday: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5063386 While looking for the commentaries I came across this interview with Bart Ehrman, which may be of interest to people on this blog: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156keiths
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
beervolcano wrote: "Um, wouldn’t “supreme intelligence” mean God? or at least something divine? or at the very least something supernatural?" No, I don't think that's what ID theorists state, though they probably hope if design is involved God is the designer as opposed to an alien. But the more important question is that of beer, beervolcano. With a name like that I can tell I like you already!dougmoran
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
{{"He says posing the question of a “supreme intelligence” should not be ruled out of bounds."}} Um, wouldn't "supreme intelligence" mean God? or at least something divine? or at the very least something supernatural?beervolcano
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT
Dan, You wrote "Please prove that reason is just a biologically based system." I think it must be for Darwinists, right? I was addressing those remarks to a Darwinist who should accept this statement. The rest of your comments fit perfectly into what I wanted to say to him.Logan
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
{{"When scientists try to ban an idea from schools…"}} I did have a load of sarcasm about teaching crakpot theories in science class, but I'm sure it would get me banned, so I'll be "serious." In government-run schools, I would hope that what is taught in science class would not only not contain any religious metaphysics, but would also comport with the "mainstream" science of the time. That way, U.S. students would be able to compete successfully with students from other countries in the economic war. {{"They are so weak minded and paranoid that they cannot even agree to teach weaknesses in Darwin’s theory."}} Well, when I was in school, evolution wasn't even brought up. Not one peep. (But there was a big poster of the Earth with the silhouette of a man with his arms spread over the globe and in huge letters at the bottom "DOMINION." Seriously, this was on the wall in my 10th grade biology class. But I'd like to know how you know every detail about what's taught in class. I don't know, maybe you have access to the most popular text books and they don't have anything explaning gaps in the theory, but teachers routinely teach things outside the text book and from what I understand, gaps in theories (any theory) are usually not broached at the high school level.beervolcano
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
Found it. Check this out (the NPR comentary by Loconte): http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5065062 All Things Considered, December 21, 2005 · Commentator Joe Loconte says that Thursday's judicial ruling against the teaching of intelligent design is wrong. He says posing the question of a "supreme intelligence" should not be ruled out of bounds.dougmoran
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
I just heard a commentary on NPR about this decision that was surprisingly pro-ID. Well, at least it wasn't anti-ID. I didn't catch the name of the comentator, but he likened the court reaction to the initial rejection of the Big-Bang. He actually accurately charactarized what ID is all about and made it sound like a reasonable thing. Then he pointed out how scientists can often be as dogmatic about their theories as religious folks, implying that's what is going on here. If anyone can get a transcript of the comentary it is a good one, perhaps the best I've heard on NPR (I was very surprised).dougmoran
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
"I think Behe hurt the defense way more than he ever helped it. The judge said that he was most impressed (negatively) when Behe smugly waved off 50+ peer-reviewed articled declaring them wild speculation without even reading them." I think these were about the blood clotting cascade. How I wish Behe had asked him to kindly point out exactly where in this pile of articles a testable step-by-step explanation of the evolution of blood clotting is presented. That is point in question after all. If we did a study of the literature I reckon we would find something along the following lines: - Descriptions of the structure and function of the (present day) blood clotting cascade - Homologies of blood clotting in animals traced back down the 'tree'(this is not evidence of RM+NS!) - Experimental results that neither confirm or disconfirm either ID or RM+NS - Speculative scenarios (nothing wrong with that but its not evidence!) But... NO plausible detailed step-by-step explanation! How do I know? Because Behe would have been given it 10 years ago when wrote his book. Irreducible complexity would have been falsified. QED. No need for court cases.antg
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
Ofcourse there is a cultural controversy. The secular humanists are in charge of the school systems and have indoctrinated their students into believing their Victorian myth. They are so weak minded and paranoid that they cannot even agree to teach weaknesses in Darwin's theory. I believe that much of evolutionary theory is correct because much of it has been proven by repeatable tests and direct observation-so I am not anti-evolution. DanDan
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
I meant "Controversy" is too strong an expression.PjB
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
Controversy is too strong. There is a scientific aspect to the position that ID people take. IC is a scientific concept that is scientifically testable. But the real issues are not scientific. Just because an atheist can't understand that God created a nature that could develop into what we see today. And that God can allow freedom inside that nature in the sense that everything is NOT determined beforehand. (As a matter of fact, it is theologically and scientifically unacceptable to me that God would do otherwise.) Just because they can't understand that concept, doesn't mean it is wrong. I still maintain that it is "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Hebrews 11:3 We don't understand this by science, but by faith. If it could be understood by science then God would have to save unregenerate people. He doesn't and the natural man CANNOT understand it. (I Cor 2:14)PjB
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
Logan, Please prove that reason is just a biologically based system. Please show us a detailed or even hypothetical support for your assertion. Also, if reason is flawed, then our observations cannot be trusted-therefore science is on a shaky foundation since all of science is contingent on our faculties. BAsed upon your reasoning, you cannot claim that anything, like a Darwinian worldview, is true. DanDan
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
When scientists try to ban an idea from schools...when Miller and Matske and others claim to refute IC- it's obvious that this IS indeed a scientific controversy.Josh Bozeman
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
Science that affects worldviews is clearly a cultural controversy. And Behe and others have said that ID and the thought of a designer would clearly be easier to accept by believers...atheists clearly have a more closed mind when it comes to any possibility of design, which might imply a higher power. He never said ID demanded the supernatural. In everything I've read, he's always said the same thing as Demsbki and others- that it doesn't matter either way- natural or "supernatural" (and again, this term is fuzzy at best)...the world shows features and hallmarks of design. Some things in nature equal what we see from human design and such- they have certain features that signify their designed nature.Josh Bozeman
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
Absolutely, this is a culture war. That doesn't mean the issues aren't valid. But it does mean that it's not about the science.PjB
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
beervolcano said "I thought it was supposed to be a scientific controversy." That is not what this is about at all. This is about a culture war. ChrisMr Christopher
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
{{"This is a cultural controversy. "}} I thought it was supposed to be a scientific controversy. -sorry for multiple posts, but I see things and then just respond- -but I see others doing the same, so...-beervolcano
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
So Behe "defended" ID? I think his testimony was the most damaging part to the defense. He basically said: That the “intelligent designer” works outside the laws of nature. That the “plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.” That the definition of science should be broadened to include supernatural explanations, which would also embrace astrology. I think Behe hurt the defense way more than he ever helped it. The judge said that he was most impressed (negatively) when Behe smugly waved off 50+ peer-reviewed articled declaring them wild speculation without even reading them.beervolcano
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
"The satisfaction of seeking the truth through reason (intellectual success)." Actually, I thought of this after I had placed my comment, but I was leaving the office for the day so I didn't bother to add it. I've had a very intellectually fulfilling life. I have three college degrees and have not ceased to THINK since that time. I was going to ask you if you thought that theology and philosophy are lazy occupations, but I see your comment to Logan. My point is that faith is necessary to please God. Faith is not an irrational belief held is spite of intellectual convictions or evidence. Faith is motivated belief (partially...the biblical subject is not easily outlined). For myself, I find my faith in God strengthened by reasoned arguments but my faith is not dependent on reasoned arguments. Reason is an ally to faith, not its enemy as atheists would have us believe. I would ally myself and my thinking with the likes of Sir John Polkinghorne and Jurgen Moltman. These are certainly not anti-thought individuals. However, biblical faith is a "friut of the Spirit" and is not a product of human intellect. Having said that, human intellect is as much a part of who I am as the indwelling Spirit; and, the human being is complex (integrated) and not dichotomized or trichotomized (as some believe). My personal theology is that a person without the leadership and indwelling of the Spirit CANNOT please God (Romans 8:8) and CANNOT come to God (John 6:44, 6:65). What we must accept is that God has raised up people like Pharoah (Rom 9:17), and Rickard Dawkins to glorify him by their rebellion and unbelief. This is hard to accept, but it is totally consistent with the sovereignty of God. I don't believe God makes these people rebell against him, that is their nature, but he allows them to do it. Think about it, would we THINK about this so much WITHOUT this opposition?PjB
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
"The pursuit of truth through reason, while subject to error, is self-correcting, as long as the pursuer keeps an open mind and reevaluates his or her beliefs in light of new evidence or arguments." Reason is just a biologically based faculty, like eyesight, and therefore it too will have its limitations and blindspots. Our eyesight can mislead us (as when we think the sun is smaller than it is, or we see a stick in the water bent when it is really straight, or when we witness other optical illusions etc.), and reason will correct it. But if eyesight can mislead us, it is only natural to suppose that reason itself could do so. This is especially easy to see if one is a Darwinian naturalist: there is no reason at all to think Darwinian evolution was at all likely to give us a reasoning faculty that would be free of serious, permanent faults when used in situations radically different from those for which our reasoning faculties evolved. I therefore find your optimism about reason being self-correcting to be misplaced. Given the truth of Darwinian evolution (which I think you accept), it is at best unlikely that reason would be free of grave and permanent illusions, especially when it comes to matters of deep metaphsyical import being right about which would have little or no survival value in the conditions for which our faculties evolved. If reason misleads us in the way eyesight sometimes does, what higher faculty could there be to correct it?Logan
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Dr. Dembski, Intelligent Design may have lost a court battle, but the people are clamoring for more and more information about the theory. America thirsts for credible, empirical scientific data that challenges Darwinian evolution. That being said, I think it is worth considering these points: 1. The scientists and individuals who espouse and defend Darwinism equate Intelligent Design with Christianity. Christians do appear to be the majority adherents of Intelligent Design. However, as we are all aware, non-Christians such as Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and agnostics alike believe ID to be more empirically correct than Darwinian evolution. Until Intelligent Design can engage these non-Christians and enlist them in a much more prominent role, the courts and social elites will not listen. As soon as the ardent evolutionists sense that an ID advocate is a Christian, all bets are off, no matter how coherent the argument. This battle is much more about Christianity than it is about Intelligent Design. If ID claims to be more secular than Biblical Creationism, then it needs to pursue a more secular path in defending the cause. In a nation that is paranoid about tolerance and antagonistic toward Christianity, having a non-Christian assume a more public role in presenting ID seems to be immediately necessary. 2. Why is ID so opposed to emerging in the social science departments? If it is taught, in its true philosophical and scientific context, why does it have to be in biology class? The courts are probably not going to allow that for quite awhile, if ever. Instead of banging its head against a wall that is vociferously funded and legally represented, perhaps ID should be more opportunistic and present its empirical evidence and philosophical cogence in religious, philosophical, historical, and special interest classes in public schools. If the Darwinian advocates opposed even this, and it is they themselves that have proposed this, then their hypocrisy becomes self-evident and can be much more easily destroyed in the court of public opinion. ID is just as robust and intellectually powerful in a non-science class, as it is in a science class. Over time, a more open discussion will spill over into the scientific sector of public schools, until it can be ignored no longer. 3. Related to Number 1, ID needs to utilize its non-Christian base to engage its opponents in prominent media outlets. Can ID actively pursue formal debates on Fox News, C-Span, etc? Fox News is a media giant and obviously slanted toward a more theistic, conservative point of view. Why hasn't ID developed a more fruitful relationship with such a potential ally?Ryan Jaroncyk
December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply