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

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 28, 2021

Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Religion, Science}

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

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.

Origenes: Is there a reason for you to trust this particular researcher? Or do you trust researchers this way as a general rule?

JVL: This is a researcher who Upright BiPed gave as someone whose work supported his views. If you want to call his work into question it’s okay by me.
Not an answer to my question. Please answer my question.Origenes_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

Mohammadnursyamsu: This knowledge of creationism is basically inherent in the common discourse we all use, when we talk of making choices, stating facts, and expressing personal opinions. Your whole post is so odd and disjointed that I'm not even going to attempt to reply to it. It's pretty clear you're not even trying to deal with science or even rationality.JVL_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: Your charade is in tatters, JVL. The only thing you can do is to double down and remain in denial. 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. And, I think, they have, in fact, disagreed with your interpretation. You can go on and on and on about your interpretation of their work but they, the researchers, have not said they support your interpretation. Maybe they do privately, but they have not said so. And you cannot show otherwise.JVL_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

You are all so misguided (dumb). The way forward is undoubtedly to first provide a constitutional framework of freedom, with the creationist conceptual scheme. To establish the general concept of a personal opinion, so that then people can choose a personal opinion to be a muslim, or to be a christian. It is just so, that the creationist conceptual scheme, provides the validation for the concept of opinion (like opinion on beauty), and the concept of fact. 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact In the ccs (creationist conceptual scheme), choice is the mechanism of creation. It is how a creation originates. To "choose", means to make one of alternative futures the present. Or it can be defined as making a possible future the present, or not the present. So you see choosing is anticipatory in regards to a future of possiblities. Choosing is spontaneous. There exists no sub-mechanisms to choosing, choosing is the fundamental mechanism at the origin. By choice anything in the universe, any material thing, comes to be. All the planets, and stars, organisms, every single last material thing. Words, texts, fantasies, objects in the mind, are just as well creations. They just as well came to be by choice. Because they are creations, fantasies and texts are classified as "material" in creationism. Which word only denotes the substance of a creation. Usually our idea of material is centered on the physical, but in newsmedia they also talk about information for stories as being material. So it is not that unusal a wordchoice, to denote texts as material. Efficiency, and convenience requires that there is 1 single word to denote the substance of what any creation consists of, and culturally the only appropiate word for that is the word "material". One might also call it "creationsubstance", but I prefer the word "material". The substance of the creator is called "spiritual". Again, one may just as well call it, "creatorsubstance", but I prefer the word spiritual. What matters more than the names of these principles, is the rules that apply to them, the logic. For material the rules are, that it came to be by choice, and that it can only be identified with a fact. A fact is obtained by evidence of a creation, forcing to produce a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it, in the mind. So basically what you are doing in stating a fact is to copy a representation of a creation, to your mind. To say, there is a camel out back, the statement presents a 1 to 1 corresponding modelin the mind, of the camel that is supposedly out back. If the camel is not out back, then the statement of fact is inaccurate. Objects in the mind are also creations, so one can also state as fact, that there is a picture of a camel in fantasy. For the spiritual part of reality, the rules are that it makes choices, and that it can only be identified with a chosen opinion. Emotions, such as love and hate, personal characteristics such cowardice and courage, the spirit, God, the soul, these terms are all in reference to the agency of a choice. So it means, a choice is made, and by that choice, something material is created. Then we can, don't have to, express an opinion on what, or who, it was, that made that choice turn out the way it did. For example we can choose the opinion, that love made that choice turn out the way it did. There would be zero objective evidence for this "love". One just feels what it was that made the choice turn out the way it did, and then expresses that feeling, choosing some subjective word to express that feeling, such as the word "love". The concepts of opinion and fact are much the basic tools for reasoning. It was no coincedence that the first scientists were mainly creationists. Because creationism provides for great reasoning, separating matters of opinion, from matters of fact. Also, creationism underlies the logic used in common discourse, so that is why creationism is default. Modern science is much focused on the logic of things being forced, cause and effect. Which is because we want technology to act in a forced way, to do what we choose it to do. But also modern science is focused on cause and effect, because people have lost the understanding of the entire subjective part of reality, and making choices. People have become fools who really don't know the first thing about how the universe works, creator and creation. Noone can in right judgement be considered a knowledgeable person, if they don't understand such basic things like making a choice, the subjective part of reality, the spiritual domain, and the objective part of reality, the material domain. This knowledge of creationism is basically inherent in the common discourse we all use, when we talk of making choices, stating facts, and expressing personal opinions.mohammadnursyamsu_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

. JVL's logic is the same as the design inference. he just applies an ad hoc double-standard to protect his/her worldview from the science and history:
JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be? JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data. UB: So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain. Why the double standard?
Upright BiPed_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

JVL:… I think you’ll find that did not disparage anyone based on their faith unless their faith affects their scientific approach
Richard Dawkins books: River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design Outgrowing God: A Beginner's Guide The God Delusion Daniel Dennett books: Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life Caught in the Pulpit: Leaving Belief Behind Michael Ruse books: Darwinism as Religion: What Literature Tells Us about Evolution Atheism: What Everyone Needs to Know PZ Myers book: The Happy Atheist
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint, and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it, the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” - Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion National Post, (May 13, 2000)
Which is just fine. As long as everyone accepts their work as a matter of faith…Heartlander_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

.
UB: No need to be sorry JVL, the design inference is based on the science recorded by the researchers, not on their personal worldview. JVL: It’s fine with me if you want to throw out the clear academic history of Dr Pattee which I have documented.
This comment makes no sense.
UB: Howard Pattee offers no conclusions about the origin of the system in his research. Do you not understand this? JVL: But he did not give support to intelligent design. Did he?
Scientific inferences do not require the acceptance of any given person in order to be valid (hello?), they require supporting evidence and logical continuity. The design inference is no different than any other scientific inference in this regard. The supporting evidence and logic that forms the design inference are immaculate, as you know -- they are the thing you are running from.
So, you agree that he has not granted support for your interpretation of his work. That means your interpretation is just down to you. Correct?
Wrong. Pattee’s work, in his own words, is to describe the fundamental physical requirements of the genetic symbol system. So which interpretation of this evidence are you talking about? Is it the interpretation that the gene is a genuine symbol system? Nope, we both have the same interpretation of that evidence. Is it that a language is required for open-ended self-replication? Nope, again, we have the same interpretation. Is it that a symbol is established by a non-holonomic constraint? Nope, same interpretation. Is it that dynamic laws cannot explain symbols or the measurement function? Nope. Same. So if it is not these things (or dozens of others) JVL, then you have a problem, because these things are the observations in Pattee’s research that have an impact on the design inference. They are yet another confirmation of the genuine encoded symbol system enabling life on earth. This then leaves us with the logic and reasoning of the design inference, but that cannot be a problem for you because the design inference uses the exact same logic that you are documented on these pages supporting – the presence of encoded symbolic language is a universal correlate of intelligence. Your charade is in tatters, JVL. The only thing you can do is to double down and remain in denial. Its right up your alley.Upright BiPed_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Fastidious: If, by chance, you are referring to me then I think you'll find that did not disparage anyone based on their faith unless their faith affects their scientific approach. It seems clear that Dr Dembski has stated that his work on ID is commensurate with his faith. Which is just fine. As long as everyone accepts his work as a matter of faith.JVL_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

I always find it odd that certain atheists claim that the Christian metaphysics of some ID workers somehow discredits their scientific results, while denying that their own metaphysical holdings obviously influence their own scientific beliefs. If belief in Christianity somehow makes ID unscientific, then surely atheist claims must render Darwinism unscientific! Not that either statement is true, but some atheists insist that the former is true and the latter is not. Strange mix of selective and misguided logic.Fasteddious_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

Origenes: Is there a reason for you to trust this particular researcher? Or do you trust researchers this way as a general rule? This is a researcher who Upright BiPed gave as someone whose work supported his views. If you want to call his work into question it's okay by me.JVL_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
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.
Is there a reason for you to trust this particular researcher? Or do you trust researchers this way as a general rule?Origenes_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed:No need to be sorry JVL, the design inference is based on the science recorded by the researchers, not on their personal worldview. It's fine with me if you want to throw out the clear academic history of Dr Pattee which I have documented. Howard Pattee offers no conclusions about the origin of the system in his research. Do you not understand this? But he did not give support to intelligent design. Did he? I can tell you from personal experience, in none of the exchanges I ever had with HH Pattee over the past decade did he ever present himself as the figure you suggest. He would never be comfortable with someone using his personal worldview as a means to avoid what he actually wrote in his research, and he sure as hell wouldn’t like a reductionist ideologue like you using “trust the scientist” as a tool. He is just exactly the opposite of that. Completely the opposite. So, you agree that he has not granted support for your interpretation of his work. That means your interpretation is just down to you. Correct? Now, tell us again JVL, how you think the gene system came into being? Is there a threshold of complexity before the system will function? I cannot answer that question. But I know that Dr Pattee has not endorsed the Intelligent Design paradigm. You can argue 'til you're blue in the face that that is the correct interpretation of his work but he, himself, has not supported that interpretation. And that is true. If you want to keep beating me over that then that is strictly your interpretation of his work. There is no evidence that he agrees with you. You keep thinking I'm using Dr Pattee as a way out. I'm not. I'm merely pointing out what he has, publicly, said and supported. You are the one who keeps wanting to try and interpret his work in a way that supports your views. I'm just looking at what he's actually said not what you think he's said.JVL_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

. JVL,
I’m sorry that I have pointed out…”
No need to be sorry JVL, the design inference is based on the science recorded by the researchers, not on their personal worldview. You see how science works? Of course you do, but you must ignore it and double-down in order to get some lipstick on the pig. For reasons that could not possibly be more obvious, that is the only thing that matters to you.
I trust the researchers and his interpretation of his work.
No you don’t. Howard Pattee offers no conclusions about the origin of the system in his research. Do you not understand this? Of course you do, but again, you are forced to ignore it. And this whole “trust the researcher” canard is a deception in and of itself. Here is a guy who writes specifically about the critical requirement of removing the researcher from the measurement, and yet, in one breath you want to shove him back into the measurement against his will, and then in the next breath you want to boil him down to a “trust me” routine – as if Howard Hunt Pattee would be caught dead doing science that way. What a cluster you are. He did not write for 5 decades on this subject without achieving great clarity on the subject matter, JVL. But you are not using this “trust” thing as a comment on the clarity of the issues (or even your understanding of the texts); you are using it as a nothing but a pretense (a defense) from having to acknowledge what the man has actually wrote. You don’t like (and can’t deal with) what he has written, and so you want to pretend it is too esoteric for your meager interest to understand, and rely instead on a conclusion that he does not even pretend to offer. Both ends of this tactic are an insult to Pattee. But that doesn’t matter to you. The ends justify the means, do they not? I can tell you from personal experience, in none of the exchanges I ever had with HH Pattee over the past decade did he ever present himself as the figure you suggest. He would never be comfortable with someone using his personal worldview as a means to avoid what he actually wrote in his research, and he sure as hell wouldn’t like a reductionist ideologue like you using “trust the scientist” as a tool. He is just exactly the opposite of that. Completely the opposite. So we are once again exactly where I said we would be. You have absolutely no legitimate rebuttal to the science and history of the design inference. However, since you think Howard Pattee offers you a safe way out, we can surely go there. I’m game. Howard Pattee thinks that John Von Neumann was completely correct about his “threshold of complication” (i.e. complexity) being required for autonomous description-based self-replication. Von Neumann wrote that it required the faculties of (a) construction, (b) copying, and (c) control. He also wrote that new information (d) could be added to an already-functioning symbolic description as along as the system preserved the functions of a, b, and c. In other words, above this threshold open-ended autonomous self-replication was made physically possible, but below that threshold the system could not function. For both Pattee and Von Neumann, this requirement of complexity is tied directly to the fundamental requirement of a “epistemic cut” between a description and that which is being described. Howard Pattee writes that a single symbol is both a gratuitous and meaningless concept: “symbols do not exist in isolation, but only in coordinated groups” … “if symbols are to be rich enough for unlimited evolution, the symbols must belong to a complete coherent symbol system – which I call a language”. Now, tell us again JVL, how you think the gene system came into being? Is there a threshold of complexity before the system will function?Upright BiPed_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

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.JVL_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

JVL: I would like to applaud Dr Dembski on his honesty and clarity.
Can you be specific about what is worthy of applause? Did he say something unexpected?davidl1_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: You want so much to dismember the design inference with science and reason, but you simply have nothing to work with. On the evidentiary front, what has to occur (in order to support your position) isn’t left vague, but is instead made perfectly clear by the science. And on the reasoning front, it is your very own logic that you forced to argue against, hence the paralysis. I'm sorry that I have pointed out that one of the researchers whose work you cite in support of your views has not stated his agreement with you. Nor has anyone else in the semiotic community that I have found. You keep trying to hide behind the personal worldview of a researcher instead of the researcher’s recorded measurements. 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. And I don't think Dr Pattee has been pretty clear that he is NOT in support of intelligent design. And your cannot find any statement by him that is in support of your views. But we already know what is wrong with you, right? The design inference is not based on the personal worldview of the researchers involved, its based solely on the scientific measurements taken by those researchers and placed in the literature. But, again, the semiotic researchers whose work you cite do not seem to be in agreement with your conclusions. Why is that? They should understand the implications and ramifications of their work. I trust them. You choose an interpretation that is NOT supported by the professionals in the field. That is true. As it stands, you are also fully aware that you can’t actually refute the design inference by ignoring measurement and appealing to the worldviews of researchers instead — but you have no choice. You have nothing else to carry out the deception. How is accurately representing the views of the pertinent researchers deception? Please explain that. What is that tactic called, where someone posts a snippet from a paper that has no impact on the conversation (except in your case, it completely supports the design inference) but they do it in order to to create the appearance of having provided something of substance? Please find the clear, public statement of a semiotic researcher which supports the design inference. Your personal interpretation is just that: a personal interpretation. You should just admit that.JVL_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

. JVL, you appear to be suffering from a rather nasty strain of intellectual paralysis. You want so much to dismember the design inference with science and reason, but you simply have nothing to work with. On the evidentiary front, what has to occur (in order to support your position) isn’t left vague, but is instead made perfectly clear by the science. And on the reasoning front, it is your very own logic that you forced to argue against, hence the paralysis. So, unable to respond with science and reason, you end up posting ridiculous comments as you did in #7. You keep trying to hide behind the personal worldview of a researcher instead of the researcher’s recorded measurements. Science is not a beauty pageant, JVL (HH Pattee would be the first person to tell you that). In fact, I do not need to rebut your comments in #7; HH Pattee does that himself. He was completely upfront and explicit throughout his entire publishing career — he tells you over and over again that he has no solution to the problem of origins; he offers no conclusions. He tells you time and again that as a physicist he can only document the problem. As a careful observer, he did not (i.e. refused to) litter his papers with unsupported speculations of any kind. He states clearly in his text that he avoids subject matter that he deems as undecidable. And yet, here you are, once again wanting to appeal to exactly those conclusions and speculations that simply do not exist. For crying out loud JVL, you are like the defense attorney who keeps calling the forensic technician back to the stand in order to drill him on “why” he thinks your client would want the victim dead. He keeps telling you that he is a lab technician and has no idea what motivates your client, but can only testify that when your client was arrested at the scene, he had fresh gunpowder residue on his hands, and that the fatal bullet was fired through the revolver he had in his possession at the time of the arrest. Yet, over and over, you keep calling him back to the stand. The wide-eyed judge, the jury, the prosecution, your own client, and the local newspaper are all wondering what the hell is wrong with you. But we already know what is wrong with you, right? The design inference is not based on the personal worldview of the researchers involved, its based solely on the scientific measurements taken by those researchers and placed in the literature. That’s the problem you for JVL. You can go nowhere in the scientific record and refute the design inference with science and reason. As it stands, you are also fully aware that you can’t actually refute the design inference by ignoring measurement and appealing to the worldviews of researchers instead — but you have no choice. You have nothing else to carry out the deception. So that leaves us exactly where I said we would be: You are unable to to show any religious commitments in the formulation of the design inference. You are unable to show any errors of fact or history in the design inference, and yet you are intellectually unable to acknowledge that the design inference is valid. We are three for three. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - What is that tactic called, where someone posts a snippet from a paper that has no impact on the conversation (except in your case, it completely supports the design inference) but they do it in order to to create the appearance of having provided something of substance?Upright BiPed_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

ET: 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. Not the topic I was discussing with Upright BiPed.JVL_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Origenes: What exactly is he being clear and honest about? Perhaps you mistakenly think that Dembski is saying that ID is Christian apologetics and not science. If so, read again. No, I didn't think that.JVL_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

JVL:
t’s not my fault that one of your chosen sources does not support the conclusion you draw from his work.
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.ET_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

JVL @3
Dembski: 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.

JVL: I would like to applaud Dr Dembski on his honesty and clarity.
What exactly is he being clear and honest about? Perhaps you mistakenly think that Dembski is saying that ID is Christian apologetics and not science. If so, read again.Origenes_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: Despite this, your chosen rebuttal against the science and history was to dismiss it, and instead rely on the unsupported position (non-probative opinion/assumption) of individuals — without providing any empirical support for the (unguided) rise of quiescent memory from dynamics. It's not my fault that one of your chosen sources does not support the conclusion you draw from his work. In fact he's criticised Intelligent Design (which I pointed out to you) and written papers like this: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-5161-3_14
Evolving Self-reference: Matter, Symbols, and Semantic Closure A theory of emergent or open-ended evolution that is consistent with the epistemological foundations of physical theory and the logic of self-reference requires complementary descriptions of the material and symbolic aspects of events. The matter-symbol complementarity is explained in terms of the logic of self-replication, and physical distinction of laws and initial conditions. Physical laws and natural selection are complementary models of events. Physical laws describe those invariant events over which organisms have no control. Evolution by natural selection is a theory of how organisms increase their control over events. A necessary semantic closure relation is defined relating the material and symbolic aspects of organisms capable of open-ended evolution.
And even if I couldn't find evidence that Dr Pattee does not agree with Intelligent Design (but I did) you have zero evidence that he does. In fact, you have little to no evidence that anyone working in semiotics agrees with the design inference. If you chose to suppose the work of Dr Pattee and others like him support your view that's just down to you and not to them. you will not be able to show any religious commitments in the formation of the inference. I wasn't trying to in this case. Dr Dembski clearly feels differently.JVL_{November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT}

.
I would like to applaud Dr Dembski on his honesty and clarity.
Let us see if you can do it. You were given a design inference on this website that is totally empirical and historical in nature, relying on no religious commitments whatsoever. The inference was based on the rise of quiescent genetic memory from dynamics, as well as the historical prediction of such systems as being fundamental, and also the sole demonstrable cause of such physical systems. You were unable to refute either the science or the history involved in the inference presented to you, and indeed, you generally had to concede the validity of those observations and their history in science. Despite this, your chosen rebuttal against the science and history was to dismiss it, and instead rely on the unsupported position (non-probative opinion/assumption) of individuals — without providing any empirical support for the (unguided) rise of quiescent memory from dynamics. (You attempted this maneuver with John Von Neumann, but could not find (did not provide) any supporting research; you then tried with HH Pattee and provided a non-specific one-liner that was unrelated to the research presented). True or false? If you choose to respond to this comment, here is what will happen: 1) you will not be able to show any religious commitments in the formation of the inference. 2) you will not be able to demonstrate falsity in the facts or history presented, 3) you will not be able to acknowledge that the design inference is valid.Upright BiPed_{November 28, 2021
November
11
Nov
28
28
2021
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

Would someone who continues to prop up darwinism be seen as an apologist too? I mean, it isn't like we can see macroevolution occur...zweston_{November 28, 2021
November
11
Nov
28
28
2021
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

JVL, aspect. Key word. The design inference on tested reliable observational evidence is a matter of scientific and to some extent statistical investigation. Such stands on its own legs and for example the presence of large quantities of alphanumeric algorithmic code in D/RNA speaks to language, goal directed stepwise process and more well beyond plausible reach of blind chance and mechanical necessity. This is decisive, there is -- on trillions of observed cases -- just one plausible source for such, intelligently directed configuration. Design. For years I have seen continual attempts to evade and distract attention from this central point rather than to face its force squarely and such rhetoric is part of why I have declared intellectual independence: my conclusion will not be hobbled by distractors and evasions. KFkairosfocus_{November 28, 2021
November
11
Nov
28
28
2021
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

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.
I would like to applaud Dr Dembski on his honesty and clarity.JVL_{November 28, 2021
November
11
Nov
28
28
2021
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

Christian apologists need to start emphasizing the truth that atheism is bankrupt along every axis of importance. It is morally bankrupt, philosophically bankrupt, spiritually bankrupt, socially bankrupt, psychologically bankrupt, and bankrupt in ways I haven't listed here.EvilSnack_{November 28, 2021
November
11
Nov
28
28
2021
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Excellent lecture. Toward the end he uses the model of business, where marketers know how to link knowledge and experience and emotion to create an enthusiastic demand. Lately I've been noticing that the completely abstract and "spiritual" world of bitcoin and DAOs and NFTs has managed to infiltrate nearly all truth-tellers. Every influencer who grasps solid reality on all the other hot topics is also selling the irrational and unreal bitcoins. I find this frustrating, but it's the way things are. If Christians could infiltrate the crypto world, they'd have an inside handle on this mysterious influencer of the best influencers. DAO seems to have picked up some New Testament organization styles, and NFTs are like orthodox Ikons. Reconsecrate this desecrated territory.polistra_{November 28, 2021
November
11
Nov
28
28
2021
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply