No, he's not talking about dark matter, although technically that fits the description perfectly. He's not even talking about the existence of God, which of course is a famous debate. No, Dembski and Williams are talking about angels...and demons, which, if it wasn't obvious, are the bad angels. For some reason, demonology is a topic that regularly trips up fundamentalist evangelicals. I posted one example from a modern ID advocate; another well-known example is Norman Geisler's testimony for the creationists in the 1981 McLean v. Arkansas case. See below for Peter Williams's take. In the middle of The Case for Angels, Williams spends a chapter reviewing eyewitness reports of demon possessions. Partway through, he summarizes and then moves to an additional case:There exists an invisible world that is more real and weighty than our secular imaginations can fathom. I commend this book as a way of retraining our imaginations about that reality. (Dembski foreword, p. xii)
Now, so far we just have uncritical citation of a vague claim quoted in a secondary source. This is just your average run-of-the-mill silliness, not worthy of a Silliest Of The Week (SOTW) award. (By the way, Williams used the quote in this online debate with Steven Carr) No, what caught my eye was Williams's elaboration in footnote 43:So, we have several cases of scientifically minded men, all trained in matters of mental illness (in psychology and psychiatry), convinced, against the grain of their initial scepticism, of the reality of demon possession. The Revd James LeBarr, as Time magazine recently reported, 'is chaplain at a psychiatric hospital and is well aware of the danger of mistaking psychological symptoms for spiritual ones'. Hence he calls in a psychiatrist and a medical doctor before any exorcism, but notes: 'there comes a point, when somebody is climbing up the wall or floating on the ceiling or talking a language they've never studied, when it's harder to put in the "psychological-problem" bin.'43 [Peter S. Williams (2002), The Case for Angels, Paternoster Press, p. 125.]
See, there's no reason to be suspicious that mere laws of physics might pose a problem for this levitation claim. Demons just invoke their power to act like superconducting magnets, and the problem is solved. This makes me wonder if Professor Main might want to take up a second career as a demon hunter -- surely if you get a big enough magnet you could use the demon's power against them and trap a few for scientific observation. You know, like in Ghostbusters.43 James LeBarr quoted in 'If You Liked The Movie...' by David Van Biema, Time Magazine @ (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,55722,00.html) [Note 1: now online at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,55722,00.html. ] [Note 2: Time and Wikipedia say it's "LeBar", not "LeBarr."] To respond to LeBarr's report of someone 'floating on the ceiling' (assuming he means this literally) that 'Levitation can't happen this can't be a real possession' would be question begging. Professor Main, head of physics at the University of Nottingham, worked on a project to levitate a frog using an effect called diamagnetism: 'By changing the energy of electrons whizzing around in the nuclei of atoms, you create a force that acts on a molecular level. "In our experiment, we actually levitated the frog by acting upon its molecules," says Main. The trick lies in balancing the force of gravity against the force of magnetism ... you need exactly the same field to levitate a human as a frog, just a much bigger magnet' (Focus no. 109, December 2001, p. 70.) Isn't it conceivable that a demon could replicate this effect by acting directly upon the electrons in a body? [Peter S. Williams (2002), The Case for Angels, Paternoster Press, pp. 125-126. Bold added.]
PS: In fairness, the footnote continues (it's a one-page footnote):
Unfortunately, the whole discussion is based on Williams' misapprehension of what James LeBar actually said. Fortunately for us, the reporter for Time apparently had an ounce of skepticism, and did ask the obvious question:Being open to evidence doesn't mean believing every supernatural claim, but it must mean being ready to accept sufficient evidence as warranting a supernatural explanation. Empirical evidence for demons is necessarily evidence for unusual phenomena. Someone keeping their feet on the ground hardly constitutes evidence of possession; whereas someone defying gravity without the use of a very large and expensive magnet might well do! Perhaps a contemporary eyewitness report by the chaplain of an American psychiatric hospital isn't sufficient to warrant belief in a supernatural occurrence. If it isn't, this doesn't disprove levitation or demon possession. [Peter S. Williams (2002), The Case for Angels, Paternoster Press, p. 126. Italics original.]
Hmm, I guess the demons only have enough magnet power to provide a few feet of lift, not enough to get you to the ceiling. Wikipedia gets us a little closer to what happened by linking to this interview with Court TV:LeBar is chaplain at a psychiatric hospital and is well aware of the danger of mistaking psychological symptoms for spiritual ones. He calls in a psychiatrist and medical doctor before any exorcism, but, he notes, "there comes a point, when somebody is climbing up the wall or floating on the ceiling or talking a language they've never studied, when it's harder to put it in the 'psychological-problem' bin." The highest levitation he has witnessed, he says, was of a woman who "rose up above pew level and stayed there a little bit and went back down." Some cases of possession, he says, can take decades to resolve.
So LeBar's "highest" witnessed levitation is actually the only one, and even here he leaves it unclear whether or not he actually saw it, or (for example) he just heard about it while conducting a "preliminary investigation." Over in this Newsweek interview eagerly copied into a sermon given at the Fundamentalist Baptist Tabernacle of Los Angeles, we have another statement from LeBar:boberrybisquit asks: Have you ever seen someone levitate like in the movie? Father James LeBar: If the devil were to make people levitate, the way its shown in "The Exorcist," movie I think everyone would be so scared that the devil's purpose would be totally frustrated. I myself have never seen a major levitation in the course of an exorcism. However, in one case in the preliminary investigation, I had a person who rose up above the pews of the church and was suspended there for a few minutes.
One would think that levitating above the pews would be high enough to mention there, but I guess not. In yet another interview, also from 2000 (when The Exorcist was re-released) the best LeBar does is someone "gliding" across a room on a chair:Have you seen anything like Linda Blair's Regan in "The Exorcist?" Much of what's in there, I've seen. I've never seen any high levitation, though. I've never seen any spitting up of material.
Did this chair have wheels, I wonder? Maybe the demons just gave the victim a little push...'It pretty much shows what it can be like,' he says. 'It's a compilation of things that happen in different real exorcisms; the levitation, the expectoration, the screaming. All of those things take place in every exorcism'. [Except the 40 that LeBar says he has done without witnessing a levitation, I guess -- I assume this was a Freudian slip, or maybe a magnetodemon targetting his tongue.] LeBar describes occasions in which his subjects do howl when sprayed with holy water and speak in languages they have never studied. 'Sometimes they have great strength and what we call clairvoyance.' Even the pea-green vomit is only an exaggeration. 'In one or two cases, there has been an extraordinary amount of gagging,' he said. In one instance, he says, a 'victim' glided across the room on a chair, without touching the ground.
71 Comments
Tom · 16 January 2007
My favorite manifestation of angels is when they like to have sex with human females and produce giants as offspring (Genesis, chapter 6 I think, right before the Noachian flood). This is way cool for two reasons. First, I can totally relate to their actions, and second, if we could just find fossils of those giants, everyone would believe.
Steviepinhead · 16 January 2007
Perhaps a folk legend of relations between those robust Neanderthals and the gracile sapiens?
The genome may tell the tale.
Inoculated Mind · 17 January 2007
I guess the bible suggests, therefore, that angels have DNA. And sexual organs. Pretty wild if you ask me.
Now go sequence the angel DNA, Biologic Institute! ICR? Anyone?
MrKAT · 17 January 2007
Related to previous ice crystals topic..
".... ice crystals only grow when an outside agent [God] is driving the
process against the natural decay process described by the second
law of thermodynamics."
- Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-162.htm)
But God is busy..so millions of millions of millions of angels are needed here. What about angels and demons in physics lessons in schools ? "Error or something crazy happened in this experiment.. could it be mark of demons and cremlins ?"
Raging Bee · 17 January 2007
...Hence he calls in a psychiatrist and a medical doctor before any exorcism, but notes: 'there comes a point, when somebody is climbing up the wall or floating on the ceiling or talking a language they've never studied, when it's harder to put in the "psychological-problem" bin.'
I notice this guy doesn't mention the point where you grab a camcorder to prove your claims of demonic posession to us skeptics. Or do demons use magnetic fields to make exorcists forget to record evidence?
I'm surprised Dembski hasn't told us that "Dark matter is demons pooping all over the Universe to spite God." If I'm really the first person to think of that, then the creationists have completely run out of imagination.
Raging Bee · 17 January 2007
Of course the angels have sexual organs! Haven't you ever seen a Victoria's Secret ad?
Besides, angels -- male, female or androgynous -- have always been good-looking. If they didn't have sexual organs, they wouldn't be Intelligently Designed.
stefan · 17 January 2007
That stuff about angels copulating with humans - where, may I ask, do you think garden gnomes come from??
Personally I'd be happy to float a foot or two above a church pew, since it gets too dang hot on the ceiling.
Raging Bee · 17 January 2007
Really ugly angels copulating with really ugly humans?
wamba · 17 January 2007
wamba · 17 January 2007
This should help cement Dembski's reputation as a serious scientist.
Raging Bee · 17 January 2007
Cements it to what? The bottom of the East River?
Boo · 17 January 2007
Williams has nothing on this guy. Meet the new John A. Davison:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=18585
Chemical Odie · 17 January 2007
What the...??? Angels surely have no sexual organs. Haven't you seen Dogma ?
Ginger Yellow · 17 January 2007
ERV · 17 January 2007
Behe and astrology, Dembski and his demons and angels and fairies... What a wonderfully magical world they live in...
I suppose its only a matter of time before their excuse for no research to support their views will be "We did experiments that proved ID is true, but then LEPRECHAUNS stole our notes!! Liberal, atheistic, secular leprechaunist LEPRECHAUNS!"
stevaroni · 17 January 2007
stevaroni · 17 January 2007
Joe McFaul · 17 January 2007
My favorite manifestation of angels is when they like to have sex with human females and produce giants as offspring (Genesis, chapter 6 I think, right before the Noachian flood). This is way cool for two reasons. First, I can totally relate to their actions, and second, if we could just find fossils of those giants, everyone would believe.
You mock in ignorance.
See here for all your angelic answers:
http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/index2.html
Dave Carlson · 17 January 2007
I dunno. This is pretty silly, but I don't think it's nearly as silly as what Dembski said he'd do if he was president of a university. It made the rounds, but I don't think Dembski got nearly as much ridicule for it as he deserved (although I did my part ).
Glen Davidson · 17 January 2007
Christopher Letzelter · 17 January 2007
Posted by Boo on January 17, 2007 8:51 AM (e)
"Williams has nothing on this guy. Meet the new John A. Davison:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewAr..."
: 0
He was making perfect sense until he started making his case for human intelligence being "supernatural". I felt as though I really was watching something going down in flames in real time...
Chris
Christopher Letzelter · 17 January 2007
Posted by Boo on January 17, 2007 8:51 AM (e)
"Williams has nothing on this guy. Meet the new John A. Davison:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewAr..."
: 0
He was making perfect sense until he stared making his case for human intelligence being "supernatural". I felt as though I really was watching something going down in flames in real time...
Chris
Christopher Letzelter · 17 January 2007
Maybe I "stared" at his drivel too long...
Raging Bee · 17 January 2007
Thanks, Joe, but where's the angel sex video on the Internet? We need scientific proof, dammit! Enquiring minds want to know, you know? (And it can't possibly be less watchable than Paris Hilton...)
Peter · 17 January 2007
Wow. This reminds me of my childhood best friend''s mom who used to talk to us about demons taking hold of people with Dungeons and Dragons, heavy metal and Madonna. She had documentation too.
Would someone just please reproduce these things under testable conditions or in front of some skeptics? Please.
Bah.
Every time I read that IDCers don't want to investigate who/what the "designer" is, I cringe. It's just embarassing.
David B. Benson · 17 January 2007
Angels of the Lord in the Bible --- You don't want to be visited by an angel of the Lord. Can't recall his name, but X was visited by an angel of the Lord and so was struck dumb for weeks. When he could again, he was asked what to name of his new son was to be. Don't recall the exact reply, but it is the most unusual name in the Bible.
The modern medical terminology for being visited by an angel of the Lord is stroke.
Henry J · 17 January 2007
Got demons? Call Buffy!
Gav · 17 January 2007
With all this talk of angels it's timely to re-introduce Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite. Google for more info - it's not particularly interesting but it is a wonderful name.
The Minister at our local church is quite clear that angels exist. He says they're simply messengers and tend to be ordinary people, not wholly bad or good, who are quite unaware that they are carrying a message. On that basis, yes angels probably do have genitals although it might be impolite to ask.
Mike Elzinga · 17 January 2007
I got a kick out of the suggestion that demons might replicate the effect of levitation of a frog in a strong magnetic field by "acting directly upon the electrons in a body".
The levitation of the frog in a magnetic field is a diamagnetic effect produced by the very strong magnetic field of the superconducting magnet. In order for demons to do the same, they would have to fill the entire area with as strong a magnetic field and then everyone in the area would be levitating as the cars in the parking (and every other ferromagnetic object in the surrounding county) came flying into the room at them. Did anyone observe that happening?
Gives you some idea of the level of understanding of physical phenomena these believers have.
Steviepinhead · 17 January 2007
GuyeFaux · 17 January 2007
Doc Bill · 17 January 2007
kay · 17 January 2007
Now, I would like to offer ICR a grant to determine if demons are DIAmagnetic or PARAmagnetic.
k.e. · 17 January 2007
PhilVaz · 17 January 2007
Ok fine, my first comment didn't make it. Maybe this one will....
Light as a Feather, Stiff as a Board
Light as a Feather, Stiff as a Board
Light as a Feather, Stiff as a Board
Light as a Feather, Stiff as a Board
Light as a Feather, Stiff as a Board
Light as a Feather, Stiff as a Board
Light as a Feather, Stiff as a Board
Light as a Feather, Stiff as a Board
Feeling very relaxed now...keep going
Light as a Feather, Stiff as a Board
Light as a Feather, Stiff as a Board
Light as a Feather, Stiff as a Board
Light as a Feather, Stiff as a Board
Light as a Feather, Stiff as a Board
Light as a Feather, Stiff as a Board
Light as a Feather, Stiff as a Board
Light as a Feather, Stiff as a Board
khan · 18 January 2007
Angels of the Lord in the Bible --- You don't want to be visited by an angel of the Lord. Can't recall his name, but X was visited by an angel of the Lord and so was struck dumb for weeks. When he could again, he was asked what to name of his new son was to be. Don't recall the exact reply, but it is the most unusual name in the Bible.
Zacharias, father of John the Baptist.
wamba · 18 January 2007
Darth Robo · 18 January 2007
"Dembski was visited by an angel when he was an infant and was struck dumb for a lifetime."
That was the floor, wasn't it?
Kristine · 18 January 2007
Dembski was visited by an angel when he was an infant
And how fitting that he's tormented by the atheist belly dancer demon now!
Bill... oh Bill... we're coming up on an anniversary... The first one is mother-of-pearl I do believe. Please get me something that fits my navel. Thanks, darlin'. You're an angel! ;-)
Jedidiah Palosaari · 18 January 2007
I got to say, this post seems a bit outside. I'd understood Panda's Thumb to be dealing with issues of evolution and ID. This post seems to be more attacking widely held metaphysical beliefs, one's specifically outside science's purview according to NOMA. You may be right in everything you say, but it just feels out of place on Panda's Thumb to me.
Peter Henderson · 18 January 2007
Raging Bee · 18 January 2007
Dembski is being tormented by an atheist belly dancer demon? Why can't I get any?! This is just like high school, where the loud stupid jock got all the girls and the geek kids who disproved all his arguments got ignored. Just another example of anti-intellectualism...
Nick (Matzke) · 18 January 2007
Mr_Christopher · 18 January 2007
This reminds me of when Dembski wrote the favorable book review of Jeffrey Satinover's "Cracking The Bible Code". http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9808/reviews/dembski.html
Yes, Virginia, Demsbki fell for the bible code nonsense.
I suppose next year he'll be showing his support for palm reading and past life regressions...
Henry J · 18 January 2007
Re "Call "The Charmed Ones". "
Oh, yeah, the Halliwells, too. :)
Richard Simons · 18 January 2007
wamba · 18 January 2007
Kristine · 18 January 2007
Dembski is being tormented by an atheist belly dancer demon? Why can't I get any?! This is just like high school, where the loud stupid jock got all the girls and the geek kids who disproved all his arguments got ignored. Just another example of anti-intellectualism...
You think Dembski is a jock? ;-) *Snigger*
If it makes you feel any better, I don't think the guy appreciates my antics and especially not my reminding him of that humiliating anniversary. (Although he was dumb enough to give the interview.) I'm willing to pick on my side too, but then I think I'd have to have people take numbers. (But hey, I'm not complaining. I was a total geeky nerd in high school--I probably asked you out, and you probably turned me down!)
Raging Bee · 18 January 2007
Have you even bothered to take a read at anything that Creationists have to say except in court cases where they are often misrepresented?
Translation: "Creationists only make asses of themselves when the rest of us are watching. Their best accomplishments, like all that peer-reviewed sicence proving young-Earth creationism, are done in secret."
So...why don't you read Judge Jones' decision, and, working from there, explain to all of us exactly HOW creationists were "misrepersented" in that case? Bear in mind that creationism was represented there by some of the leading lights of the field; and that Judge Jones was, if anything, biased toward the creationists, not against them, being a conservative, Republican, Lutheran, Bush-Jr. appointee.
Kristine · 18 January 2007
From most of the posts on this site, with the exception of Kent Hovind, you have no idea who you're dealing with here.
Dr. Michael Martin, I think it is you who doesn't know who you're dealing with here. The utter hogwash from effeminate losers like Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Dr. Gary Bates, and the other sad souls at AiG have been refuted time and again. In twenty years, no one will even know who they were. Then, perhaps the Met will have a retrospective on their silly theories and crappy artworks, just as it did on those ridiculous men who took spirit photographs. They'll end up as pathetic as Arthur Conan Doyle's belief in fairies. (It's a good thing he wrote Sherlock Holmes or he'd be a total laughing-stock.)
Peter Henderson · 18 January 2007
Jedidiah Palosaari · 18 January 2007
Nick said, "Mere belief in demons, I wouldn't bother. The absurd thing here was "explaining" alleged levitation events by some pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo about how demons exert magnetic forces on electrons. I mean, c'mon, if you're going to invoke a miracle, just invoke a miracle and be done with it, don't pull in a frog levitation experiment and demonic magnetism powers and then invoke a miracle behind that.
What it exposes is the weird kind of hyper-pseudo-rationalism that fundamentalists exhibit. The entirety of "Bible-science" and its "creation science" and "intelligent design" derivatives is another example --- all attempts to make miracles and Bible stories into something scientific..."
Okay, I hear you. Thanks for explaining it more. Personally from experience I believe in the demonic, but you're right, pseudoscientific explanations are out of place. They do harm to science, and they do harm to the religious beliefs of those advocating them, as if the only way they could be real is if they are also scientific.
Jedidiah Palosaari · 18 January 2007
I need to clarify that last post. What I'm trying to say is that too often Literal Creationists and their ilk act as if everything they believe about religion and metaphysics has to be proven scientifically. This is really the foundation of their creationist beliefs. Rather than excepting NOMA and that there are different principles involved in different fields and different understandings of truth.
Steviepinhead · 18 January 2007
Peter Henderson, thanks for the laugh, which made for a pleasant end to a long day!
If you copy the "stegosaur" picture posted by the AIG maroon and zoom it up on your screen, it's pretty clearly an elephant! The ears are presented side-on, so they very vaguely resemble a stegosaurid "shield."
But the curl in the end of the trunk is a little harder to square with stego.
And the temple carving is in Cambodia! If there's any ambiguity in interpreting the representation as between a native and extant animal--elephant--and a long extinct one--stegosaur--I think Occam tells us which side of the razor to err on.
Priceless!
Steviepinhead · 18 January 2007
Henry J · 18 January 2007
Re "that Creationists have to say except in court cases where they are often misrepresented?"
If the Creationists misrepresented themselves in court while they were there, wouldn't that be kind of their own fault?
Henry
geogeek · 18 January 2007
"hogwash from effeminate losers like Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Dr. Gary Bates, and the other sad souls at AiG have been refuted"
Er, this particular insult smacks of homophobia. Please consider that effeminate arguers might include the lovely belly-dancer on our side, and some very good-looking gay male biologists who are all about Darwin.
Adam Ierymenko · 19 January 2007
Wow...
This guy is way more of a kook than I suspected when I first started reading about him.
Darth Robo · 19 January 2007
"Have you even bothered to take a read at anything that Creationists have to say except in court cases where they are often misrepresented?"
Misrepresented? THEY are the ones who said that UFO's are real and are agents of Satan and that Astrology was a science!
Doc Martin is back in the building. The real one this time. (sigh)
Peter Henderson · 19 January 2007
Kristine · 19 January 2007
Please consider that effeminate arguers might include the lovely belly-dancer on our side, and some very good-looking gay male biologists who are all about Darwin.
No homophobia intended. I have never heard a woman or a gay man refer to her/himself as "effeminate," but perhaps some have and I am wrong... (I certainly never use the word in referring to myself. I'm one of those so-called male-identified women who hates shopping.)
David B. Benson · 19 January 2007
Darth Robo --- No, it is the same 'Dr. M&M' troll.
Coin · 19 January 2007
Mike Elzinga · 19 January 2007
Even crackpots with PhD's can't fake it forever among real scientists. "Dr." Mikey Martin apparently thinks HE can?
Coin · 19 January 2007
hoary puccoon · 19 January 2007
What is WRONG with you people? Of COURSE Angels exist. Ask anyone in Anaheim. But bad Angels don't become Demons-- they get traded to the minors. Or maybe (sob, Chicago girl that I am) they become Cubs.
DougT · 19 January 2007
Raging Bee · 19 January 2007
Angels into Cubs? Sounds like macroevolution to me. Got any proof, smart guy?
atkinson · 19 January 2007
PhilVaz · 21 January 2007
Chris Angel is possessed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRgqqksWdJA
Phil P
solar garden fountains · 20 April 2010
I thought it was going to be some boring old post, but it really compensated for my time. I will post a link to this page on my blog. I am sure my visitors will find that very useful.