Comment #24616

Posted by William Dembski on April 13, 2005 10:57 AM (e) (s)

Come off it Matt. I’ve debated you guys in all settings, most of them quite hostile: Pennock and Miller at the American Museum of Natural History in 2002, Pigliucci at the New York Academy of Sciences in 2001, and Miller and Elsberry at the World Skeptics meeting in 2002 (at which some skeptics commended me for having the guts to show up). I’ll take any of you on at any time in any venue.

I had nothing to do with the publicity for this event. If you’ve got a problem with it, contact Chad Kifer at ISI: . He’s responsible.

Comment #24621

Posted by NelC on April 13, 2005 11:14 AM (e) (s)

If audiences at generally-publicised events are critical of your ideas, Bill, and the only way to attract an audience weighted the other way is for someone to deliberately ensure that the event is invisible to a general audience, then maybe that should tell you something about the quality of your ideas.

Comment #24622

Posted by Flint on April 13, 2005 11:15 AM (e) (s)

William Dembski:

At the very least, then, you should resent Kifer’s efforts to make you appear cowardly and foolish.

Comment #24623

Posted by Hiero5ant on April 13, 2005 11:16 AM (e) (s)

“I’ll take any of you on at any time in any venue.”

Excellent!

When can we expect the scientific theory of intelligent design to “take on any of [us]” in the venue of peer-reviewed scientific journals?

Comment #24624

Posted by Joel on April 13, 2005 11:18 AM (e) (s)

How ironic, this post complaining about not getting invited, preceded by a post complaining about getting invited.

Comment #24627

Posted by Scott in PA on April 13, 2005 11:28 AM (e) (s)

What is the evidence that the ID crowd “deliberately” ensured that the event was “invisible” to a general audience?

Comment #24629

Posted by John A. Davison on April 13, 2005 11:30 AM (e) (s)

What is the virtue in debating that which is self-evident and without which nothing about the mechanism of evolution will ever be disclosed. The sober realization is that Intelligent Design is the only conceivable starting point from which all progress has been and continues to be made.

“Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein, Saturday Evening Post, October 26, 1929

I am so pleased to have my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis anticipated wnen I was but an infant fifteen months old.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

Comment #24631

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on April 13, 2005 11:31 AM (e) (s)

Come off it Matt. I’ve debated you guys in all settings, most of them quite hostile: Pennock and Miller at the American Museum of Natural History in 2002, Pigliucci at the New York Academy of Sciences in 2001, and Miller and Elsberry at the World Skeptics meeting in 2002 (at which some skeptics commended me for having the guts to show up). I’ll take any of you on at any time in any venue.

Matt is not questionning Dr. Dembski’s eagerness to debate.  Dr. Dembski has made it abundantly clear by issuing numerous “challenges”, similar in tone to the one above. 

What Matt is pointing out is that Dr. Dembski’s boastful blog report that most of the audience’s questions at the end were ID-friendly is based not on his uncanny ability to “convert” Ivy-Leaguers to ID, but on the fact that the audience was entirely ID-friendly to start with, based on savvy advertising of the debate (of which, in all fairness, Dembski himself may have been unaware).  Since Dembski pronosticated “good things to come” for ID based on the audience’s reaction, perhaps he should revise his polling strategy to avoid sample bias.

Comment #24632

Posted by Ken Shackleton on April 13, 2005 11:31 AM (e) (s)

William Dembski wrote:

Come off it Matt. I’ve debated you guys in all settings, most of them quite hostile: Pennock and Miller at the American Museum of Natural History in 2002, Pigliucci at the New York Academy of Sciences in 2001, and Miller and Elsberry at the World Skeptics meeting in 2002 (at which some skeptics commended me for having the guts to show up). I’ll take any of you on at any time in any venue.

So, Mr. Dembski….what is the Theory of Intelligent Design, what observations support it, and what predictions and subsequent tests have been postulated and performed that either support or falsify ID?

What is the nature of the designer? If you propose design, then there must be some evidence of the intent and/or nature of the designer.

Thanks

Comment #24633

Posted by Katarina on April 13, 2005 11:34 AM (e) (s)

Dr. Dembski,

I have a question for you. Why do you not allow comments on your site? Also, why don’t you come around here more often and make rebuttal points in the comments section? I am sure everyone here would welcome it. I am sure that if you allowed comments on your blog, everyone here would love to offer their comments there.

A debate is just as public over the internet, and a direct exchange would be really exciting for us all.

Comment #24636

Posted by Hiero5ant on April 13, 2005 11:39 AM (e) (s)

Katarina makes an excellent point.

Why won’t the DI fellows “take on” anyone in the “venue” of the comment section of their own blog?

Is this really reflective of creationists’ approach toward open debate? What Would (the) Isaac Newton (ofinformationtheory) Do?

Comment #24637

Posted by Russell on April 13, 2005 11:44 AM (e) (s)

If anyone does contact Kifer, please ask for his permission to share his response with us.

Comment #24638

Posted by Ken Shackleton on April 13, 2005 11:55 AM (e) (s)

A question on Information Theory:

How does “information” exist in the natural universe?

It would seem to me that information is nothing more than the human perception of the environment. Information [as possessed by humans] changes all the time without any change to the actual universe at all. The only thing that has changed been our perception of the universe, the universe has not changed.

Without a mind to perceive, I would propose that there is no such thing as information at all.

Comments?

Comment #24639

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 13, 2005 11:59 AM (e) (s)

William Dembski wrote:

[…] Miller and Elsberry at the World Skeptics meeting in 2002 […]

William Dembski wrote:

[…] All of this is highly speculative, and accounts for cell biologist Franklin Harold’s (2001, 205) frank admission: “There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

When I challenged Ken Miller with this quote at the World Skeptics Conference organized by CSICOP summer 2002 (for a summary of the conference see http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-09/conference.html…), Miller did not challenge the substance of Harold’s claim. Rather, he merely asserted that Harold had been retired a number of years. The implication I took was that Harold was old and out of touch with current biological thinking and therefore could be ignored (in which case one has to wonder what the editors at Oxford University Press were thinking when they agreed to publish Harold’s book). I wish that at the skeptics conference I had followed up more forcefully on Miller’s glib dismissal of Harold. Perhaps Miller will see my response here and clarify why Harold’s retirement has anything to do with the substance of Harold’s claim.

(Still Spinning Just Fine)

In this latter instance, the “spinning” is more appropriate to Dembski’s description of the 2002 panel discussion than anything about flagella. And, in anticipation of the antievolutionist’s favorite question, yes, I was there. Miller did not dismiss the assertion that a detailed evolutionary pathway for the bacterial flagellum was lacking, and in fact stated forthrightly concerning that claim, “Point taken. You’re right, you’re absolutely right.” It’s not something that I, at least, would soon forget. Apparently, a critic is not even allowed to agree with Dembski without being given cause to regret it later.

Comment #24640

Posted by Steve Brady on April 13, 2005 12:02 PM (e) (s)

There’s a debate at Harvard on Friday over the legal issues of teach ID in schools, for anyone in the area interested in that sort of thing.

Link.

Comment #24641

Posted by Longhorm on April 13, 2005 12:12 PM (e) (s)

Dr. Dembski, thanks for posting at Pandasthumb.  I have two questions for you: Which event(s) did the designer cause?  And why do you you believe that the designer caused said event(s)?  I have seen few, if any, peeople who refer to themselves as “proponent of intelligent design” clearly indicate which event(s) they think the designer caused.  The kind of claim I have in mind is one that we can have a good idea of whether to accept it or not.  For instance, did the designer turn dust directly into two elephants (one male and one female)? 

Also, self-replicating molecules evolved (through reproduction) into all the complex organisms that have lived on earth.  For instance, all mammals are descendents of the very same cell that was on earth about 3.8 billion years ago.  Do you agree with that?  If not, why not?  Some of the data that has enabled me to determine that can be found in Ernst Mayr’s book What Evolution Is.

Comment #24642

Posted by Matt Brauer on April 13, 2005 12:25 PM (e) (s)

I’ll agree that Bill was certainly not to blame for the selective publicity that nevertheless rebounded entirely to his advantage. I’ll admit that he may even have been completely unaware of it.

But I hope he’ll concede that the results of this debate show how vacuous it is to judge an idea’s value by its score on the applause meter.

This episode also demonstrates why serious scientists are mostly loathe to debate ID advocates. Now that Lee Silver has been burned by the ID public relations machine, I imagine he too will be joining the ranks of the reluctant.

Comment #24646

Posted by JRQ on April 13, 2005 12:40 PM (e) (s)

“Notably absent was any publicity that might have resulted in the attendance of scientists, or even of unscreened Princeton students.”

Wow, that’s an understatement…i’m a post-doc a Princeton and this is the first I’ve heard of it. granted, I don’t follow the schedule of events as closely as students do, but surely I should have caught wind of an appearence by the “Isaac Newton of information theory”?

What a shame…I would have loved to attend.

Comment #24650

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 13, 2005 12:51 PM (e) (s)

Bill Dembski lays it down:

I’ll take any of you on at any time in any venue.

How about right here, right now?

(1) tell me when the mysterious alien beings created all of the allegedly “irreducibly complex” life forms that ever lived on earth and approximately how long that process took, in total;

(2) explain how the mysterious alien beings accomplished this task without leaving any traces of their existence other than their alleged “designs”;

(3) explain why the mysterious alien beings felt compelled to populate the earth with “irreducibly complex” life forms;

(4) explain how the mysterious alien beings came to exist, assuming they are also “irreducibly complex” (if that is not a reasonable assumption, let me know why).

For each of the above, some testable hypotheses would be awesome.

Thanks Bill.

Comment #24654

Posted by Rick Molnar on April 13, 2005 01:24 PM (e) (s)

Mr. Dembski why not just admit that the designer is god?  You know it, everyone else knows it, god supposedly knows it.  Why be so vague?  Isn’t there some quote that says something about the truth setting you free?  Is it ok with your god to deny the truth?  Isn’t that just lying by omission?  Surely you do not believe that aliens came over here and planted the seeds of life.  Please answer the questions in the posts above about where the designer acts or has acted.  Even if your idea about a designer is true it does nothing to refute evolution.  Does the designer act every single minute of the day?  Where is the point of interaction?  It seems that as you start tracing back where the designer acts or has acted you have to eventually get to the beginning of life.  And, as has been pointed zillions of times, evolution has nothing to do with the beginning, only what happened afterward.  And if the designer (god) can create such wonderous marvels as plants, animals, people, planets, stars etc.  And if can interact with the world by causing floods, locust swarms and creating language, why not just magically put some words down on paper?  Why has every single religious document that has ever been presented been written by a human?  They may say that god “told” them to write it down but why?  Why go through a human when you can create life and control the weather?  Why not just write it yourself?  god supposedly wrote the ten commandments into stone, but of course those are not around now.  Did he lose his pen?  He is omnimpotent but cannot write his own bible, torah, koran?  Please address some of these questions, either here or your own post.  Give people a real reason to believe that ID has some scientific merit.  Build up your own idea, not tear down someone else’s.  You can tear down a million theories but it does not add one brick to your own wall. 

Anyone else with info on how ID answers these questions please feel free to answer.

Thanks

Comment #24659

Posted by Matt Brauer on April 13, 2005 01:46 PM (e) (s)

I’d like to make it clear that I don’t begrudge the ID folks their talks in front of friendly audiences. There’s only so much hostility anyone can take, and I know that I would not want to always be putting myself out in front of a crowd that was predisposed to disagree with me. I admire people like Paul Nelson who can do this to the extent that they do.

BUT it would be wise to limit the conclusions drawn from the reaction of a friendly audience. And dancing in the end-zone is simply bad sportsmanship, if the field is so tilted in your favor.

Also, it seems a rather shabby trick for the organizers of a debate to intentionally (and without the knowledge of the participants) stack the audience in favor of one of the debaters.

Finally, the organizers of the debate used the Princeton name and Princeton facilities but cheated the Princeton community out of the opportunity to see Dembski in person. I’ll certainly be drafting a note of complaint to the facilities department, in addition to the one I’m writing to the organizers of the debate.

And I have to ask: what were the motivations of these organizers? Were they trying to provide a staged (and therefore meaningless) victory for Dr. Dembski? Did they simply want to invoke the Princeton name for use in later PR campaigns? Or was it just horrendously sloppy planning that excluded the Princeton campus from participation?

Until such time as we get an answer, I’d suggest that Bill stop making rhetorical hay out of what has been an event of dubious legitimacy.

(Also, I’m of course waiting to see the recorded footage before I concede that Bill has any right to be claiming “victory” in the first place!)

Comment #24663

Posted by fallmists on April 13, 2005 02:01 PM (e) (s)

I’ll agree that Bill was certainly not to blame for the selective publicity that nevertheless rebounded entirely to his advantage. I’ll admit that he may even have been completely unaware of it.

I am a Princeton student and I *was* at the debate.  Just so you know, I am giving a first-hand account here.

First off, the debate was at our Woodrow Wilson School (international/public affairs type department building), so that already created a non-science atmosphere.  Both Dr. Dembski and Dr. Silver appeared to be somewhat frustrated at not being able to assume the audience’s knowledge of actual science.  Dr. Dembski resorted to just quoting many different sources in a non-scientific context and Dr. Silver only gave very vague accounts of various instances of selection we have observed.

The audience was EXTREMELY one-sided (I believe all of the questions asked except two were blatantly pro-ID or at least anti-evolution)— to the extent that one audience member actually stood up and said, “This is a question for Dr. Silver.  Why do you hate God?  Everything you have said tonight is dripping with your deep hatred of God.  What did God do to you?”

The audience was by far non-Princeton students.  I can count approximately 12 actual students in the audience (8 of whom I directly brought along myself because I had heard by coincidence from a professor SIX hours before the debate that there was going to be one in the first place!)  The event was most definitely NOT advertised anywhere on campus and the majority of the audience was actually older adults (from the community, or elsewhere, I’m not sure, but they weren’t professors or grad students).

The organizer/moderator of the debate (not sure who the professor is, but he’s not in the bio department here) appears to be pro-ID himself.  I say this based on encounters with him in the cafeteria and listening to him talk with one of my friends.  Just as a side note, another friend was at a Women in Sciences panel a few weeks ago and recognized him as the audience member who asked rather antagonistic questions to the panel.  I do not believe Dr. Dembski himself was responsible for the INCREDIBLY poor advertisment of the debate (e.g. there was NO mention of the debate ANYWHERE on any website or poster or flyer at Princeton—-in order to double-check the time and location, I had to google up Dr. Dembski’s website to find the information).

I felt the Professor Silver could have done a better job making the points he wished to express clear to the audience, but I think this was largely due to the lack of science-oriented audience.  (Prof. Silver tried to use examples of artificial selection to demonstrate how selection as a mechanism can create diversity; but he never really made it clear that this was his point—so the pro-ID audience took that as “evidence” for how intelligence is needed to create diversity.)  But at the same time, Dr. Dembski completely ignored every attempt Prof. Silver tried at asking him to give an exact specific mechanism for his “ID theory”—hence the actual topic of the debate: Is ID SciencE? was never even broached. 

I have a semi-friend who is a huge fan of Dr. Dembski (I am definitely not), but both of us (and the other 6 of us who came to the debate) agreed that the debate itself was rather poorly done and that this was a result largely of both sides not being able to assume science knowledge in the audience.

I’d say in the end, the debate really did nothing and said nothing we didn’t already know.  Dr. Dembski failed to elucidate an actual mechanism for how an Intelligent Designer would bring about changes (Does the Designer manually change bases with some powers that he has to work on a microscopic level?  Does the Designer wave a magic wand?  Does the Designer expose many different organisms to extreme radiation to cause mutations in their DNA and then only pick the ones closest to the direction “evolution” should take? Seriously, we *still* have no proposed mechanism.).  Professor Silver largely failed to explain to the audience the biological evidence for natural/non-artificial selection leading to new  or more complex species (I could get what he was trying to say, but that is only because I am a molecular biology student and because I have some interest in the ID debate or lack-thereof.)

Comment #24668

Posted by Longhorm on April 13, 2005 02:22 PM (e) (s)

I wrote:

I have two questions for you: Which event(s) did the designer cause?  And why do you you believe that the designer caused said event(s)? 

That second question didn’t come out right.  With the second question, it seems like I’m asking what Dr. Dembski thinks the designer’s motive was in making the objects that it made.  That is not what I want to ask him.  I don’t care about what he thinks the designer’s motives were.  What I want to know is: What evidence is there that the designer(s) caused the event(s) that Dr. Dembski thinks the designer(s) caused?

Another way to put it: What beliefs does Dr. Dembski hold that are logically inconsistent with what some people call “the theory of evolution?”  Specificity helps in this case.  It helps advance the discussion.  Also, why does Dr. Dembski think he is justified in holding those beliefs. 

This is about the closest thing I’ve seen to a hypothesis made by a proponent of “intelligent design”:  On one or more specific occasions over the last 3.8 billion years, one or more beings helped cause the existence of some organisms that have lived on planet earth and/or helped cause the existence of some parts of some of those organisms.

Taking the claim just as it is, I’m not justified in believing that it is true.  At the moment, I can’t get why I’m not justified it’s true.  But maybe I can address the issue later. 

However, it would help if the proponents of “intelligent design” were more specific about what they think happened — about what they think the designer(s) did vis-a-vis the organisms on earth.  Did the designer turn dust into the first self-replicating molecules on earth 3.8 billion years ago?  Did the designer(s) turn dust directly into the first bacterial flagellum to exist on earth?  Did the designer turn dust — poof! — directly into the first two T-Rexes (one male and one female)?

Comment #24669

Posted by sir_toejam on April 13, 2005 02:26 PM (e) (s)

“And I have to ask: what were the motivations of these organizers? Were they trying to provide a staged (and therefore meaningless) victory for Dr. Dembski? Did they simply want to invoke the Princeton name for use in later PR campaigns? Or was it just horrendously sloppy planning that excluded the Princeton campus from participation?”

Isn’t posssible that the motivation was simply to get a scientist on the stage to begin with?

I’m sure they will use this as ammunition against the boycott in kansas.

cheers

Comment #24670

Posted by Katarina on April 13, 2005 02:26 PM (e) (s)

fallmists,

Thanks for your enlightening account. It explains a lot. BTW, I sympathise with you, I have associates and family members who are otherwise very bright, but for some reason fall into the ID faulty reasoning. I don’t understand it, but luckily Dembski’s critics have gutted him so thoroughly that all I have to do is point to their books/articles, and if my friends are not too lazy to read, they eventually see the light.

I am sorry you have a professor there who sympathises with the ID crowd. That is quite, quite sad.

Comment #24688

Posted by Michael Finley on April 13, 2005 03:10 PM (e) (s)

…Bill Dembski, a seminary professor.

Is Baylor’s Institute for Faith and Learning a Baptist seminary? If it is, it’s a well kept secret on the Institute’s website (http://www3.baylor.edu/IFL/index.htm…).

I understand that Dembski is not held in high regard around here, but at least give the man credit for being a university professor of “the conceptual foundations of science”, and a mathematician.

Comment #24690

Posted by fallmists on April 13, 2005 03:18 PM (e) (s)

Well, the professor is not a biologist (actually I don’t think he’s even a professor in any of the sciences), so that is ok.  (Wait, actually I just looked him up and he’s a lecturer in the politics department.)

Dembski says claims:
Thursday evening (April 7, 2005), I debated Lee Silver at Princeton University. The debate, titled “Intelligent Design: Is It Science?” was sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, which recently published my book Uncommon Dissent. About 200 people attended the debate (from idthefuture

I am checking up on this, but we are almost certain that there were not 200 people there.  The debate was held in am auditorium  that is not large and it wasn’t even filled to capacity.  Haha, although, there *was* a police officer in addition campus safety! 

I’ll get back to this tomorrow after I stop by the auditorium and check the max capacity number.

Comment #24694

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 13, 2005 03:36 PM (e) (s)

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/other/facilities.html

Robertson Hall
- headquarters of the Woodrow Wilson School

….

The main floor of Robertson Hall contains the graduate and undergraduate program offices, student mailboxes, a lounge atrium, and the George P. Shultz ’42 Dining Room. Dodds Auditorium, a 200-seat amphitheater with modern audio-visual technology, is also on the main level of the building.

So it must have been packed full.

Comment #24695

Posted by Michael Finley on April 13, 2005 03:37 PM (e) (s)

Katarina wrote:

…but luckily Dembski’s critics have gutted him so thoroughly that all I have to do is point to their books/articles, and if my friends are not too lazy to read, they eventually see the light.

Do your friends have professional training in statistics? The reason I ask is that Dembski’s actual argument (e.g., The Design Inference) is rather technical, and the specialized critiques of it (e.g., Sober) are equally technical.

I “understand” Dembski and Sober the way I understand quantum mechanics, i.e., without the math (say by reading a little Brian Greene). Which is to say, I really don’t understand them at all. I have too many other things to study in my own field to spend much time learning the probability calculus. Aren’t most of us in the same boat here?

Comment #24696

Posted by caerbannog on April 13, 2005 03:38 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:

Is Baylor’s Institute for Faith and Learning a Baptist seminary?

Perhaps you haven’t heard about Dembski’s new employer. 

From http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=19115…:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)—Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. announced Sept. 16 the establishment of the Center for Science and Theology along with the appointment of renowned philosopher of science William A. Dembski as its first director.

………….

The careful reader will note that the words Baptist and Seminary are both present in Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Comment #24698

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 13, 2005 03:41 PM (e) (s)

Finley

I understand that Dembski is not held in high regard around here, but at least give the man credit for being a university professor of “the conceptual foundations of science”, and a mathematician.

A mathematician who loses count somewhere between 10 and 200?  And who believes he can prove that mysterious alien beings created all the complex life forms that ever lived on earth by playing word games with biological data?

No, I don’t think so.

Comment #24699

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 13, 2005 03:44 PM (e) (s)

Finley

The reason I ask is that Dembski’s actual argument (e.g., The Design Inference) is rather technical

How would you know, Finley, unless you’re an expert?

and the specialized critiques of it (e.g., Sober) are equally technical.

What is technical about “written in jello”?

Comment #24701

Posted by Matt Brauer on April 13, 2005 03:46 PM (e) (s)

Oops, looks like I jumped the gun by about 6 weeks.

Dembski will be “Carl F.H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science” at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary as of June 1.

Apologies to Associate Research Professor Dembski.

Comment #24706

Posted by Steven Laskoske on April 13, 2005 03:56 PM (e) (s)

fallmists wrote:

Well, the professor is not a biologist (actually I don’t think he’s even a professor in any of the sciences), so that is ok.  (Wait, actually I just looked him up and he’s a lecturer in the politics department.)

Somehow, the information in the parentheses fails to surprise me.

Of course, I’d wonder about that professor’s tenure.  It seems, if this particular debate were set up for political motives, it would be a complete failure for ID advocates.  Since the audience was comprised of mainly ID believers, no one was swayed.  In fact, the only real look we have at the people who follow ID is from one audience member’s question. (“Why do you hate God?”)  In short, it makes the ID crowd look pretty bad to the average person on the street.

Comment #24711

Posted by Flint on April 13, 2005 04:11 PM (e) (s)

…without the math (say by reading a little Brian Greene). Which is to say, I really don’t understand them at all…

This is the impression Dembski works very hard to create. I think Mark Perakh has discussed this in some detail: that Dembski’s basic argument can be stated without using any math at all, that the assumptions on which the argument is based is not beyond somone lacking a math background, and that Dembski’s treatments are heavily larded with superfluous mathematical notations, formulas, and terminology intended to be beyond the comfort zone of the intended reader, who is instead intended to come away with the feeling that Dembski’s opinions have been proved with full mathematical rigor.

But for Finley’s edification, consider pages of mathematical formulas intended to show that the maximum number of angels that can dance simultaneously on a pinhead cannot exceed 83. I hope even Finley can grasp that certain assumptions must have been made. The proximate assumptions concern the size of angels, the size of pinheads, and the room required to dance (and perhaps even the type of dance to be performed). The more deeply underlying assumptions involve the existence of angels and all they imply. The pages of formulas could all be completely consistent, following mathematical rules to the letter. The conclusion remains total nonsense.

Comment #24714

Posted by Firsttimeblogger on April 13, 2005 04:16 PM (e) (s)

Steven the average person on the street is considered fair game for ID advocates since they know that so called average people never bother to verify anything religious fruit loops say. Also these shams are used by ID advocates to boast that audience crowds overwhelimgly are swayed by ID debators.

Had one of these nits one time try to use a misquote of Niles to show that ID and Creationist debators where the best debators on the planet and respected by evolutionists. Thing is the quote said the exact opposite. The nit never responded back not even to deny when this was pointed out to them. Even though this nit objected strenously to my statement that creationists routinely misquote people.

Comment #24715

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 13, 2005 04:21 PM (e) (s)

Flint

consider pages of mathematical formulas intended to show that the maximum number of angels that can dance simultaneously on a pinhead cannot exceed 83 … The pages of formulas could all be completely consistent, following mathematical rules to the letter. The conclusion remains total nonsense.

That’s because the answer is 42.

Comment #24716

Posted by Dave Cerutti on April 13, 2005 04:22 PM (e) (s)

I don’t think you’re going to get very far with Bill Dembski.  He’s already admitted in numerous articles and interviews that he thinks intelligent design is a way to “win back the culture for Christ.” But, of course, he’ll probably then retreat immediately by saying that the identity of the designer isn’t anything crucial to the science of intelligent design.  Then you can ask him where the science in intelligent design is.  And he’ll flip around with some things that science doesn’t know yet, some things it does but he doesn’t know it does, and throw out this idea that design wins out because nothing else can be found that will satisfy the astronomical improbability of it all being just so.  He’ll continue to infer design in systems that science doesn’t know enough about until, or even after, science has presented reasonable non-design mechanisms to explain them, at which point he’ll move on to something new. 

Sorry, guys, there’s Gish’s law (for every missing link filled there are two more missing links), and then there’s Dembski’s law: for every scientific discovery that begs new questions and exposes a lack of understanding, there’s a niche for some nihilistic intellectual movement like intelligent design.

Comment #24718

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on April 13, 2005 04:23 PM (e) (s)

Discovery Institute events page
Upcoming events:

April 19, 2005
Heritage Foundation hosts Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D.
12 noon
The Heritage Foundation Lehrman Auditorium

April 19, 2005
Live Debate: Intelligent Design: Scientific Inquiry or Religious Indoctrination?
NPR program Justice Talking
7:30 PM at The National Constitution Center in Philadelphia
featuring Dr. Paul Nelson and Dr. Niall Shanks
free and open to the public

April 21, 2005
George Gilder’s “Silicon Eye”
Lecture and Book Signing with the Author
7:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 21st in Benaroya’s Illsley Ball Nordstrom Recital Hall

May 5, 2005
CDR Steve Bristow, United States Navy
apparently nothing to do with Intelligent Design Creationism

Comment #24721

Posted by 386sx on April 13, 2005 04:42 PM (e) (s)

fallmists wrote:

The audience was EXTREMELY one-sided (I believe all of the questions asked except two were blatantly pro-ID or at least anti-evolution)— to the extent that one audience member actually stood up and said, “This is a question for Dr. Silver.  Why do you hate God?  Everything you have said tonight is dripping with your deep hatred of God.  What did God do to you?”

fallmists, do you agree with Mr. Dembski’s assessment of that particular audience member’s questions?

Demski says: This became especially clear when one young man asked Silver, “Why do you hate God?” This young man, who I assume was a Princeton student, asked the question not as a “frothing at the mouth fundamentalist” but as a psychiatrist might in trying to understand a case study. He asked the question very calmly, indicating that he genuinely wanted to understand Silver’s motivations.

What I mean is, did this audience member have magic brain waves flying out of his/her head so that you were able to determine through some sort of mind reading technique that this person “genuinely wanted to understand,” and was asking “as a psychiatrist might in trying to understand a case study”?

Comment #24728

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 13, 2005 04:55 PM (e) (s)

April 19, 2005
Live Debate: Intelligent Design: Scientific Inquiry or Religious Indoctrination?
NPR program Justice Talking

I look forward to these other NPR radio shows:

“Sasquatch Studies: Ready for Prime Time?”

“UFO Abductions: Are Our Children Ready for the Truth?”

“Communicating with the Dead: A Miraculous and Powerful Tool? Or Pure Garbage?”

“Group Prayer: A Proven Way of Protecting Schools from Natural Disasters?  Or Religious Indoctrination?”

“Telepathy in Children: Impact on Test Scores”

Comment #24729

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 13, 2005 04:57 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:

Do your friends have professional training in statistics? The reason I ask is that Dembski’s actual argument (e.g., The Design Inference) is rather technical, and the specialized critiques of it (e.g., Sober) are equally technical.

While Dembski does give a technical description of “specified complexity” (actually, multiple different and not entirely compatible versions of the concept), there are a number of points that don’t require the reader to have a doctorate in statistics in order to comprehend.

• Dembski defines “design” by what it isn’t, not by what it is.

• Dembski defines “complexity” as “improbability”, specifically “improbability of origin”.

• Dembski waves away consideration of “don’t know yet” as an alternative possibility.

• Dembski’s quantification  of information added by natural selection would rate the same novel trait as having different amounts of “information” simply depending upon differences in two circumstances between numbers of total offspring and numbers surviving to reproduce. (HT to Bill Jefferys.)

• Dembski has claimed twenty specific examples of “complex specified information”, but Dembski’s “generic chance elimination argument” (GCEA) has been applied partially in just four published cases. For sixteen cases, all there is to substantiate the claim is Dembski’s bald assertion.

• No one besides Dembski has ever published even a partial application of Dembski’s GCEA.

• Neither Dembski nor any other ID advocate has offered any method of empirically testing Dembski’s GCEA.

• Dembski has deployed a multitude of inconsistent uses of the phrase “complex specified information”.

• Dembski’s example of “CSI holism” (NFL, p.166) is explained by the fact that he failed to count the information of the spaces in the sentence he analzyed.

• Dembski’s analysis of the Oklo natural nuclear reactors reveals that Dembski’s CSI is unfalsifiable.

• Several of Dembski’s equations in section 5.10 of NFL rely upon unreferenced or made-up numbers.

• Dembski’s calculation of an “M/N ratio” (NFL p.297) is off by 65 orders of magnitude.

None of these problems requires a background comparable to Dembski’s in order to appreciate that a problem exists in each case. There are other problems in Dembski’s work that are accessible to the layman.

http://www.antievolution.org/people/dembski_wa/wre_ctns.ppt…

With greater degrees of background knowledge, of course, further problems in Dembski’s work become apparent.

http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/papers/eandsdembski.…

Comment #24730

Posted by Paul Christopher on April 13, 2005 04:59 PM (e) (s)

One has to wonder what actions would qualify someone as a “frothing at the mouth fundamentalist” in William Dembski’s mind.

Maybe he’s just spent too much time with his Discovery Institute pals. Compared to them, that audience member probably sounded like a godless communist.

Comment #24732

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 13, 2005 05:04 PM (e) (s)

Allegedly some student said to Silver

Everything you have said tonight is dripping with your deep hatred of God.

Sure, I’ll bet Silver was just completely out of control with his non-stop bigotry and hatred.

Then, when Silver was exposed, he spun his head around three times, projectile-vomited green muck over the podium, sprouted bat wings and vanished in a thick cloud of putrid smoke as he shouted (backwards) “Curse you, Believers!”

No wonder Dembski found the exchange so “interesting.”

Comment #24740

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on April 13, 2005 05:25 PM (e) (s)

William,

  Isn’t this what ID is really about?

“Even many Christians who have been raised and indoctrinated in a secular mindset … will say, ‘Look, we’re just going to have to accept the science of the day and try to make our peace with it theologically,’” Dembski said. “And there is no peace theologically … ultimately with this view [Darwinian evolution]. But they accept it. And so, this idea of intelligent design becomes very threatening.”

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20574…

  Why not just be honest and say that ID is a waste of time scientifically but it makes you feel better about your religious beliefs?

Stuart

Comment #24743

Posted by Mike Walker on April 13, 2005 05:26 PM (e) (s)

Why do you hate God? Everything you have said tonight is dripping with your deep hatred of God.

The fact that Dembski thought that this question was even worth commenting on is telling. No matter how calmly and sincerely this question is asked it reveals the questioner to be a close-minded fundamentalist. At best it was an ignorant query, at worst it was intended to be an abusive put down.

If Silver is a Christian the worst he can (should) be accused of, even by “Bible-believing” fundamentalists, is of being misguided. If he is an atheist or agnostic, they should know it’s hard for anyone to hate something that you don’t believe even exists.

For Dembski to believe that this was worth mentioning in his report is telling. Of course, he knows his audience well.

For me, I don’t hate God, I just have a dislike for people who tell me I do.

Comment #24747

Posted by fallmists on April 13, 2005 05:31 PM (e) (s)

fallmists, do you agree with Mr. Dembski’s assessment of that particular audience member’s questions?

Demski says: This became especially clear when one young man asked Silver, “Why do you hate God?” This young man, who I assume was a Princeton student, asked the question not as a “frothing at the mouth fundamentalist” but as a psychiatrist might in trying to understand a case study. He asked the question very calmly, indicating that he genuinely wanted to understand Silver’s motivations.

386sx; I don’t agree with Dembski’s assessment at all because I *know* this particular young man, who happens to be an rather well-known evangelical Christian on campus (who wears anti-abortion slogan shirts with photos of “bloody aborted babies” at times).  Certainly not as a psychiatrist, more like a priest who’s been taught that evolution is incompatible with a belief in God. 

Though, if you don’t talk to him about religious/political issues, he’s a rather nice guy.

Comment #24749

Posted by sir_toejam on April 13, 2005 05:33 PM (e) (s)

we are all basically nice unless we feel threatened, yes?

Comment #24756

Posted by Duane Smith on April 13, 2005 06:34 PM (e) (s)

As I have said before, Intelligent Design Creationism is hollow marketing ploy to advance a political and religious agenda.  They have no real scientific agenda.  Your sure don’t want scientists to spoil the event by asking a lot of embarrassing questions and siding with the lone opposition.  It helps be able to pick on only one person.  I’m afraid Dr. Silver and Princeton helped their marketing efforts.

Comment #24758

Posted by Russell on April 13, 2005 06:47 PM (e) (s)

One never knows whether Dembski checks back in after making one of his  drive-by taunts, but as I picture him reading Fallmists’s account of the event I can’t help but hear, running through his head, the refrain of the song that was popular a few years ago… “I wish the real world would just quit hassling me”

Comment #24767

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 13, 2005 07:34 PM (e) (s)

Posted by William Dembski on April 13, 2005 10:57 AM

I’ll take any of you on at any time in any venue.

Mr Dembski, I have no interest in “debating” you, since science isn’t decided by “debate”.

But I do have two simple quesitons for you:

(1) what is the scientific theory of ID, and how do we test it using the scientific method

and

(2) do you repudiate the extremist Reconstructionist views of the Center for (the Rewnewal of) Science and Culture’s primary funder, Howard Ahmanson.  And if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway.

Alas, I suspect that I will never get any straight answer from you.

Which would be, I think, quite an eloquent answer in itself.

Comment #24768

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 13, 2005 07:40 PM (e) (s)

I understand that Dembski is not held in high regard around here, but at least give the man credit for being a university professor of “the conceptual foundations of science”, and a mathematician.

When Dembski and his ilk have something actually scientific to say, THEN perhaps I will give him credit.  Until then, he’s just another revivalist tent preacher whose sermon is a lot more mathematical-sounding than most. 

He has no scientific theory of ID.  Neither do you, Finley.  Until one of you DOES, you simply have nothing scientific to say.  <shrug>

Comment #24776

Posted by JohnK on April 13, 2005 08:46 PM (e) (s)

One minor contrarian note: The thread’s title…

Dembski holds debate on ID as science, forgets to invite scientists

…should be changed, as there is no evidence Dembski himself was responsible for the event’s local promotion.
How ‘bout “Debate held with Dembski on ID as science, Organizers neglect promoting to scientists”?

It took a moment to grok why Dembski began these comments by emphasizing his debating scientists. He fixated on the ambiguous title rather than Brauer’s point - the audience composition.

A metaphor for “IDists See A Science Debate, Scientists See…  Nothing.”

Comment #24782

Posted by Russell on April 13, 2005 09:11 PM (e) (s)

Note to self: If invited to debate a wing-nut at an event organized by a wing-nut organization, just say no. What was Silver thinking?

Comment #24784

Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 13, 2005 09:17 PM (e) (s)

First Berlinski, now Dembski.  Wow you guys are just giddy with joy.  You even had to take a cheap shot at both of them to get their replies.  I think we should let them get back to their research.  I’d be glad to entertain any well thought out coherent questions about the science vs. darwinism debate.

Comment #24804

Posted by Air Bear on April 13, 2005 10:09 PM (e) (s)

Three well-thought-out questions for Evolving Apeman:

1) What are you evolving into?

3) Which came first - the chicken or the egg?

3) Are you Great White Wonder’s:
  a) Evil Twin
  b) Alter ego?
  c) Greatest Admirer?

Comment #24811

Posted by sir_toejam on April 13, 2005 10:32 PM (e) (s)

“I think we should let them get back to their research”

uh, what research would that be, exactly?  that’s the point, yes?

Comment #24825

Posted by Dave Cerutti on April 13, 2005 11:26 PM (e) (s)

“I think we should let them get back to their research.”

And just how is it that the rest of us are impeding their research?  Why do we need to “let” them get back to it?  On th contrary, we’ve been pleading with them to actually do some research for as long as there’s been an Intelligent Design movement.  If anything, IDists have impeded the research of real scientists by lighting fires that we have to go and put out, or through political lobbying that makes congressmen less able or willing to fund science.  Perhaps we should just leave them alone and “let them get back to being a shoehorn for slipping religious dogma into public education.”

As for the student with an enormous political axe to grind, Eric Rudolph is probably a very nice guy, too, unless of course you’re a Jew, have any tie to abortion, or happen to have darker skin.

Comment #24831

Posted by Francis Beckwith on April 14, 2005 12:16 AM (e) (s)

It would seem to me that information is nothing more than the human perception of the environment.

Is that statement always true, but only true when I’m perceiving it?  And besides, if no one’s perceiving it, how do you know there’s an environment when all minds are absent? 

Information [as possessed by humans] changes all the time without any change to the actual universe at all.

The claim that “information” changes all the time is a bit of information that apparently does not change.

The only thing that has changed been our perception of the universe, the universe has not changed.

So, knowledge of an unchanging universe behind perception is not perceived. But this would seem to entail that you know something about the universe as a whole—namely, that it has not changed—that is not mind dependent.  Interesting. But since you are part of the universe, and you do not know yourself through perception, then there is at least one part of the universe that you know, that changes, and that you don’t perceive it. Interesting.

Without a mind to perceive, I would propose that there is no such thing as information at all.

Comments?

See above.

Comment #24833

Posted by sir_toejam on April 14, 2005 12:20 AM (e) (s)

“Is that statement always true, but only true when I’m perceiving it?  And besides, if no one’s perceiving it, how do you know there’s an environment when all minds are absent? “

if a tree falls in the forest…

Comment #24835

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 14, 2005 12:32 AM (e) (s)

And besides, if no one’s perceiving it, how do you know there’s an environment when all minds are absent?

Whoaaaa … dude … did you ever like look really close at your hand … ?

Wait a minute.  I thought this thread was about the clownin’ in Princeton.

Comment #24845

Posted by Russell on April 14, 2005 06:17 AM (e) (s)

“I think we should let them get back to their research”

See, it’s this sense of humor that’s how we know Apeman is not DonkeyDong.

Comment #24851

Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 14, 2005 08:07 AM (e) (s)

Airbear,

Three well-thought-out questions for Evolving Apeman:

1) What are you evolving into?

3) Which came first - the chicken or the egg?

3) Are you Great White Wonder’s:
  a) Evil Twin
  b) Alter ego?
  c) Greatest Admirer?

1) The logical conclusion of common descent is that we are all no more than evolving apeman.  Apeman is to remind us that we are all just animals.  I’m not evolving, homo sapiens (apemen) are evolving.  All our behavours are related to evolution including belief or lack of belief in a deity.  You should be nicer to Demski, he and many others may just have a genetic polymorphisms that effects behavior and causes them to deny evolution. 

2) I don’t know.  Unlike Darwinists, I can live with uncertainty regarding questions that have a paucity of quality data.

3) c - So far I find his nihilist view of the world the most coherent with common descent.

Comment #24854

Posted by Evolving Apeman on April 14, 2005 08:15 AM (e) (s)

Dembski’s response  That should silence a few cries of “foul play”

Comment #24857

Posted by Boyce Williams on April 14, 2005 08:59 AM (e) (s)

So far, The talking points raised here almost match what’s described in “Rev Dr” Lenny Flank’s article on Debates .  Although keeping it quiet on a college campus and invited only the converted is a new wrinkle - just padding a line on a theologic resume saying one had debated in the heart of the “liberal” camp?

Comment #24858

Posted by Flint on April 14, 2005 09:09 AM (e) (s)

keeping it quiet on a college campus and invited only the converted is a new wrinkle

I may be missing something here. From what I have read (quite a bit, actually) on TalkOrigins about debates starting with Gish and Morris is that creationists simply refuse to accept a deck not stacked in their favor. This includes refusal to debate unless they get to pick the venue, the moderator, the publicist, and (as much as possible) the audience. They also insist on selecting the format: the Gish Gallop is not negotiable, and picking one single statement and examining it in detail is forbidden. Busing in local church groups to form the audience is a normal practice, as is selling creationist literature at the door.

These debates are public relations exercises, intended to produce sound bites and create the impression that a genuine controversy is being examined “equally by both sides.” And, of course, the creationist side wins the day in the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the audience. It allows the DI people to claim they’ll debate anyone anytime, while permitting no comments on their blog.

Comment #24865

Posted by Lee Silver on April 14, 2005 10:04 AM (e) (s)

I was the one who debated Dembski last Thursday night.  I did it mostly for the experience (and to be able to write about it), because I knew that no one in the audience would change their mind.  I told the Dembski people that I would ONLY debate if the agreed-upon question was “Intelligent Design: Is it Science?”  They agreed.  I didn’t provide any evidence for biological evolution, because that wasn’t part of the question (and the audience wouldn’t have understood the evidence anyway).  But as we all know, ID is a smoke-screen for the Christian god of the Bible, who was supposed to have created each living thing as it exists today.  So, I directed my talk toward a critique of the Christian god. I provided some visuals to demonstrate that there are lots of living things that God didn’t create.  A striking example is corn, which was bred out of an inedible weed.  Also, God was supposed to have put seeds in the ground for each plant, but bananas don’t produce seeds — another conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible.  I believe it was these examples that led to the challenge, “why do you hate God?”  The questioner clarified that he was talking about the Biblical god. I said I didn’t hate God. What I didn’t say was that it makes no sense to hate a fictional character.  But, quietly, I was happy with the question because it demonstrated exactly what this debate is all about.  If there was one goal that I had, it was to challenge the claim that ID is science.  Natural selection should have been a side issue according to the question put to debate.  I suspect that most people in the audience would have agreed that their beliefs are based on faith — not science — because that’s what their religion is all about.

Comment #24867

Posted by Bob King on April 14, 2005 10:11 AM (e) (s)

The fact that a public debate was held on the topic “ID - is it Science?” itself answers the question. Such debates do not, and can not, answer such questions. Even debates at scientific conferences which involve experts do not decide such issues - although they may raise interesting ideas.

If ID were science then there would be experiments, simulations, predictions, etc. This all seems so obvious that it is beyond belief that any of this could be taken seriously.

Dembski is a showman pure and simple. Anyone who could state in the preface to a book that they are not a “fan of notation” and then proceed to fill the book with the sort of nottaion Dembski uses could be assumed to be either (a) a nerd or (b) to have a twisted sense of humor. But when it turns out that the notation serves no useful purpose beyond making the treatise look scholarly then it becomes clear what sort of a scientist or mathematician Mr Demski really is. By their fruit ye shall know them.

Comment #24870

Posted by Michael Finley on April 14, 2005 10:27 AM (e) (s)

Mr. Frank wrote:

…since science isn’t decided by “debate”.

What a silly comment. A debate is an exchange of arguments. Scientific questions, along with every other sort of rational question, are decided by arguments.

Whether that exchange occurs in print or spoken word is irrelevant.

Comment #24872

Posted by Flint on April 14, 2005 10:40 AM (e) (s)

A debate is an exchange of arguments. Scientific questions, along with every other sort of rational question, are decided by arguments.

No, scientific questions are decided by evidence. Debates are perhaps an important part of the process, because they can help determine the meaning of the evidence, or the best methods of collecting it, or otherwise influence the nature of the evidence available at any given time. But ultimately, scientific questions must be based on evidence and not on arguments. It’s essentially accurate to say that scientific questions have been decided when the evidence reaches critical mass, being comprehensive and unambiguous enough so nothing remains to argue about. And argument is surely helpful in reaching this point.

I suspect Finley is conflating the notion of a public relations event (a “debate” complete with question to be addressed, moderator, time limits, etc.) with the normal scientific process of reconciling divergent proposals. He’s calling both of these processes “debates” although the two have no other effective overlap.

Comment #24873

Posted by Bob Finley on April 14, 2005 10:43 AM (e) (s)

Mr Finley,

Scientific theories are certainly established through “debate” in the sense of discussion and argumentation in which facts and predictions are provided and established. This is done primarily in teh scientific literature and the “debate” involves reproducing (or not) the findings of others. However, “Debates: in the usual sense of a speaking competition between two oppoenents or teams cannot decide science. Since we are talking about such a debate - between Dembski and Silver - it is a bit disingenous - but typical - to confuse the issue

If you really think that whatyou say makes sense then let’s have a public debate on Cold Fusion at Princeton. If the people who support Cold Fusion win the debate then our energy problems are solved, right?

Comment #24874

Posted by Bob King on April 14, 2005 10:45 AM (e) (s)

whoops - I accidentally posted Finley’s last name in and so replaced my own in the previous post.

Comment #24875

Posted by Michael Finley on April 14, 2005 10:50 AM (e) (s)

To all of you who spent valuable time taking me to task on whether predictions followed from the hypothesis of common design, please critic my latest rumination on the same topic. I’m sure this will be moved to the Wall, but better to start out on a more recent thread.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi…

Comment #24877

Posted by Michael Finley on April 14, 2005 10:55 AM (e) (s)

Flint wrote:

No, scientific questions are decided by evidence.

And what do you suppose scientific arguments use as premises? Isn’t it statements that can be verified by evidence (i.e., observation)?

Comment #24882

Posted by Glen Davidson on April 14, 2005 11:12 AM (e) (s)

There’s scientific debate based on evidence, and then there’s the politically-charged debates relished by IDers.  Don’t equivocate.

Comment #24885

Posted by Michael Finley on April 14, 2005 11:24 AM (e) (s)

Glen Davidson wrote:

There’s scientific debate based on evidence, and then there’s the politically-charged debates relished by IDers. Don’t equivocate.

I’m not equivocating. Don’t conflate separate issues. The “atmosphere” surrounding a debate is accidental to the content of a debate, viz., the arguments. A politically-charged debate can be carried out in the pages of peer-reviewed journals no less than college auditoriums. Just ask Meyer and Sternberg. Likewise, a productive, reasoned exchange can occur in a moderated debate setting (e.g., Buckley’s Firing Line).

Comment #24888

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 14, 2005 11:54 AM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:

Likewise, a productive, reasoned exchange can occur in a moderated debate setting (e.g., Buckley’s Firing Line).

I’ll bite. Produce a citation from a peer-reviewed science journal that attributes a scientific issue as having been settled by the 1997 “intelligent design” Firing Line debate.

If it’s too difficult to support your own assertion, feel free to produce any scientific citation whatsoever that indicates that a debate in the forensics sense has settled a scientific issue.

We’ll wait… I suspect for a very long time.

The argumentation that occurs in print, specifically in peer-reviewed journals in modern times, is treated differently by scientists, and thus the distinction is relevant to the issue of how “scientific questions” are decided.

I think Michael is equivocating. I guess the evidence of all those citations he’s about to drop on us will decide that question.

Comment #24890

Posted by Michael Finley on April 14, 2005 12:07 PM (e) (s)

Dr. Elsberry,

What constitutes being “settled” in either case?

Is an issue settled if a peer-reviewed journal article claims that it’s settled? Is there no difference between publishing an article and proving a conclusion? Surely there is, or the mere appearance of Meyer’s article in a peer-reviewed journal would have established ID as scientific fact.

I can anticipate the response: “The vast majority of scientists and articles…” Majority rule in science, right? What settles a debate, then? The reception of arguments by the “audience” (of readers or hearers). Obviously some audiences are better than others, but there is no reason to believe that one medium of debate is, in principle, superior to another.

Comment #24891

Posted by GT(N)T on April 14, 2005 12:12 PM (e) (s)

“I told the Dembski people that I would ONLY debate if the agreed-upon question was “Intelligent Design: Is it Science?””

Good strategy.  ID proponents spend 99% of their energy attacking evolution.  The real issue, and their weakest point among many weak points, is that ID is not science.  They suggest that if evolution fails as an idea the only alternative is a creative, designing God.  In other words, that science isn’t adequate to answer the question of origins.  None of them really believe that intelligent design is science.  They know it for what it is, even if they won’t acknowledge the truth.

Comment #24894

Posted by Michael Finley on April 14, 2005 12:37 PM (e) (s)

GT(N)T wrote:

The real issue … is that ID is not science.

There is no reason to exclude negative, empirical arguments from “science.” If a theory cannot explain a natural fact, it counts against the explanatory power of the theory.

They suggest that if evolution fails as an idea the only alternative is a creative, designing God.

This is false on a couple of counts. First, no mention is made of God (e.g., by Behe or Dembski). It is always an unknown designer. Second, it is never claimed that a designer is the only alternative, just that it is the best of the remaining possibilities (all of which are currently unformulated).

In other words, that science isn’t adequate to answer the question of origins.

Only if science is synonymous with neo-Darwinian evolution.

None of them really believe that intelligent design is science.

[As he peers into men’s souls].

Comment #24895

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 14, 2005 12:48 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:

Dr. Elsberry,

What constitutes being “settled” in either case?

More semantics. No citations. Why am I not surprised?

If it’s Doctor Finley, do let me know.

Let’s review…

Michael Finley earlier wrote:

What a silly comment. A debate is an exchange of arguments. Scientific questions, along with every other sort of rational question, are decided by arguments.

I was a bit sloppy earlier. Please retract “settled” and substitute your term, “decided”. Then defend or retract your claim that “scientific questions are decided by arguments”, specifically in the form of debates in the forensics sense. Then everything is in terms that you have picked. Make your case. Or admit that you are making it up as you go.

Comment #24897

Posted by Dene Bebbington on April 14, 2005 12:52 PM (e) (s)

Amusing to see Dembski posturing with “I’ll take any of you on at any time in any venue.” He could start at ARN where all he usually manages is a drive by post to start a thread, and then the occasional offhand response. His record at his home ground of ISCID is hardly much better.

I suspect he knows that in a written Internet debate he’ll get trounced.

Comment #24900

Posted by Flint on April 14, 2005 01:04 PM (e) (s)

Sigh. To continue the never-ending battle against deliberate dishonesty…

There is no reason to exclude negative, empirical arguments from “science.” If a theory cannot explain a natural fact, it counts against the explanatory power of the theory.

And so there is always a search for observations that are contrary to the predictions a theory makes; natural facts the theory cannot explain. These examples are highly valued, because any that can be found inevitably improve the theory. This is entirely distinct from a “theory” no conceivable natural fact could contradict.

First, no mention is made of God (e.g., by Behe or Dembski). It is always an unknown designer. Second, it is never claimed that a designer is the only alternative, just that it is the best of the remaining possibilities (all of which are currently unformulated).

Where to even begin here? Should I quote the entire wedge document? How about whole sermons delivered by Dembski, Johnson, and others? The designer is always “unknown” when speaking to the general public, and the designer is always the Christian God when raising funds and speaking to the Faithful. Pretending otherwise is dishonest. Even pretending not to notice this thoroughly-documented hypocrisy is dishonest.

Second, magical claims are not “alternative explanations” in any scientific sense. Pretending they are is dishonest.

Third, magical claims are never preferred because scientific explanations are unsatisfactory. Exactly the opposite is the case every time, without exception. Magical claims are presumed beyond any possibility of question or doubt. Since this religious doctrine is perceived to be in conflict with scientific explanations, the science is ipso facto considered wrong. Never the other way around.

Only if science is synonymous with neo-Darwinian evolution.

Again, this is exactly backwards. Science is a method by which evidence can be obtained and explained. The resulting explanation is called a theory. Science is not synonymous with any particular theory the scientific method currently proposes as “best fit”. Pretending that a non-scientific doctrine (i.e. not testable in principle) is also scientific is dishonest. However, I’ll give Finley the benefit of the doubt that he really cannot tell the difference between a tool and something built with that tool.

[As he peers into men’s souls].

Consider: Finley makes the same dishonest claims over and over. In reply, he is corrected, educated, exposed to evidence repeatedly. None of it ever “takes” and Finley repeates the same dishonest material. I