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
This is interesting. JVL lecturing Murray on Evolution. Pass the popcorn. Aside: there is no evidence that DNA has anything to do with Evolution. Genetics, yes. Evolution, no.jerry
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
William J Murray: Then how do human bodies get built? Where does the information come from? Perhaps you should spend some time learning what DNA actual is and does.JVL
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
Upright Biped: There needn’t be any mystery about this whatsoever. You are here to use your voice and intellect to promote and support a lie, whereas and I am here to support the truth. At the moment all I am saying is that Dr Pattee (and his cohorts) have not publicly said their work supports ID. That's it. AND THAT is a true statement. Why can't you admit it? The inference to design in biology is made up of empirical evidence, confirmed prediction, and logical reasoning. This is no different than any other scientific inference. And many people, including those in the semiotic field, disagree with you. That is factual. Yet — you say it is all invalid. That is the bald-face lie that you are here to support and defend. Again that is incorrect. You gain nothing by demonising me. I find your position curious. What I have posted regarding Dr Pattee is clear and factual. You could admit that but you don't. The fact that he has not come out in support of ID. That 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? Is it because you might have to concede some minor point or issue? And, in your mind, does that mean there might be some kind of slippery-slope situation when you might lose the whole situation? When you might actually have to abandon ship? Is that what you're actually afraid of? What haven't you addressed the points in the paper I referenced above? Why can't you address or accommodate views opposed to yours from an actual scientific point of view?JVL
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
@JVL For goodness sake. First the evolutionists want to theorize evolution by accident. Now they also want to theorize development by accident. It is required for development that there is a representation of the finished adult form, in the DNA. The DNA system can make a fully developed organism, but cannot make a representation of a fully developed organism? That makes no sense whatsoever.mohammadnursyamsu
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
JVL said:
No, DNA is not in anyway a detailed plan.
Then how do human bodies get built? Where does the information come from?William J Murray
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
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, DNA is not in anyway a detailed plan. I expected you would be more aware of these things but you just keep repeating tropes.JVL
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
.
JVL" Why do you keep bringing this up ... What is your point?
There needn’t be any mystery about this whatsoever. You are here to use your voice and intellect to promote and support a lie, whereas and I am here to support the truth. I use the word “lie” cautiously, as there is a fair distinction between promoting something while knowing it is false and doing so while not knowing. In your case, you know. The lie is that there is no valid scientific evidence of design in biology. The inference to design in biology is made up of empirical evidence, confirmed prediction, and logical reasoning. This is no different than any other scientific inference. As for the evidence supporting the design inference, we have walked through it piece by piece, and you have been forced in discussions here to concede the truthfulness of that evidence, as well as the predictions that came before it. This is not a particularly difficult task, given the fact that none of that evidence is even controversial. In total, the evidence behind the design inference is completely overwhelming and is readily documented from one end of biology to the other. And as far as the reasoning used in the design inference, you have openly promoted the exact same reasoning yourself on these very pages. Anyone who has followed along our conversations (even casually) knows that I have re-posted your comments on this subject several times. And even if you had never opened your mouth, the reasoning behind the design inference is openly used by NASA, SETI, and university science departments all the way around the globe. The reasoning used in the design inference simply could not be on more stable ground than it is. So … 1) the scientific evidence (and the documented history behind that evidence) cannot be refuted by you or anyone else on the surface of this planet. And 2) the logical reasoning is already eagerly used and accepted by scientists around the world. To demonstrate those two statements, I could start posting primary sources and simply not stop. Yet -- you say it is all invalid. That is the bald-face lie that you are here to support and defend. You know that the things you say are not true. Yet – you say them. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - So, without any way to defend your position with actual science and reasoning, you are forced by these realities to revert to deception and fallacy in its place. It does not go un-noticed that you now never mention the actual science and reasoning in your comments, but have instead latched on to the idea that “Howard Pattee is not an ID supporter” is now your best defense. Have you found a way to repeat it in every comment you make? But here again, you are an intelligent person, you already know that scientific inferences are based on empirical evidence and logical consistency – not on who does and does not acknowledge the inference. The evidence remains the same either way. That is how science works; it is evidence-based. What you are suggesting in your defense, is anti-science to its very core.. It’s called a fallacy, JVL, for a reason. You are trying to defend your lie against the design inference (universal physical evidence, documented history, and sound logical reasoning) by the comical repetition of a common fallacy. That’s why I “keep bring it up”Upright BiPed
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
JVL said
DNA is NOT a blueprint!!
I said "coded blueprint." Definitions provided by Merriam-Webster: code = a system of signals or symbols for communication blueprint = a detailed plan of how to do something 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?William J Murray
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
William J Murray: What part of “a coded blueprint containing an immense amount of functional information required to build and maintain a highly complex, functioning machine” is an analogy when it comes to DNA? DNA is NOT a blueprint!!JVL
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
Seversky said:
UB’s case is essentially an argument by analogy – which is not a fallacy – but the strength of such arguments depends on weighing both the similarities and differences.
What part of "a coded blueprint containing an immense amount of functional information required to build and maintain a highly complex, functioning machine" is an analogy when it comes to DNA?William J Murray
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
There isn't any scientific theory of unguided evolution. And ID is OK with evolution by means of intelligent design.ET
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
From: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Howard-Pattee/publication/2515094_Evolving_Self-Reference_Matter_Symbols_And_Semantic_Closure/links/09e4150577eb05a2cd000000/Evolving-Self-Reference-Matter-Symbols-And-Semantic-Closure.pdf The website and .pdf are not letting me copy-and-paste . . . for some reason. Here's a few of a lot of very interesting statements none of which run contrary to unguided evolutionary theory. Near the bottom of page 4 Dr Pattee discusses how he views the function of DNA. On page 13 he discusses evolution by natural selection (which he calls a theory by the way). Just before the references he explains how his work can be applied to evolution including self-organisation and natural selection. Please note the title of the paper: Evolving Self-Reference.JVL
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
@Seversky There is a very high probability of experts being wrong, because of shared culture in academics. And with the conformtiy that wokeness requires, this error by culture is made all the more likely. In any case, it is totally lazy argumentation to just trust the experts. And I think the point is, that people who argue like that, aren't actually capable of rational argumentation.mohammadnursyamsu
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
JVL:
We were discussing the work of the semiotics researcher Dr Howard Pattee and others like him and what their work may or may not imply.
Yes, I know. And no one can demonstrate that nature did it. So, clearly his work does not support blind watchmaker evolution.
Upright BiPed believes Dr Pattee’s work supports ID ...
It does support ID. As I have been saying there isn't any evidence that nature did it and there isn't even a way to test the claim that nature did. There is ONE and ONLY one known cause for what we observe- intelligent agency volition. That you refuse to understand that says it all, really.ET
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
ET: No one can demonstrate how nature produced the genetic code, which is what UB is discussing. We were discussing the work of the semiotics researcher Dr Howard Pattee and others like him and what their work may or may not imply. Upright BiPed believes Dr Pattee's work supports ID but I could find not such statement by Dr Pattee and I think I've found statements by him which are contrary to the design inference. That's it. Perhaps Dr Pattee does think his work supports ID; I can't find a statement by him to that effect. Maybe his work does support ID; it's dense and complicated stuff so rather than me guessing what it implies I'll trust Dr Pattee and many other researchers to have a good idea of where their work leads. And I have yet to find any of them that think it supports ID. Maybe they're all just stupid about their own work but I rather doubt that is the case.JVL
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
seversky:
UB’s case is essentially an argument by analogy ...
It's an argument based on our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships. Science 101 ID is the ONLY inference from what is observed. There just isn't any other possible explanation. And there isn't even a way to test the claim that nature did it.ET
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
JVL:
Regardless of all of that, he has not said his work supports ID.
And he has not said his work supports blind watchmaker evolution. The EVIDENCE says what Pattee has uncovered supports ID.ET
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
William J Murray/36
IOW, a coded blueprint containing an immense amount of functional information required to build and maintain a highly complex, functioning machine by itself is more than sufficient to rationally apply a design inference in any other situation. Why is it not sufficient in biology?
Sufficient for what? UB's case is essentially an argument by analogy - which is not a fallacy - but the strength of such arguments depends on weighing both the similarities and differences. I agree that ID is a possible inference from what is observed but UB is promoting it as some sort of slam-dunk proof of ID even though the leading figures in the field of biosemiotics do not go that far. As for Pattee's view being irrelevant to UB's case, has Pattee ever denied it was a possible inference? If not then we are left with weighing the views of leading researchers in the field against those of a lay-person. It's certainly possible for an enthusiastic amateur to be right and experts in the field to be wrong but do you think it's probable?Seversky
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
William J Murray: It doesn’t seem like you’re actually understanding UB’s point. It doesn’t matter what Pattee thinks the evidence implies. That’s irrelevant to UB’s point. His point is that it is entirely proper and rational to infer from the evidence that intelligent design was involved. It may or not be the case that ID generated the evidence, but, still, it is a rational inference given that the only other places we have ever found, or would expect to find, those kind of physical relationships and informational characteristics would be in something designed by an intelligence. I am very much aware of Upright BiPed's point; you don't have to be so condescending all the time. All I said was that Dr Pattee, in particular, has never said his work supports ID (which is true as far as I can determine) and I think I've found statements by him which imply (in my opinion) that he disagrees with the design inference. Maybe he does think his work supports ID but I couldn't find such a statement by him. Maybe his work does support ID, I can't say since his work is very dense and complicated. Since I cannot make that determination myself I will assume that Dr Pattee has been honest and straight in his publications none of which that I could find supports ID. And I did find one passage where he criticises some ID proponents. a coded blueprint DNA is not a blueprint.JVL
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
Origenes: 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, moreover Pattee has not explained his reasoning. I don't think I ever 'admitted' that. Pattee has not explained his reasoning. And yet your trust remains in Him … 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. Regardless of all of that, he has not said his work supports ID. I take it that you on the other hand trust/accept whatever Krauss perceives as the correct interpretation of his work. 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.JVL
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
JVL:
What I’ve said is true: Dr Pattee and others in the semiotics community have NOT publicly agreed with you that their work supports the design inference.
No one cares because they cannot demonstrate that nature did it! See, it has EVERYTHING to do with what you and UB are discussing.ET
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
And it’s not our fault that neither you, nor anyone else, can demonstrate that nature did it! You don’t even know how to test the claim that nature did! And THAT is very telling. JVL:
Not the topic I was discussing with Upright BiPed.
Yes, it is. No one can demonstrate how nature produced the genetic code, which is what UB is discussing. Clearly you have serious issues.ET
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
JVL said:
Regardless, my only point was that he has NOT come out in favour of the ID paradigm. That is true. And I think I’ve found evidence that he actually disagrees with it.
It doesn't seem like you're actually understanding UB's point. It doesn't matter what Pattee thinks the evidence implies. That's irrelevant to UB's point. His point is that it is entirely proper and rational to infer from the evidence that intelligent design was involved. It may or not be the case that ID generated the evidence, but, still, it is a rational inference given that the only other places we have ever found, or would expect to find, those kind of physical relationships and informational characteristics would be in something designed by an intelligence. IOW, a coded blueprint containing an immense amount of functional information required to build and maintain a highly complex, functioning machine by itself is more than sufficient to rationally apply a design inference in any other situation. Why is it not sufficient in biology?William J Murray
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
JVL@
JVL: I trust the researchers and his interpretation of his work. I think Dr Pattee understands his work and the ramifications of his work better than me.
I find the depth of your trust in Pattee remarkable. 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, moreover Pattee has not explained his reasoning. And yet your trust remains in Him …
Well, for some reason Dr Pattee and his ilk have not made the same inference as you. There must be a reason they have not done so.
Unlike you, I think that there is a sharp divide between research and the ramifications of research. Take Lawrence Krauss for instance, who thinks that the correct interpretation of his work is that our universe comes from nothing. Although I have no reason to doubt Krauss as a researcher, I’m also of the opinion that ‘from nothing nothing comes’, so I, unlike you, refuse to “trust” Krauss’ interpretation of his work. I take it that you on the other hand trust/accept whatever Krauss perceives as the correct interpretation of his work.Origenes
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT
@JVL That you are emoting that it is weird and disjointed, and make that your argumentation, means you don't do rationality. The creationist conceptual scheme provides the correct logic underlying statements of opinion and statements of fact, it is proven.mohammadnursyamsu
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT
Origenes: Not an answer to my question. Please answer my question. Dr Pattee has had a very long and distinguished career with many, many respected, peer-reviewed papers. He is considered, by his peers, as a major player in his field. Also, since he is retired, he has no reason not to support a view considered controversial. He doesn't seem like the type who would care if he made some people angry anyway. So, I trust him to be honest and straight. Regardless, my only point was that he has NOT come out in favour of the ID paradigm. That is true. And I think I've found evidence that he actually disagrees with it.JVL
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: The validity of a scientific inference is based on sound evidentiary support and consistent logic. It is not made valid by who does and does not accept it. Well, for some reason Dr Pattee and his ilk have not made the same inference as you. There must be a reason they have not done so. I think it's because they don't think it's correct based on what they themselves have published. You cannot refute the physical evidence, and you cannot refute the logic … so with the personal burden of being unable to acknowledge the science and history as it actually is, you are now forced to take an irrational position – that science is not based on evidence, and logic not based on consistency. Not at all, I'm merely pointing out that some people whose work you cite do not seem to come to the same conclusion/inference as you. Apparently for you, the ends justify the means. Hardly. Why do you keep bringing this up anyway? You know very well that the semiotics community has not come out in support of the design inference which is all I'm pointing out. What is your point?JVL
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT
Davidl1: Does that mean that you would expect an ID proponent to hide his “investment in ID”? I've been told that some do in fear of losing their jobs.JVL
November 30, 2021
November
11
Nov
30
30
2021
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
JVLNovember 29, 2021 at 12:27 pm Davidl1: Can you be specific about what is worthy of applause? Did he say something unexpected? He clearly stated what his investment in ID means to him. That is a good thing. Surely.
Does that mean that you would expect an ID proponent to hide his "investment in ID"? I'm asking because I've seen too many cases of people claiming that ID is religion disguised as science, and that ID arguments should be dismissed on that basis.davidl1
November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
.
What I’ve said is true
This is protectionists ploy. The validity of a scientific inference is based on sound evidentiary support and consistent logic. It is not made valid by who does and does not accept it. That is not how science (or logic) is conducted. You cannot refute the physical evidence, and you cannot refute the logic ... so with the personal burden of being unable to acknowledge the science and history as it actually is, you are now forced to take an irrational position - that science is not based on evidence, and logic not based on consistency. Apparently for you, the ends justify the means.Upright BiPed
November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
1 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply