Living in an Alternate Reality

Posted 21 September 2008 by Richard B. Hoppe

Sometimes one wonders what version of reality intelligent design creationists live in. The most recent stimulus for that question is a post by Bill Dembski on Uncommon Descent. The post pitches an apologetics conferences to be held at Hickory Baptist Church in North Carolina. Dembski tells us the speakers will include such intellectual luminaries as James Dobson, Chuck Colson, Dinesh D'Souza, Lee Strobel, and, of course, Dembski. In the post Dembski claims that

It's nice to be in such distinguished company as indicated in this press release. I'll certainly make my usual ID arguments. But I'll also be pointing out that our opponents, the materialists and their cronies, are now battling principally for political rather than intellectual control. Indeed, the materialists have lost the intellectual battle.

Well, for openers, if that's what Dembski takes to be "distinguished company" then he's welcome to them. More interesting, though, is Dembski's list of how he thinks "materialists have lost the intellectual battle." He provides a list of areas in which he thinks that's occurred. Every one of them is a non sequitur:

**Remember how computers were going to become more intelligent than us and that we would be luck if they deigned to keep us as pets? **Remember how humans were the third chimpanzee, only to find that some dogs and birds are smarter than chimps at various tasks? **Remember how it was only a matter of time before the Miller-Urey experiment could be extended to explain the origin of life? (For the sheer hopelessness of OOL research, see my forthcoming book with Jonathan Wells, due out next month -- How to Be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (Or Not).) The list of vapid materialist promises that show no sign of ever being fulfilled keeps growing and growing. But losing the intellectual battle no longer matters to materialists.

Notice anything? No evolution. No irreducible complexity. No mousetraps, CSI, SC, or Explanatory Filters. Why? Well, look below at Nick Matzke's posts on the immune system and on the bacterial flagellum for two examples. The evolutionary origin of the poster child of ID and cover illustration for Dembski's No Free Lunch and his blog, the bacterial flagellum, is closer to a full explanation in purely materialistic terms now than it was just 5 years ago. ID creationism lost the "intellectual battle" 150 years ago; it's been fighting a rear-guard action every since, defending a smaller and smaller territory. The ultimate self-parodying irony, though, is in the last two sentences of the post:

We've made a good case. What we need now are good legal and political strategies.

This from a Fellow of the Disco 'Tute, whose sole and only tactics for 10 years have been political. I frankly cannot understand how a man with two (count 'em, two!) Ph.D.s can be so unreflective, so unaware of self, so utterly blind to the reality of his own movement. It truly passeth all understanding. Edited 9/22 to correct immune system link.

91 Comments

vince · 21 September 2008

"This from a Fellow of the Disco ‘Tute, whose sole and only tactics for 10 years have been political. I frankly cannot understand how a man with two (count ‘em, two!) Ph.D.s can be so unreflective, so unaware of self, so utterly blind to the reality of his own movement. It truly passeth all understanding."

Its easy - he's in it for the money and knows how to get it. There's a sucker born every minute....

Dale Husband · 21 September 2008

Hey, if you've been reading the Evolution News and Views website postings, you should be used to such ludicrously dishonest doublespeak.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

Joe Felsenstein · 21 September 2008

No evolution. No irreducible complexity. No mousetraps, CSI, SC, or Explanatory Filters. Why?

In addition to the refutations of the Irreducible Complexity argument which you mention, such as Matzke's recent post, Dembski's CSI, Explanatory Filters, No Free Lunch, and "smuggling" arguments have also all seen effective refutations, which Dembski has not commented on. See my recent article (pardon the self-promotion) in Reports of the NCSE, which you can read here (it's the one on "Has Natural Selection Been Refuted?"). I describe how his argument works, and the holes a number of people have poked in it, particularly Shallit and Elsberry. I add a couple of new arguments too. It's a good one-stop-shopping place to read about those arguments. Perhaps he has given up on these arguments, which were the basis of his renown among ID types. Or perhaps he will deal with these criticisms (somehow).

iml8 · 21 September 2008

vince said: Its easy - he's in it for the money and knows how to get it. There's a sucker born every minute....

I have long wondered whether it would be more charitable to Dembski to think that he was a deliberate conman than to think he honestly believes what he says himself. Ah yes, once more the battle cry: "THE WINDMILLS ARE WEAKENING!" It's getting too tiresome to even make being annoyed worth the trouble. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

iml8 · 21 September 2008

Joe Felsenstein said: See my recent article (pardon the self-promotion) in Reports of the NCSE, which you can read here (it's the one on "Has Natural Selection Been Refuted?"). I describe how his argument works, and the holes a number of people have poked in it, particularly Shallit and Elsberry.

Self-promotion actually appreciated, looks like a nice article. I keep looking for materials to give me a better handle on Dembski's work without having to read his bafflegab books. His short 2004 essay on human origins was enough to completely torpedo his credibility to me forever. I might comment that Dawkins' weasel program could be made a better model of evolution if instead of finding a fixed target phrase, it synthesized a meaningful phrase just on the basis of the rules of language syntax. The rules would be "front-loading" of course, but since they would be analogous to the laws of nature, that would not be a real objection. This would be incredibly difficult to write unless one came up with a deliberately stripped-down language that had a small vocabulary and very simple rules of syntax. Another option, which would be easy to implement, would be for it to match an existing string in some archive of text -- but alas this would also have the "front-loading" accusation thrown at it. Of course, Dawkins flatly said in THE BLIND WATCHMAKER that the Weasel program was strictly an example of artificial selection. He simply wanted to demonstrate the power of selection. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

tacitus · 21 September 2008

James Dobson, Chuck Colson, Dinesh D.Souza, Lee Strobel, and, of course, Dembski.

A finer collection of anti-intellectual elites it would be hard to find. No wonder conservatism is in so much trouble in the USA if these people are the luminaries they listen to.

tacitus · 21 September 2008

So when did UD become an Obama hate site and Palin love-in?

Parody indeed.

Science Avenger · 21 September 2008

Well what else do you want them to talk about? They ran out of bigfoot controversies, and bucking global warming wasn't working out too well either.

It's becoming a generalist wacko site. I like the change.

SWT · 21 September 2008

The ultimate self-parodying irony, though, is in the last two sentences of the post:
We’ve made a good case. What we need now are good legal and political strategies.

Really, there are only two problems with Dembski's statement: one extra word, and missing emphasis. Try this:

We’ve made a ~~good~~ case. What we need now are good legal and political strategies.

Seems OK to me in amended form ...

gma · 21 September 2008

I've watched Dinesh D’Souza debate intelligent people. On the bullshit meter (words uttered divided by relevant evidence delivered), Dinesh has one of the highest scores ever recorded.
He is good company for Dembski.

If Dembski is looking for more of the same BS star power, he should also invite Alistar McGrath whose a close second to Dinesh.

It would be more intellectually honest for Dembski to state: "Dembski tells us the speakers will include such bullshit-meter luminaries as James Dobson, Chuck Colson, Dinesh D’Souza, Lee Strobel, and, of course, himself in shameless selfpromotion."

Wheels · 21 September 2008

tacitus said: So when did UD become an Obama hate site and Palin love-in?

Yeah. I went there the other day to see if there were any word of the big meet-up at the Vatican, only to find insipid election-related propoganda and not even much in the way of own-horn-tooting. Looks like Dembski is trying to make up for lost time. Besides his completely idiotic and irrelevant list, what does he consider the turning point for when his underdog "theory" became the intellectual victor? Any event? Series of events? Gradual change in the public perception? ... publication of peer-reviewed research?

James F · 21 September 2008

But I’ll also be pointing out that our opponents, the materialists and their cronies, are now battling principally for political rather than intellectual control. Indeed, the materialists have lost the intellectual battle.

Wow. Projection in a nutshell. This from the muckety-muck of a group that has utterly failed to provide evidence for their claims in a single peer-reviewed scientific research paper, let alone produce a body of research. It's also worth noting that Dinesh D'Souza realizes the failure of ID.

Les Lane · 21 September 2008

We’ve made a good case. What we need now are good legal and political strategies.

Initially they talked of "scientific strategies." At least they're now honest about what their strategies are. Perhaps they should review Lysenko's history for tips on political strategy.

Karen S. · 21 September 2008

...What we need now are good legal and political strategies.

Such as showing up at the next trial where he's agreed to be an expert witness? -Karen S.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum · 21 September 2008

tacitus said: So when did UD become an Obama hate site and Palin love-in? Parody indeed.

I don't think it's surprising at all, since ID is just another arm of the politico-religionist movement, which has attached itself to the "conservative" movement. These are tough times for conservatives, although many who identify as such don't seem to know it. I am reminded of the Dworkinization of Feminism and how they failed to distance themselves from their fanatics.

stevaroni · 21 September 2008

Iml8 says... I might comment that Dawkins’ weasel program could be made a better model of evolution if instead of finding a fixed target phrase, it synthesized a meaningful phrase just on the basis of the rules of language syntax. The rules would be “front-loading” of course

Despite the braying of the IDiots, I've never understood how specifying the target phrase counted as "front loading", since you don't specify the way to get here Each time you run these programs they figure it out anew and give you a unique solution. How can you be accused of telling it what to do when it doesn't do the same thing twice? It's like the plains of Africa, where one common survival target, largely "avoid being eaten by the cats" has spawned myriad solutions across many, many species. Some animals solve the problem by getting too big to eat (elephants). Some get fast (gazelle). Some hide underground (meerkats). Some out think the predators (us). Some take wing, some climb trees, some take to the water, etc, etc, etc. I fail to see how the fact that we all have to solve the same problem makes my solution any less valid than the giraffes.

Mike Haubrich, FCD · 21 September 2008

Looks like Dembski is trying to make up for lost time. Besides his completely idiotic and irrelevant list, what does he consider the turning point for when his underdog “theory” became the intellectual victor? Any event? Series of events? Gradual change in the public perception? … publication of peer-reviewed research?

But didn't they make a good case in the form of a movie? Anyone? Anyone? You mean that wasn't peer-reviewed? Of course it was! All of the ID peers reviewed it and love it! I just wonder why Denyse O'Leary wasn't invited to the conference.

Science Avenger · 21 September 2008

stevaroni said: Despite the braying of the IDiots, I've never understood how specifying the target phrase counted as "front loading", since you don't specify the way to get here

A good point, but then have you ever seen a "front-loading" argument with any substance at all? They can't bear to admit defeat, even though the little AI robots running around cheating each other are about as solid an in-your-face proof as you can get, so they just wail "front loading" and hope no one notices that there's no there there.

iml8 · 21 September 2008

stevaroni said: Despite the braying of the IDiots, I've never understood how specifying the target phrase counted as "front loading", since you don't specify the way to get here.

I think they're saying "this is artificial selection, there's an Intelligent Designer (Dawkins) setting up the goalposts and giving it a direction, so the Weasel program is not only (a) bogus as a description of evolution by natural selection but (b) justifies our position." Fortunately Dawkins noted that it was an artificial selection process to begin with. Hmm ... by identifying Dawkins as an Intelligent Designer, does that mean they've conceded he's INTELLIGENT? (Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive!) White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Draconiz · 21 September 2008

But I thought ID isn't about religion! They don't even pretend anymore

Stacy S. · 21 September 2008

tacitus said: So when did UD become an Obama hate site and Palin love-in? Parody indeed.

The very moment she became McSame's running mate. Truth be told - I actually understand the motivation. Literally, right now, I've been searching for something "sciency" to blog about and I have been unable to because I am so obsessed with the fact that McPalin is so anti-science-environment-education-etc...that nothing else seems to interest me. Look at a quote from this article

"That's nearly a million every day, every working day he's been in Congress," McCain said. "And when you look at some of the planetariums and other foolishness that he asked for, he shouldn't be saying anything about Governor Palin."

Anyway ... IMO it's just the most important thing right now.

iml8 · 21 September 2008

Draconiz said: But I thought ID isn't about religion! They don't even pretend anymore.

Yes they do, and that's not being sarcastic. It depends on who they're talking to. There may be no evidence on either UNCOMMON DESCENT or EVOLUTION NEWS & VIEWS of any concern but well-right-of-center ideology, but that's irrelevant -- they believe, and I would bet sincerely, that the scientific facts justify their position and that the ideology is incidental. "Your Honor, the court should not conclude that simply because we talk ideology 24:7:365 that ID is just a sock puppet for our ideology. ID is a scientific FACT and we are just lucky that it happens to fit with our ideology." White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Bill Gascoyne · 21 September 2008

Vince,

In this case, I believe it's "There's a sucker born again every minute."

Science Avenger · 21 September 2008

Stacy S. said: Literally, right now, I've been searching for something "sciency" to blog about and I have been unable to because I am so obsessed with the fact that McPalin is so anti-science-environment-education-etc...that nothing else seems to interest me.

I've got the same problem, although it's not from lack of interest. It's just that seemingly every day lately the most realty-free assertions in the world are coming from her mealy mouth.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 21 September 2008

This would be incredibly difficult to write unless one came up with a deliberately stripped-down language that had a small vocabulary and very simple rules of syntax. Another option, which would be easy to implement, would be for it to match an existing string in some archive of text – but alas this would also have the “front-loading” accusation thrown at it.

We're on the same wavelength. I outlined an approach to doing exactly that in response to some correspondence with Paul Nelson just over a decade ago.

[Objection] 6. The generation of a natural language sentence via means of evolutionary computation is either difficult or impossible. I think that instead of either being difficult or impossible, the correct classification is that it would be time-consuming to generate such an application. I'll lay out the approach I would take if I had the time and inclination to do such. First, I would not use fixed-length bit strings, so the underlying computational approach would not quite match the definition of a GA, although most of the same code would likely be useful. Second, the initialization of the evaluation function would involve scanning a large source of text in the language of choice, building a symbol sequence frequency table. (A possible or likely objection here is that this gives information about the language to be generated. However, this procedure gives far less information than is provided to developing humans, who in the absence of examples of language use do not generate grammatically correct sentences, either.) Third, the evaluation function would return a probability value for a bit-string based on the likelihood that the bit-string could be drawn from the distribution represented by the symbol sequence frequency table, with extra points for the final symbol being a period, and the initial symbol being a capital letter. The GA would finish when a bit-string achieved a threshold evaluation value. The likely results will be the production of nonsensical, but often grammatically correct or near-correct sentences. I say this on the basis of experience in coding 'travesty' generators and information entropy analysis applications. The use of evolutionary computation in this regard would be no huge stretch.

From this essay.

Stacy S. · 21 September 2008

Science Avenger said:
Stacy S. said: Literally, right now, I've been searching for something "sciency" to blog about and I have been unable to because I am so obsessed with the fact that McPalin is so anti-science-environment-education-etc...that nothing else seems to interest me.
I've got the same problem, although it's not from lack of interest. It's just that seemingly every day lately the most realty-free assertions in the world are coming from her mealy mouth.

Yes, but at least you have a cool picture of an entelodant! ;-)

Stanton · 21 September 2008

It's spelled "entelodont" and you two mind if I make some suggestions of "sciency" things to blog about?

Stacy S. said:
Science Avenger said:
Stacy S. said: Literally, right now, I've been searching for something "sciency" to blog about and I have been unable to because I am so obsessed with the fact that McPalin is so anti-science-environment-education-etc...that nothing else seems to interest me.
I've got the same problem, although it's not from lack of interest. It's just that seemingly every day lately the most realty-free assertions in the world are coming from her mealy mouth.
Yes, but at least you have a cool picture of an entelodant! ;-)

Inoculated Mind · 22 September 2008

We’ve made a good case. What we need now are good legal and political strategies.

William Dembski has the uncanny ability to completely drop his guard and let slip a little truth from time to time. Like when he talked about fund-raising "in the Christian community" to help ID, or when ID hasn't made any scientific advances. Now, he's admitting that their legal and political strategies weren't good. Took him almost 3 years to admit it.

RBH · 22 September 2008

Karen S. said:
...What we need now are good legal and political strategies.
Such as showing up at the next trial where he's agreed to be an expert witness? -Karen S.

Beautiful! You win the thread, Karen. :)

RBH · 22 September 2008

I did neglect on other aspect of Dembski's post, namely its subtitle:

"November Apologetics Conference — We need more than good arguments."

May one suggest that data might be a useful add-on to intelligent design "theory"?

cronk · 22 September 2008

Isn't it interesting how similar political arguments are to religious arguments.

Science Avenger said:
Stacy S. said: Literally, right now, I've been searching for something "sciency" to blog about and I have been unable to because I am so obsessed with the fact that McPalin is so anti-science-environment-education-etc...that nothing else seems to interest me.
I've got the same problem, although it's not from lack of interest. It's just that seemingly every day lately the most realty-free assertions in the world are coming from her mealy mouth.

Bobby · 22 September 2008

Ah, so materialists are teh bad guys who are obstructing the recognition of intelligent design now. Guess that non-divine "space alien" designer doesn't have a corporeal manifestation, like something from a bad episode of Star Trek.

Vince · 22 September 2008

Bill Gascoyne said: Vince, In this case, I believe it's "There's a sucker born again every minute."

Bill: I originally had it in there but dropped it because, thankfully, not all Christians have their brains turned off. On a different note: when is someone going to ask Palin "How old is the earth?" Her anti-science stance REALLY scares me.

rimpal · 22 September 2008

what a decline for WAD! Barely six years ago he was debating "scientists". Now he is reduced to hobnobbing with whackjobs and blowhards. Is he by any chancethe next Kurt Wise?

TomS · 22 September 2008

RBH said: May one suggest that data might be a useful add-on to intelligent design "theory"?

I suggest that a theory, or some alternative, to evolutionary biology. They might get around to telling us Who, What, When, Where, Why, or How. Or the application of the Explanatory Filter to the extremely complex pattern of corresponences between human bodies and those of chimps and other apes. (It that because some intelligent designers had some common purposes for humans and chimps? Or maybe because explanatory filters are sometimes pointless?)

Frank J · 22 September 2008

I have long wondered whether it would be more charitable to Dembski to think that he was a deliberate conman than to think he honestly believes what he says himself.
— iml8

While no one knows the private thoughts of others, when it comes to the DI crowd, I have always found it easiest to believe a third option that falls between the extremes of honest believer and con man. That is that they privately know that we're right about the science, but honestly think that the “masses” would not behave properly if they did too. Speaking of “third options”, it’s interesting that the DI is courting D’Souza. He was trying to claim that middle ground between science and pseudoscience that doesn’t exist, specifically by admitting evolution but otherwise speaking like an anti-evolution activist. Even when D’Souza was defending evolution, there was something about his choice of words that made me think that if he had to choose between Francis Collins and William Dembski, he’d choose the latter.

Notice anything? No evolution. No irreducible complexity. No mousetraps, CSI, SC, or Explanatory Filters. Why?
— Richard B. Hoppe

Ron O, where are you?

Frank J · 22 September 2008

On a different note: when is someone going to ask Palin “How old is the earth?”
— Vince

Thank You! Granted, even if she admitted all of evolution like McCain, she’d probably still defend the ‘teach the controversy” nonsense like him. But I think that people need to stop assuming that everyone who parrots anti-evolution sound bites is a YEC. Last year a caller on the Michael Medved radio show was caught off guard assuming that Mike Huckabee was a YEC just because he raised his hand at the debate when asked who doesn’t “believe in evolution”. Medved said that Huckabee was “probably not a young Earther.” I’m not even sure about the “probably,” but given how the DI targets vulnerable politicians, my impression was that Medved or some other DI Fellow had coached Huckabee on the tactic of “don’t ask, don’t tell (what the designer did, when, or how).”

iml8 · 22 September 2008

Frank J said: Speaking of “third options”, it’s interesting that the DI is courting D’Souza. He was trying to claim that middle ground between science and pseudoscience that doesn’t exist, specifically by admitting evolution but otherwise speaking like an anti-evolution activist.

I was thinking about said phenomena -- people who claim "I'm neutral in the dispute between evo science and ID!" -- and wondered if I was being too extreme to think this was just a front for hiding ID advocacy. But on considering, the only sense in which somebody could be neutral on the issue is to not care about the issue one way or another. I believe most people don't. But for anyone to be honestly active in the issue and claim neutrality is like saying: "I'm neutral on whether it's noon or midnight." A declaration of neutrality would be effectively turning a blind eye to the nature of ID as a blatant scam, and so would be a mask for ID advocacy. On the other side of the coin, if somebody honestly believes in ID, the only way such a belief could be maintained is by regarding evo science as a blatant scam. The two viewpoints are as different as night and day; they are not different reads on the facts, they are entirely opposed mindsets that could not be seriously entertained on an impartial basis. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

eric · 22 September 2008

James F said: It's also worth noting that Dinesh D'Souza realizes the failure of ID.

James, Thanks for that link. I think it will make reports on the conference more amusing, as Dinesh tries to do a full mental backflip from a low diving board.

iml8 said:
stevaroni said: Despite the braying of the IDiots, I've never understood how specifying the target phrase counted as "front loading", since you don't specify the way to get here.
I think they're saying "this is artificial selection, there's an Intelligent Designer (Dawkins) setting up the goalposts and giving it a direction...

IMO the real problem with the creationist frontloading argument is that animals (and plants) aren't born in vacuo. They're born into a pre-existing ecology. This ecology creates targets, i.e. end points in growth, development, and behavior that can be counted as "success." So the "the model is frontloaded with a target = not applicable to nature" argument is bogus because nature frontloads our environment with targets. Nor can the creationist escape this counterargument by going back to the beginning of life, because nonliving conditions (P, V, T, pH, presence of various organic & inorganic molecules etc...) combine to create targets for self-replicating organic molecules. Simulations like the Weasel one are simplistic - they usually have only one target and that target usually stays constant. These simplifications don't hold in nature. However, specifying a target doesn't render them invalid, it makes them more like nature.

iml8 · 22 September 2008

eric said: Simulations like the Weasel one are simplistic - they usually have only one target and that target usually stays constant. These simplifications don't hold in nature. However, specifying a target doesn't render them invalid, it makes them more like nature.

By coincidence, I was just rereading CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE, going through the chapter on spider webs. Dawkins pointed to genetic-algorithm-type programs that "evolved" spider webs, coming up randomly with variations on webs and determining which were the most cost-effective in getting a spider a good meal. These programs were actually fairly good representations of natural selection -- the programmer specified no target. Obviously the scenario is vastly simpler than it would be for a Weasel program that followed the rules of language to come up with an entirely unpredicted phrase. To be sure, Dawkins warned -- he's much more cautious in his assertions than his critics like to concede -- that the parameters for the effectiveness of the web were declared by the programmer and were somewhat arbitrary. But this wasn't much of an issue -- the programmer was playing God and designing an environment, and then letting the spider web "design itself" to optimize its effectiveness in that environment. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Wesley R. Elsberry · 22 September 2008

RBH said:
Karen S. said:
...What we need now are good legal and political strategies.
Such as showing up at the next trial where he's agreed to be an expert witness? -Karen S.
Beautiful! You win the thread, Karen. :)

But seriously... Dembski not showing up for Dover was a good thing for the antievolutionists. Dembski will be a huge liability for the antievolutionists in any establishment clause case because of his clear record on promoting particular religious stances -- and denigration of other religious stances -- that is achieved via "intelligent design" creationism. I'll be recommending calling Dembski as a hostile witness in any case where materials by him are at issue.

Bill Gascoyne · 22 September 2008

Vince said: I originally had it in there but dropped it because, thankfully, not all Christians have their brains turned off.

Not all Christians are of the "born again" variety (which in most cases implies a tradition of biblical literalism, which in turn requires a certain, shall we say, permanent suspension of disbelief).

Greg Esres · 22 September 2008

Notice anything? No evolution. No irreducible complexity. No mousetraps, CSI, SC, or Explanatory Filters. Why? Well, look below at Nick Matzke’s posts

It would be uncharacteristic of creationists to give up arguments solely due to their being shown to be false.

iml8 · 22 September 2008

Wesley R. Elsberry said: I'll be recommending calling Dembski as a hostile witness in any case where materials by him are at issue.

I think the "pathetic level of detail" comment would be enough to destroy his credibility all by itself. But if I were to have a choice between Dembski and Luskin on the witness stand, it would be Luskin hands down. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Stacy S. · 22 September 2008

Stanton said: It's spelled "entelodont" and you two mind if I make some suggestions of "sciency" things to blog about?

Please do! :-)

Wesley R. Elsberry · 22 September 2008

iml8 said:
Wesley R. Elsberry said: I'll be recommending calling Dembski as a hostile witness in any case where materials by him are at issue.
I think the "pathetic level of detail" comment would be enough to destroy his credibility all by itself. But if I were to have a choice between Dembski and Luskin on the witness stand, it would be Luskin hands down. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

If you are making the evaluation on entertainment value, perhaps. Luskin doesn't have something Dembski does have, though, and that is the record of statements by various other leading IDC advocates that his philosophical ideas justify the concepts of IDC intellectually.

Henry J · 22 September 2008

May one suggest that data might be a useful add-on to intelligent design “theory”?

Not if the data conflicts with the "conclusions"!!1111!!!!one!!eleven!

iml8 · 22 September 2008

Wesley R. Elsberry said: If you are making the evaluation on entertainment value, perhaps. Luskin doesn't have something Dembski does have, though, and that is the record of statements by various other leading IDC advocates that his philosophical ideas justify the concepts of IDC intellectually.

The entertainment value would be substantial, but Luskin would also be the a spectacularly effective witness -- for the plaintiffs, as he doused himself with lighter fluid under cross examination and then set himself on fire. However, I realize that you are entirely correct. Seeing beyond the realm of the immediate court case, Dembski would be a much more important witness. Luskin is merely a mouthpiece; in contrast, Dembski is one of the primary "architects" of the of the ID exercise. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

PvM · 22 September 2008

Some 'cognitive dissonance' on Dembski's part

Hence Richard Dawkins has no problem endorsing THE GOD WHO WASN’T THERE, a movie that denies Jesus even existed. Imagine what you want to be true and then enforce its acceptance — that’s the “new scholarship.

This is so ironic as it describes much better the concept of ID which was formulated out of a need to replace materialism with God and led to ignoring much of science to attempt to achieve these goals. Now that's 'scholarship'... No wonder that ID has remained in this aspect without much content as it lacks a scientific foundation that would allow it to make real predictions. It's good to hear though that Dembski has indeed returned to his 'old love', apologetics and has abandoned much of the ID movements attempts to generate a scientific alternative.

Stanton · 22 September 2008

Stacy S. said:
Stanton said: It's spelled "entelodont" and you two mind if I make some suggestions of "sciency" things to blog about?
Please do! :-)

May I suggest that you blog about placoderms? They were important fixtures of almost all aquatic ecosystems during the Devonian, at least until they were almost entirely wipeout during an extinction event during the late Devonian.

kp · 22 September 2008

But didn't they make a good case in the form of a movie? Anyone? Anyone? You mean that wasn't peer-reviewed? Of course it was! All of the ID peers reviewed it and love it!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Not even Ben Stein's money can buy them credibility.

Jackelope King · 22 September 2008

It's not about "alternate realities". It's about "alternate hats".

I'm serious.

A few years ago, Dembski appeared at my undergrad and extolled the virtues of Intelligent Design (including a clip from Dumb & Dumber, which I agreed with him was one of the most succinct analogies for the ID movement I've ever seen). When one student questioned him about his "Intelligent Design is the logos of the Gospel with information theory" quote, he told us that he only wrote that with his "theologian hat". Not his "science hat", which he had on while presenting this nonsense or writing NFL or the like.

It was "different hats". That excused a quote from his own pen that completely demolished his argument that ID wasn't religious. "Different hats".

Methinks such argument would stand up about as well in court as Dover's policy didn't.

TomS · 22 September 2008

PvM said: ... has abandoned much of the ID movements attempts to generate a scientific alternative.

But, of course, the ID movement never did attempt to generate an alternative (scientific or otherwise). It diverged from "classic creationism" specifically by declining to take positions where CC did. Whether those positions were "scientific" to the extent that they were easily refuted by straightforward science (such as the "vapor canopy"); or whether they were overtly sectarian-religious (such as "young earth").

Bobby · 22 September 2008

Frank J said:
I have long wondered whether it would be more charitable to Dembski to think that he was a deliberate conman than to think he honestly believes what he says himself.
— iml8
While no one knows the private thoughts of others, when it comes to the DI crowd, I have always found it easiest to believe a third option that falls between the extremes of honest believer and con man. That is that they privately know that we're right about the science, but honestly think that the “masses” would not behave properly if they did too.

Dembski is a big fan of Plato, in that regard and others as well.

Bobby · 22 September 2008

Jackelope King said: A few years ago, Dembski appeared at my undergrad and extolled the virtues of Intelligent Design (including a clip from Dumb & Dumber, which I agreed with him was one of the most succinct analogies for the ID movement I've ever seen). When one student questioned him about his "Intelligent Design is the logos of the Gospel with information theory" quote, he told us that he only wrote that with his "theologian hat". Not his "science hat", which he had on while presenting this nonsense or writing NFL or the like. It was "different hats". That excused a quote from his own pen that completely demolished his argument that ID wasn't religious. "Different hats".

IOW, tailor the lie to fit the audience.

RBH · 22 September 2008

rimpal said: what a decline for WAD! Barely six years ago he was debating "scientists". Now he is reduced to hobnobbing with whackjobs and blowhards. Is he by any chance the next Kurt Wise?

Kurt Wise succeeded Dembski in his appointment in the Center for Theology and Science at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, so they're clearly fungible.

eric · 22 September 2008

Jackelope King said: When one student questioned him about his "Intelligent Design is the logos of the Gospel with information theory" quote, he told us that he only wrote that with his "theologian hat". Not his "science hat", which he had on while presenting this nonsense or writing NFL or the like.

I'm okay with different hats. Methodological naturalism is, in some ways, a recognition that you wear a different hat in the lab than out. And lots of scientists have done a bit of philosophizing on the side. Pro-evolutionary examples include S.J. Gould and more recently Ken Miller. However, the a big difference between those two and Dembski is that they showed they knew how to wear the science hat *before* they waxed philosophical. Dembski seems to have skipped the "become a scientific success so that you can speak credibly about it" step.

Ichthyic · 22 September 2008

I frankly cannot understand how a man with two (count 'em, two!) Ph.D.s can be so unreflective, so unaware of self, so utterly blind to the reality of his own movement.

maybe you're asking the wrong question?

rephrased as:

How can a man who abandoned a career in science/mathematics, who has professed creationist beliefs, make a living?

It makes a lot more sense.

Kenneth Hynek · 22 September 2008

Totally off topic, but I noticed that you mentioned being a fan of Denis O. Lamoureux. You may be interested to know that he has finally managed to publish his book on science and religion: Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution.

Just an FYI.

John Kwok · 22 September 2008

Dear James, Thanks for this great observation of yours which had me grinning as I read it:

James F said:
But I’ll also be pointing out that our opponents, the materialists and their cronies, are now battling principally for political rather than intellectual control. Indeed, the materialists have lost the intellectual battle.
Wow. Projection in a nutshell. This from the muckety-muck of a group that has utterly failed to provide evidence for their claims in a single peer-reviewed scientific research paper, let alone produce a body of research. It's also worth noting that Dinesh D'Souza realizes the failure of ID.

I would go further and note that D'Souza has stated his support of evolution in his latest book (which I haven't read yet alas). I am still waiting for my "pal" Bill Dembski to see the error of his ways and admit that Klingon Cosmology makes a lot more sense than the mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design, in explaining "origins". At least Klingon Cosmology is consistent with contemporary evolutionary theory. Cheers, John

iml8 · 22 September 2008

John Kwok said: I would go further and note that D'Souza has stated his support of evolution in his latest book (which I haven't read yet alas).

I would not complain about D'Souza's viewpoint as expressed in the essay cited above, but there was a bit of dodging around in it -- saying that ID wasn't creationism (read O'Luskin for more than a few seconds and the distinction becomes immaterial) and that school textbooks that covered evo science were all atheistic. I suppose if schools had THE BLIND WATCHMAKER for required reading that might be an issue, but the semi-standard Miller-Levine text? That would be a strange accusation for D'Souza to make against a fellow Catholic like Ken Miller. Still, not going to fuss over D'Souza much. Doesn't sound like Darwin is really on his hitlist. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

rimpal · 22 September 2008

D'Souza is a smart cookie. The guufaws must have been getting too loud to ignore, so he's jumped ship with a breezy, "I'm outta here!

Dinesh is a Bombay boy and the Catholic schools he went to in India all teach evolution as theory and fact, as do Catholic schools here in the US. I can't imagine Dinesh's former principal at Cathedral or Our Lady of Perpetual Succor (in Chembur, Bombay) letting him get away with an absurd attack on biology!

fredgiblet · 23 September 2008

iml8 said: This would be incredibly difficult to write unless one came up with a deliberately stripped-down language that had a small vocabulary and very simple rules of syntax.

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Home+Page&bl=y

RBH · 23 September 2008

Kenneth Hynek said: Totally off topic, but I noticed that you mentioned being a fan of Denis O. Lamoureux. You may be interested to know that he has finally managed to publish his book on science and religion: Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution. Just an FYI.

Um, that's PvM you're referring to about the Lamoureux fan club. Given my metaphysical beliefs I have no need of Christian apologists. :)

tiredofthesos · 23 September 2008

I find it a bit odd to even continue discussing such painfully obvious embarrassment on WDPhd2's part.
Perhaps someone with the skills could run a video loop of the final shot of the Joker from the original "Batman" (Jack Nicholson's Joker, that is) - y'know, when he's fallen off the skyscraper to his death and is embedded in the pavement, still with the permanent smile, while a small jokeshop-like device repeats a horrid, tinny mechanical laugh?

Kenneth Hynek · 23 September 2008

Um, that’s PvM you’re referring to about the Lamoureux fan club. Given my metaphysical beliefs I have no need of Christian apologists. :)

Whoops, my bad. Well, hopefully he notices. :) Although, in fairness, Lamoureux's book is much more, I think, about evolutionary apologetics than it is about Christian apologetics. Given that I was in his orbit during much of its writing, I can say with some confidence that while it is obviously intended to make a case, to non-Christians, that science and religion need not be in conflict, it is principally directed at Young Earth and ID proponents, and spends a goodly portion of its length shredding their arguments.

eric · 23 September 2008

Here's a link to the conference:
http://www.nationalapologeticsconference.com/

Note at the bottom of the speaker list it states Michael Shermer will debate Dinesh D'Souza. Topic: Does God Exist?

Also it mentions that if want to attend the debate (and not the rest) you can skip the $75 reg fee in favor of a $10 debate-only fee.

erin b · 23 September 2008

With Palin,religion and religious views so in the news these days, I’m wondering what you and you all think about this. I came across this interesting site, opposingviews.com the other day while doing some research on religion and its place in politics.

It’s a site where there are numerous interesting debates on all sorts of subjects that are on everyone’s mind. The debate that specifically captured my attention is the one asking whether Intelligent Design has merit. I do like the idea that their debaters are not simply average people giving their opinions, but all are experts in their chosen fields.

The point of view that really got to me though, is the one from the Ayn Rand Institute in which they call ID a supposedly non-religious theory, and a crusade to peddle religion by giving it the veneer of science. They use words like it is metaphysical marijuana intended to draw students away from scientific explanations and get them hooked on the supernatural. I’d like to place my comment there, but I’d really like to get some input from you before doing so. Here’s the specific debate I’d like to comment on. http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/it-s-bait-and-switch Thanks so much.

iml8 · 23 September 2008

erin b said: I’d like to place my comment there, but I’d really like to get some input from you before doing so. Here’s the specific debate I’d like to comment on. http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/it-s-bait-and-switch Thanks so much.

PT been there done that: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/09/the-discovery-i-9.html#comments-open White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Science Avenger · 23 September 2008

eric said: Here's a link to the conference: http://www.nationalapologeticsconference.com/ Note at the bottom of the speaker list it states Michael Shermer will debate Dinesh D'Souza. Topic: Does God Exist?

It would be nice just once for the people running these debates to make D'Souza actually, you know, talk about the damned topic of the existence of gods and not allow him to, as he always does, ramble on in one long fallacy of the consequences about the supposed evil historical doings of the nonreligious (which is on shaky logical grounds anyway, correlation not being causality and all that). He seems to take the rather obnoxious approach that he who talks fastest and loudest wins, whether it is on topic or not.

Karen S. · 23 September 2008

....I’d really like to get some input from you before doing so.

I'm glad you mentioned Opposing Views and their ID debate. I asked that pro-ID guy Jay Richards what made him qualify as an ID theorist, but have yet to receive an answer. I was responding to his post called Isn’t ID Just a Sneaky Way to Get God into the Public Square? He seems to be educated mainly in theology (surprise!). At any rate, I don't think much of his theology.

Karen S. · 23 September 2008

Kenneth Hynek said: Totally off topic, but I noticed that you mentioned being a fan of Denis O. Lamoureux. You may be interested to know that he has finally managed to publish his book on science and religion: Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution. Just an FYI.

Thanks for posting that (although you didn't address it to me). I'm a fan of Denis Lamoureux myself, and I now have his new book on order, thanks to you. Originally he got his Ph.D. in biology in order to combat evolution. But then he encountered the overwhelming evidence for evolution and came to accept it. That's refreshing honesty from a former YEC.

gabriel · 23 September 2008

Karen S. said: Thanks for posting that (although you didn't address it to me). I'm a fan of Denis Lamoureux myself, and I now have his new book on order, thanks to you. Originally he got his Ph.D. in biology in order to combat evolution. But then he encountered the overwhelming evidence for evolution and came to accept it. That's refreshing honesty from a former YEC.

I had the pleasure of meeting Denis this summer and chatting about his new book. What a great guy. The book is stellar in its uncompromising takedown of antievolutionary Biblical interpretation. It's not a book about the evidence for evolution, but a thorough theological treatise on the interpretation of Genesis 1-11 as it relates to science and history. Denis has two PhDs - one in evolutionary biology, the other in theology (and he's also a dentist to boot). Well worth the read!

Karen S. · 23 September 2008

gabriel said:
Karen S. said: Thanks for posting that (although you didn't address it to me). I'm a fan of Denis Lamoureux myself, and I now have his new book on order, thanks to you. Originally he got his Ph.D. in biology in order to combat evolution. But then he encountered the overwhelming evidence for evolution and came to accept it. That's refreshing honesty from a former YEC.
I had the pleasure of meeting Denis this summer and chatting about his new book. What a great guy. The book is stellar in its uncompromising takedown of antievolutionary Biblical interpretation. It's not a book about the evidence for evolution, but a thorough theological treatise on the interpretation of Genesis 1-11 as it relates to science and history. Denis has two PhDs - one in evolutionary biology, the other in theology (and he's also a dentist to boot). Well worth the read!

Doesn't he have 3 earned Ph.D.s?

gabriel · 23 September 2008

Karen S. said:
Doesn't he have 3 earned Ph.D.s?
Denis has three doctoral degrees, but one is a DDS, not a PhD. You can check out his qualifications here: http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/5Qualifications.htm

386sx · 24 September 2008

The list of vapid materialist promises that show no sign of ever being fulfilled keeps growing and growing. But losing the intellectual battle no longer matters to materialists.

Yeah I'll remember that the next time I turn on the vapid microwave, or head on over to the KFC in my vapid car. To the vapidmobile!

Am I the only one who notices the irony in Mr. Dembski calling people vapid? I think probably not.

386sx · 24 September 2008

gabriel said:
Karen S. said: Thanks for posting that (although you didn't address it to me). I'm a fan of Denis Lamoureux myself, and I now have his new book on order, thanks to you. Originally he got his Ph.D. in biology in order to combat evolution. But then he encountered the overwhelming evidence for evolution and came to accept it. That's refreshing honesty from a former YEC.
I had the pleasure of meeting Denis this summer and chatting about his new book. What a great guy. The book is stellar in its uncompromising takedown of antievolutionary Biblical interpretation. It's not a book about the evidence for evolution, but a thorough theological treatise on the interpretation of Genesis 1-11 as it relates to science and history. Denis has two PhDs - one in evolutionary biology, the other in theology (and he's also a dentist to boot). Well worth the read!

Yes, good for him for showing people that we have to use science and history for, uhhhhhhmmm, "interpreting" the Bible. Cheers for him.

386sx · 24 September 2008

386sx said: Yes, good for him for showing people that we have to use science and history for, uhhhhhhmmm, "interpreting" the Bible. Cheers for him.

What I meant to say was that it was good of him to show people that the Bible, when interpreted properly, means the complete exact freakin opposite of what it says. Yes, this is a good way for God to get His message across to people: put things in the holy blessed Word that are the complete exact bleepin opposite of the way things are. That's a good way for doing things, especially for an omnipotent being and wahtnot.

gabriel · 24 September 2008

386sx said:
386sx said: Yes, good for him for showing people that we have to use science and history for, uhhhhhhmmm, "interpreting" the Bible. Cheers for him.
What I meant to say was that it was good of him to show people that the Bible, when interpreted properly, means the complete exact freakin opposite of what it says. Yes, this is a good way for God to get His message across to people: put things in the holy blessed Word that are the complete exact bleepin opposite of the way things are. That's a good way for doing things, especially for an omnipotent being and wahtnot.

Your complaint might be justified from a modern perspective, but you need to realize that our culture was not the intended first recipient of the message in Genesis. Put yourself in the shoes of a semi-nomadic, semitic tribe around 1500 BCE before you pass judgement on what you think Genesis should say. Failing to do so basically puts you in bed with YECs - who agree with you that the details of Genesis should speak to modern concerns. Genesis makes a whole lot more sense once you appreciate its ANE context.

ngong · 24 September 2008

Following the post in question, which declares that ID has already won the intellectual battle, you'll probably find one which bemoans ID's lack of representation at the level of academia.

Stanton · 24 September 2008

gabriel said: Your complaint might be justified from a modern perspective, but you need to realize that our culture was not the intended first recipient of the message in Genesis. Put yourself in the shoes of a semi-nomadic, semitic tribe around 1500 BCE before you pass judgement on what you think Genesis should say. Failing to do so basically puts you in bed with YECs - who agree with you that the details of Genesis should speak to modern concerns. Genesis makes a whole lot more sense once you appreciate its ANE context.

Well, the major complaint around these parts is that creationists, including Dembski and Johnson, insist on using the Bible as a history/science/law textbook for modern-day purposes. In other words, what creationists like Dembski and Johnson are saying that everything in society that doesn't go "glory be, praise hallelujah!" enough is either worthless and useless, or pernicous and evil. Hence their constant rants about "materialists running amok"

fnxtr · 24 September 2008

Damn materialist meteorologists and their isobars! Materialist materials engineers and computer scientists, making faster, cheaper computers... like this one... oh.

gabriel · 24 September 2008

Hence their constant rants about "materialists running amok"

Or, in my case, about the "TE traitors".

iml8 · 24 September 2008

gabriel said: Or, in my case, about the "TE traitors".

I had a hunch the ID people called them that. Ever notice that ID folk like to play both sides of fence on this one? Raising TE-type issues to bolster their case ("If God engineered the Universe, why can't he keep on engineering it?") and then denouncing TE as completely opposed to their cause. The second option seems closer to reality. It's a question of whether the Universe operates in a consistent fashion or not. One could make a case that the Creator would have been inept if He hadn't covered all contingencies and got it right from the outset, or on the other side of the fence point out that a God that didn't intervene in the Universe would be too remote to make worship meaningful. Of course there's the option of suggesting that the Creator can work miracles but does so through the Universe as it exists -- if He designed the stage, obviously it can do whatever He wants it to do -- but that does admittedly seem a bit arch. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

rossum · 25 September 2008

386sx said: What I meant to say was that it was good of him to show people that the Bible, when interpreted properly, means the complete exact freakin opposite of what it says. Yes, this is a good way for God to get His message across to people: put things in the holy blessed Word that are the complete exact bleepin opposite of the way things are. That's a good way for doing things, especially for an omnipotent being and wahtnot.

God was speaking to ancient Near Eastern sheepherders. How do you expect Him to talk? What was the ancient Hebrew word for Deoxyribonucleic acid? The people He was talking to did not have either the words or the concepts to understand the full detail so He gave them the five minute cartoon version, which was all they could understand at the time. We do not know everything now, so He would probably have to give us the Grade-school version rather than the full detail. Mistaking Genesis for a science textbook is like seeing "What's Opera Doc" and thinking that you understand Wagner. The cartoon version is indeed a classic as a cartoon, but it is not Wagner. rossum

eric · 25 September 2008

iml8 said: One could make a case that the Creator would have been inept if He hadn't covered all contingencies and got it right from the outset, or on the other side of the fence point out that a God that didn't intervene in the Universe would be too remote to make worship meaningful.

Its not either-or; both arguments can be true at the same time. What would that mean? That the very idea of an entity which is omnipotent, omniscent and onmibenevolent is just contradictory and absurd. Give a theoretical entity contradictory traits and - quelle surprise - your hypothesis that it exists will lead to contradictory conclusions.

386sx · 25 September 2008

rossum said: God was speaking to ancient Near Eastern sheepherders. How do you expect Him to talk? What was the ancient Hebrew word for Deoxyribonucleic acid? The people He was talking to did not have either the words or the concepts to understand the full detail so He gave them the five minute cartoon version, which was all they could understand at the time.

You don't know that. There is no way you could. But you're talking like you know that. You now have exactly zero credibility. Anyway, he could have given them a less wrong cartoon version. If you don't think so, then you have zero imagination to go with your zero credibility.

Stanton · 25 September 2008

You're arguing with the choir here: you should point this out to those who wish to see the Bible be used as the only science/history/law textbook of the land, as well as their financiers, those who wish to see the Bible be used as the only science/history/law textbook of the land, under pain of death.

rossum said: God was speaking to ancient Near Eastern sheepherders. How do you expect Him to talk? What was the ancient Hebrew word for Deoxyribonucleic acid? The people He was talking to did not have either the words or the concepts to understand the full detail so He gave them the five minute cartoon version, which was all they could understand at the time. We do not know everything now, so He would probably have to give us the Grade-school version rather than the full detail. Mistaking Genesis for a science textbook is like seeing "What's Opera Doc" and thinking that you understand Wagner. The cartoon version is indeed a classic as a cartoon, but it is not Wagner. rossum

iml8 · 25 September 2008

rossum said: Mistaking Genesis for a science textbook is like seeing "What's Opera Doc" and thinking that you understand Wagner. The cartoon version is indeed a classic as a cartoon, but it is not Wagner.

Oh dear, now I have visions of Elmer Fudd singing: "Oh weahhhhhhh ... is da cwazy waaaaabit?!" White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

James F · 25 September 2008

Kill the wabbit...kill the wabbit! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lKUOhvdlug

iml8 said:
rossum said: Mistaking Genesis for a science textbook is like seeing "What's Opera Doc" and thinking that you understand Wagner. The cartoon version is indeed a classic as a cartoon, but it is not Wagner.
Oh dear, now I have visions of Elmer Fudd singing: "Oh weahhhhhhh ... is da cwazy waaaaabit?!" White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

stevaroni · 26 September 2008

No, it should be...

Find the wabbit!

In the Cam'brin!

Find the wabbit!

Dig the shale!

Find the wabbit!

With the raptors!

That would be the

ho- lee grail!