Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Bill Dembski offers some thoughts on the current state of Christian apologetics

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
William A. Dembski Biography, William A. Dembski's Famous Quotes - Sualci Quotes 2019
William Dembski

He asks, Is truth enough?: A look at the unfulfilled promise of Christian apologetics

A significant aspect of my work on intelligent design can be understood as falling under Christian apologetics, arguing that the science underlying design refutes atheism and agnosticism, and thus creates room for Christian theism. Moreover, as a professor at three seminaries, I often taught courses in apologetics, some even having that word “apologetics” in the course title. The non-apologetics courses that I taught were on the philosophy of religion, the relation between science and faith, rhetoric, logic, and critical thinking, all of which were also conducive to apologetics.

With this background, you might expect me to be an avid supporter of Christian apologetics, and so I am. But I give this talk as one who is also disappointed with the impact that apologetics has had to date and think that the discipline of apologetics needs to be expanded and upgraded if it is to fulfill its promise, which is to reclaim for Christ the life of the mind (compare 2 Corinthians 10:5).

I say Christian apologetics needs to be expanded and upgraded rather than reconceptualized or reimagined. What Christian apologists have accomplished in this and the last generation has been admirable and even crucially important. Except for a John Warwick Montgomery challenging the god-is-dead theology of the 1960s, except of a Norman Geisler articulating and defending biblical inerrancy, and except for subsequent vigorous challenges by Christian apologists against the nihilism, relativism, scientism, skepticism, materialism, and the other isms ravaging the intellectual world, where would we be? Fideism, with its intellectual bankruptcy, would rule the day.

William Dembski, “What makes arguments for God convincing — or not?” at Mind Matters News (November 28, 2021)

Dembski: Christian apologetics has, in my view, mainly been in the business of playing defense when it needs to be playing offense.

Note: This is a serialized reprint from Dembski’s site. You can read the whole essay at once there.

You may also wish to read: How informational realism subverts materialism Within informational realism, what defines things is their capacity for communicating or exchanging information with other things. In substituting information for perception, informational realism is able to preserve a common-sense realism that idealism has always struggled to preserve.

Comments
How life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. If blind and mindless processes did not produce life, then they do NOT have complete dominion over evolutionary processes. An intelligently designed origin of life means that said life was so designed to adapt and evolve. Evolution by means of intelligent design is exemplified by genetic algorithms. There aren't any examples of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes outside of genetic diseases and deformities.ET
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Natural selection is n on-random in the most trivial sense. That being not every organism has the same chance of being eliminated. But what survives can be anything along the trait spectrum of the species. It could be faster, slower or anywhere in between. Great eyesight to totally blind. Long legs to no legs. Natural selection is really nothing more than contingent serendipity.ET
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
JVL:
Mostly the DNA although there is now evidence that epigenetic factors can also be inherited for two or three generations.
Wrong again. That has already been refuted, Clearly, you are just ignorant of genetics and biology. DNA does not and cannot be the varying factor for universal common descent. It doesn't have that kind of influence.ET
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: An acknowledgement that there is no evidence against the design inference is not something we ever see here. I have participated on this board for an embarrassing number of years, and I have never seen it. That I did not acknowledge. I said I don't know how life originated, no one does for sure. But that's not the same as there being no evidence 'against' design although I prefer to think of it as being evidence that casts a lot of doubt on design. But, I admit, some of that is a matter of opinion; who knows what would have been in the head of any prehistoric designer after all. Anyway, that's why I tend to avoid discussions about 'bad design'. I hope you can make a little room in your views for the design perspective. And as far as the contentious nature of the conversation we’ve had, I would just add that it has given me valuable perspective, and I hope it has done that for you as well. I believe I have mentioned in the past that participating in conversations here has tested my views strongly which I think is a good thing. You and other commenters have really made me think about some things I had, to be honest, just accepted without question. And, in fact, I have changed my mind regarding a couple of the normal evolutionary tropes (ET is responsible for one of those changes of mind in fact). I chose to come here because I thought it was wrong and rude to assume what ID supporters thought just as it would be rude to assume what I think. Unfortunately I have been snarky and rude a few times in the past and I apologise for those moments. I didn't expect to change anyone's mind but I did want to challenge mine. I would have been happy just asking questions about ID and not defending unguided evolutionary theory but to not reply would have also been rude and certainly would have given the wrong impression. I am no expert, that's obvious. But I have tried to be honest in my replies.JVL
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
Bob: Does the above come close to your views of how evolution by natural selection proceeds? I think it's a bit too simplistic based on what we know now. Clearly some variation is conceived 'dead in the water', for example around one-quarter to one-third of human pregnancies spontaneously abort. Some not from bad variation but surely some would be caused by that. Then there are a lot of new borns with damaging and/or fatal birth defects, fewer now than in the past. A certain number of children die every year from accidents or diseases or 'acts of God' and those can't be blamed on natural selection. Plus we now know there are other kinds of selection that affect who is profligate. So, I think Darwin was heading in the right direction but things were more complicated than he knew or could know.JVL
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
. JVL, First and foremost, thank you for the straight up response at #183. An acknowledgement that there is no evidence against the design inference is not something we ever see here. I have participated on this board for an embarrassing number of years, and I have never seen it. In my estimation, we all owe you a bit of thanks for that. Truly. Everyone on this board, certainly myself, has argued up the wrong hill at some point or another, and at #183 you handled up on it as well as anyone could ask. I hope you can make a little room in your views for the design perspective. And as far as the contentious nature of the conversation we’ve had, I would just add that it has given me valuable perspective, and I hope it has done that for you as well. Best regardsUpright BiPed
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
“It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving or adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working” Charles Darwin.(not the full quote) JVL, Does the above come close to your views of how evolution by natural selection proceeds?Bob
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: JVL, the problem is, you are blind to the implications of FSCO/I, i.e. many closely matched appropriately arranged and coupled components to yield coherent function. I'm not 'blind' to the complexities of DNA and the genetic system but I think it arose via a long, long period of development instead of just popping into existence. If you compare the documented history of life on Earth it seems like there was a very, very long time when life was very simple and much less complicated than it is now. That would be consistent with a naturally developing system which had to start with very simple structures. You don't get 'islands of function' because all life forms are related to all other life forms. There is always a path from any given creature or plant to any other. So, no islands.JVL
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
ET: Changes to what? It can’t be the DNA. Mostly the DNA although there is now evidence that epigenetic factors can also be inherited for two or three generations.JVL
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
JVL, the problem is, you are blind to the implications of FSCO/I, i.e. many closely matched appropriately arranged and coupled components to yield coherent function. That imposes islands of function, as can be seen from say the thought exercise of shaking up a bucket full of correct reel parts for an ABU 6500 C reel. There are astronomically many more non functional ways to arrange the parts than functional ones and so we see islands of function deeply isolated in a sea of non function. Where, too, the parts themselves come from very complex processes, crude by comparison to protein manufacture in the cell. Similarly for alphanumeric text strings which are WLOG as there are description languages for any assembly. The dominant challenge is to get TO shorelines of function, even before we talk about rough fitness landscapes. Such starts in Darwin's pond or the like, i.e. getting TO the first genome and micro body plan of the cell, requiring 100 - 1,000 k bits, well beyond search capacity of the observable universe. As for typical genomes (forget epigenetic info for the moment!) for body plans that is 10 - 100+ million bits. That dwarfs the first challenge, already specifying config spaces that utterly overwhelm the merely astronomical scope of resources. And this you full well know, you have been around for years. You are committing a fallacy of strategic omission, i.e. a 1/16th truth or worse. KFkairosfocus
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
JVL:
The fittest don’t just appear, they are created via slow, steady changes to existing forms.
Changes to what? It can't be the DNA.ET
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
JVL:
Inheritable variation.
Variation to what, exactly? It can't be to the DNA.ET
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
Origenes: No, the search space is simply too vast for such a limited mechanism, as even Dawkins admits. That's because nothing searched that whole space. Each 'new' form comes from previous forms via inheritable variation. We ‘ve been over this. Dawkins is mistaken. Hugo de Vries again: “natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.” The 'arrival' of the fittest comes from cumulative selection acting on inheritable variation. The selection helps cull out the variations that are not as good at surviving and exploiting their environment. The fittest don't just appear, they are created via slow, steady changes to existing forms.JVL
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
ET: Mechanisms of change required for universal common descent. Inheritable variation.JVL
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
You seem to be missing the primary paradigm. ‘Darwinism’ can explain the ‘arrival of the fittest’ (..) via a process of selection acting upon variation.
No, the search space is simply too vast for such a limited search mechanism, as even Dawkins admits.
Your quote from Dr Dawkins is taken vastly out of context.
Nonsense.
He is saying: it’s not just randomness that drives evolution, it’s selection, most importantly cumulative selection acting upon heritable variation.
We 've been over this. Dawkins is mistaken. Hugo de Vries again: "natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.” Natural selection, a.k.a. "what survives survives", does not in any way explain finding biological novelties.Origenes
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
Jerry, actually this thread raises apologetics issues which is about the Christian faith and answering for the reason for that commitment. KFkairosfocus
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
JVL:
What about evolution did you want to talk about?
Mechanisms of change required for universal common descent.ET
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
Jerry, strategic half truths have indeed been commonplace on the part of objectors to the design inference on tested, reliable sign. So, to has been misrepresentation and then we have namecalling. None of which addresses the matter substantially. KFkairosfocus
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
Jerry: The anti-ID people don’t want to discuss Evolution. They want to discuss irrelevant stuff such as Christianity or DNA. Besides using the Fallacy of Begging the Question and Fallacy of Irrelevance it’s common to use the Fallacy of Omission. What about evolution did you want to talk about?JVL
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
The only evidence for unguided evolution is with genetic diseases and deformities
And when they do this, it is genetics not Evolution. The DNA models are all about genetics and zero about Evolution. Aside: if anyone wants to point to the DNA model as examples of ID, fine. They are extremely good examples of ID but when discussing them, don’t kid yourself that this is about Evolution. The anti-ID people don’t want to discuss Evolution. They want to discuss irrelevant stuff such as Christianity or DNA. Besides using the Fallacy of Begging the Question and Fallacy of Irrelevance it’s common to use the Fallacy of Omission. jerry
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
nothing but promissory notes and admissions that you have no demonstration of what you say
One of the most common fallacies used by anti-ID people is the Fallacy of Omission. There is one example of it after another on UD and especially this OP. It’s a form of cheating. But winning is the goal at all cost no matter how absurd the idea is.jerry
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
JVL:
For some of the unguided evolutionary paradigm that is.
The only evidence for unguided evolution is with genetic diseases and deformities. No one can even present a hypothesis for unguided evolution's alleged ability to produce any bacterial flagellum of the genetic code. So, all you have, really, is hope.ET
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
JVL, your admissions to UB amount to, you have nothing but promissory notes and admissions that you have no demonstration of what you say some claimed. In short, you have no empirical warrant for believing FSCO/I can and does arise per observatyion from blind chance and mechanical necessity. The cell contains alphanumeric code, algorithms, execution machinery, thus language, goal directed stepwise process and technology to give effect. Molecular nanotech technology that James Tour -- the molecular car guy -- admits is very hard to do. In short, you have no actual empirical warrant for rejecting the import of trillions of cases plus search challenge considerations that FSCO/I is reliably the product of design and therefore a signature of such intelligently directed configuration. KF PS: Stereochemistry is a form of dynamics and has no explanation for the sequence of the code as any base can couple to any other down the chain. The code is in the sequence of side branches. And that's before we get to the handedness problem where racemic form is the normal product of thermodynamically driven synthesis. And that wrecks the geometry of key-lock fitting.kairosfocus
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT
Bob: An observation from some of your admittedly vague remarks tells me you subscribe to a sort of stereochemical view of the origination of the genetic code. Is this correct? It's one of the possibilities I've heard about which, to my very amateurish view, makes sense. BUT there are competing ideas so I prefer to remain agnostic until one paradigm or another gains more evidence. It's okay not knowing, if we had an answer to everything we wouldn't need to do any science!JVL
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: You blowing rhetorical ‘hot air’ in the face of all contrary evidence, and refusing to be honest towards the evidence, is certainly not to be considered ‘heat’. I just couldn't resist the metaphor! Have you decided how to rectify 'the vast majority' of mutations being directed and most being deleterious at the same time? I should think that would be an issue you'd very much like to deal with.JVL
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: So you have something based on physical evidence and reason? I think so, yes. For some of the unguided evolutionary paradigm that is. Not so much the origin of life and DNA as well you know. You have a non-intelligent source for the rise of a symbol system from dynamics? By all means, let’s hear it. I don't have an explanation myself. No one does as of yet. Although there is some work being done concerning some basic chemical affinities which I have only seen brief reference to and am unable, myself, to comment much on those speculations. Perhaps one of the biosemiotic researchers has some insight?JVL
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT
Bob: JVL, after observing the above ‘discussion’?. I can’t help but notice your attitudes to certain developments in the aforementioned discussion seem to display a certain religious fundamentalism (fundamaterialism)?. I'm not sure what I said in particular that gave you that impression. your continued adherence to the views and personal beliefs of the practitioners within the semiotic field (rather than what the implications of the fields empirical results may be) Reminds of someone who attends church and follows the particular views or denomination of its pastors without ever having studied the bible to draw up one’s own conclusions. My observations of what the semiotic community has or has not said was merely my observations. I wasn't using their statements and non-statements in support of my own views at all so I didn't feel the need to examine their work regarding whether or not it seemed to agree with my stance. PS Once again last night I was temporarily blocked from commenting. After trying on two different computers multiple times I gave up for the night. I apologise for the delay in responding even though it wasn't due to anything I did.JVL
December 3, 2021
December
12
Dec
3
03
2021
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT
JVL An observation from some of your admittedly vague remarks tells me you subscribe to a sort of stereochemical view of the origination of the genetic code. Is this correct?Bob
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
People tend to fill the blanks in with their imagination Hilarious The pro-ID guys are kicking ass here. Hats off. Not that I'm keepin score. Not my job. Everyone dies. Get ready. --RAMram
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
JVL: "I guess you’re much more heat averse." You blowing rhetorical 'hot air' in the face of all contrary evidence, and refusing to be honest towards the evidence, is certainly not to be considered 'heat'.bornagain77
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 8

Leave a Reply