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
The story evolutionists now push is that the DNA is more like a recipe, rather than a blueprint. They are sticking to the mechanistic chemical view of development, without higher level guidance from a blueprint. As before, evolutionist Alfred Russel Wallace excluded the human mind from evolution. The human mind is an information processing system. Naturally the DNA system would be an information processing system as well. And so the human mind is largely an extension of the DNA information processing system, rather than a development of it. Could a man imagine the shape of a woman, without having seen any woman in their life? Could a woman imagine the shape of a man, without having seen one? My sense about it is, that the shaperecognition of sexes is partly from within, from the blueprint.mohammadnursyamsu
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT
Repeat after me: DNA has nothing to do with the Evolution debate. At least no one in the past 65 years has shown how it does. All the evidence points elsewhere Micro evolution has nothing to do with the Evolution debate. At least no one in the past 65 years has shown how it does. All the evidence points elsewhere How did Evolution happen? It’s a mystery. DNA is extremely important. It’s the basis of genetics, an extremely Important scientific discipline. But has nothing to do with Evolution. Darwin discovered how genetics works, not how Evolution happened. For that he should be celebrated.jerry
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
JVL said:
Because of the combination of genes and control genes they pass onto their offspring. AND the conditions in the womb . . . I should think.
I appreciate your direct and honest answers. However, I think we may have some sort of communciation/understanding issue here. Let me reiterate the definitions: code = a system of signals or symbols for communication blueprint = a detailed plan of how to do something I'm not asserting here that the "plan" is intelligently designed. From what you said above, there is chemically encoded information contained in the biological entities that represents "the successful building of a human body" that, through a process of chemical signals activated by conception builds a particular body. There may be some random influences or errors in the process, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a set of instructions somewhere, or in several somewheres, that contain the information/instructions to produce a particular kind of body. If that were not the case, I don't see why we would expect the process to produce the same kind of body over and over and over successfully in each species. The information for the production of that body has to be somewhere, and that is not "analogous" to a blueprint; by the definition I gave, it is factually a blueprint. However it is encoded, wherever it resides, even in multiple locations; without a detailed set of instructions that represent how to build a human, no human could be built by any process. Whether or not that set of detailed instructions accumulated or evolved over time by non-intelligent processes is irrelevant; that set of instructions, or blueprint, must exist somewhere.William J Murray
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT
Don't overlook the egg, with all the structures and features of a functional cell from a very specific species, then observe how development in the womb proceeds. Here, we are at frontiers of our understanding.kairosfocus
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT
WJM: Thank you for answering the question. So, if there is no blueprint anywhere, how is it that humans always produce humans? Because of the combination of genes and control genes they pass onto their offspring. AND the conditions in the womb . . . I should think. That's an evo-devo question and I'm not completely sure how much difference that would make. Of course, evolutionary theory would say that over long, long periods of time it's possible that a new species could emerge. In other words, going back in your own genetic history it's not humans all the way back to the emergence of life on earth.JVL
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT
JVL said:
There is no blueprint.
Thank you for answering the question. So, if there is no blueprint anywhere, how is it that humans always produce humans, dogs always produce dogs, elephants always produce elephants, etc?William J Murray
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT
ET said @68:
No. No one knows what determines biological form but we know that it cannot be DNA.
Sigh. You guys are so impatient. You're jumping the shark.William J Murray
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT
WJM: Or, you could answer my question. How do human bodies get built? Where does the information come from? Are you saying there is no “body plan” information anywhere that is being communicated by any sort of signal system anywhere to the biological systems that are constructing the body? There is no blueprint. Genes are turned on and off by control genes responding to the conditions they are in. Dr Dawkins explains the general principle very well in The Greatest Show on Earth and Dr Shubin discusses many illustrative cases in his recent book Some Assembly Required.JVL
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PDT
JVS said:
Perhaps you should spend some time learning what DNA actual is and does.
Or, you could answer my question. How do human bodies get built? Where does the information come from? Are you saying there is no "body plan" information anywhere that is being communicated by any sort of signal system anywhere to the biological systems that are constructing the body?William J Murray
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT
Origenes: You have implied that the presence of encoded symbolic content is a universal inference to an intelligent source, did you not? It would certainly bring up the possibility. But it's not a slam-dunk. Suppose that Pattee thinks ID is bunk, do you think Pattee has a point? Yes. So you would rather trust Krauss, or any other expert, WRT the interpretation of their work, than yourself? Case in point, if Krauss says that, based on his research, our universe comes from nothing then you adopt that – whether it makes sense to you or not. To be honest I haven't thought about that issue very much because I don't really care enough. If I did I would read his arguments and then think about whether or not they make sense. Then I would look at what other physicists have to say about it. But I'm not likely to do that anytime soon. There are a lot of well established scientific 'truths' that I have trouble wrapping my head around, like relativity and quantum mechanics. But they seem to work so I accept them even though I can't see the effects in my daily life. That kind of thing happens in mathematics all the time: the logic/reasoning points to results that don't feel right.JVL
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed: You skipped the pertinent question JVL. No comment about the paper I linked to then? Are we finished then with whether or not the semiotics community supports intelligent design? As I have already said: you can hypothesise whatever you like. I would consider the design inference to be a hypothesis that has not been established.JVL
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT
Mohammadnursyamsu: VL, you seem to be using all kinds of hook and crook shortcuts, instead of using actual reasoning. Like going by the reputation of scientists, and science politics. Why don’t you just reason? Sometimes the reasoned approach is to NOT reinvent the wheel. Do you understand fast Fourier transforms? They are widely used in many signal processing applications. How about quantum mechanics? General relativity? Simpson's paradox? (the answer to a question posted on a thread about how it is that death rates for vaccinated people can be higher than those for unvaccinated people.) Is e=mc2 correct? Well Einstein does have a great reputation, so I suppose it is correct. In that particular case I have stepped through the derivation.JVL
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT
Thanks.Joe Schooner
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT
Joe Schooner @74 Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto -- personal websiteOrigenes
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
My idea exactly. Once I asked Larry Moran:
Sorry, but who is Larry Moran?Joe Schooner
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
JVL @
O: You admit that you have no idea how anyone could possibly arrive at any other conclusion than that the genetic symbol system is the result of intelligent design ...
JVL: I don’t think I ever ‘admitted’ that.
You have implied that the presence of encoded symbolic content is a universal inference to an intelligent source, did you not?
JVL: I don’t think Intelligent Design is high on Dr Pattee’s attention list. And if he thinks it’s clearly bunk then he might not consider discussing it worth his time.
Suppose that Pattee thinks ID is bunk, do you think Pattee has a point?
O: I take it that you on the other hand trust/accept whatever Krauss perceives as the correct interpretation of his work.
JVL: I haven’t looked into those interpretations of his so I I can’t say. But I would assume he’d have a much greater understanding of his work than I would.
So you would rather trust Krauss, or any other expert, WRT the interpretation of their work, than yourself? Case in point, if Krauss says that, based on his research, our universe comes from nothing then you adopt that – whether it makes sense to you or not.Origenes
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
Joe Schooner @
Isn’t it more likely that it [body plan information] resides in the one area that is known to contain information? The DNA?
My idea exactly. Once I asked Larry Moran:
O: If most of our genome is junk, then where is the information stored for the (adult) body plan? Where is the information stored for e.g. the brain? And where is the information stored for how to build all this?
Larry Moran’s puzzling answer:
(…) experts do not see a need to encode body plans and brain in our genome (…)
Origenes
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
If DNA controls cell type and placement, no one has a clue how. There are molecular configurations in the cell wall that are more complex than DNA and some speculate this is where the information is for cell type and placement. ET above has said it better than I have. As I said it’s a mystery.jerry
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329336275_Ch1_-_Control_Systems_and_Determination_of_Phenotypic_Traits_in_Metazoans_EPIGENETIC_PRINCIPLES_OF_EVOLUTION_Second_Edition_2018Lieutenant Commander Data
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
The following paper was posted on UD last year: On the problem of biological form. It has been known since at least the turn of the century that DNA does not hold the information for body plans. The human genome project was the final nail in that coffin. Dr. Michael Denton once wrote:
To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment. Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes. Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene- Michael Denton “An Anti-Darwinian Intellectual Journey”, Uncommon Dissent (2004), pages 171-2
We do NOT know what makes an organism what it is. That is we do not know what determines biological form. That alone makes it really difficult to say one form can evolve into another, regardless of the underlying mechanisms. And it squashes the notion that you can say anything about evolutionary relationships via genetic comparisons.ET
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
William J Murray:
Is DNA a system of signals that communicate a detailed plan of how to build and maintain a functioning human body to the biological systems constructing it?
No. No one knows what determines biological form but we know that it cannot be DNA. DNA doesn't have a say in mRNA processing. And chaperones determine how most proteins fold. DNA doesn't even control the assembly of proteins into functioning structures. That said, DNA does have some control and influence over development because it is a template for very important components. If ID is right, and it is, then what determines biological form was immaterial information that is loaded into the different life forms.ET
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
One of the biggest mysteries of science. Some suspect the code is in the cell wall of the egg.
Isn’t it more likely that it resides in the one area that is known to contain information? The DNA?Joe Schooner
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
. You skipped the pertinent question JVL.
So, there is a scientifically-valid inference to design in biology?
Upright BiPed
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
I remember the anthropologist Edwina Taborsky was "accused" of supporting intelligent design theory, for a semiotics paper she did. She then denied it, and said her paper that argued for reasoned and informed decisions in the DNA system, was not intelligent design. JVL, you seem to be using all kinds of hook and crook shortcuts, instead of using actual reasoning. Like going by the reputation of scientists, and science politics. Why don't you just reason? Is e=mc2 correct? Well Einstein does have a great reputation, so I suppose it is correct. The way you make argument is ridiculous.mohammadnursyamsu
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed: It’s really very simple JVL. His support of evolutionary theory has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical conditions required at the origin of life. It is those requirements that make open-ended evolution possible in the first place. He spent five decades making that distinction, perhaps you should. And yet, he disagrees with you. He spent five decades working with and thinking about these issues and he came to a different conclusion from you. Maybe he got it wrong at the end. Maybe he and all his cohorts got it wrong even though they've thought long and hard about this issue and have published many, many papers which they have all read and looked at. Maybe he and his buddies have been brainwashed by the materialists. Maybe. It's possible. Maybe you've got it wrong. Which is more likely? Which is more probable? From earlier in this thread: Upright BiPed: Howard Pattee offers no conclusions about the origin of the system in his research. Do you not understand this? But he does doesn't he? He thinks natural processes are up to the task. You're dancing pretty fast but you're changing the tune. Dr Pattee and his semiotic buddies disagree with you. Let's start with that truth.JVL
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus JVL, DNA builds proteins, ditto for RNA and does various regulatory functions, it does not account for our body plan. KF
JVL has no idea but acts like he knows. First Atheists commandment: "I know better !" Science can't explain code of DNA but there are much more complex levels of organisation. The worshipers of biology are in a very pathetic and hopeless position.Lieutenant Commander Data
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
What does?
No one knows. One of the biggest mysteries of science. Some suspect the code is in the cell wall of the egg. Also no one knows what causes life. A dead cell and a live cell are essentially the same.jerry
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
JVL, DNA builds proteins, ditto for RNA and does various regulatory functions, it does not account for our body plan. KF
What does?Joe Schooner
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
JVL, DNA builds proteins, ditto for RNA and does various regulatory functions, it does not account for our body plan. KFkairosfocus
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
. A new wave of deception.
JVL: Why can’t you admit it?
Admit it? I told you upfront that Pattee was not an ID supporter; he is just not a reductionist. I am not (and have never) hidden the fact that HH Pattee is not an ID supporter, but his support is irrelevant to the validity of the design inference. Science is based on evidence.
JVL: …the paper of his I referenced and linked to was pretty clearly supportive of unguided evolutionary theory. You just ignore all of that. Why is that? … Why haven’t you addressed the points in the paper I referenced above?
It’s really very simple JVL. His support of evolutionary theory has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical conditions required at the origin of life. It is those requirements that make open-ended evolution possible in the first place. He spent five decades making that distinction, perhaps you should.
JVL: Again that is incorrect.
So, there is a scientifically-valid inference to design in biology?Upright BiPed
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply