Dembski's Defense

well, Evolving apeman and Dave Scott are still loyal dembskiites.

even now they are posting whines in his blog about how they were treated so badly here, and banned... for no reason!

baby trolls.

that's probably why you aren't finding any dembski supporters posting here.. there's only those two.

Recently I was at a luncheon with a scientist who debated William Dembski on one occasion. "I've never seen such arrogance before," he recalled. "He thought I was agreeing with him when in fact I wasn't." I'm not sure I should reveal the name of the source, even though it's a perfectly flat comment and I hold in esteem the man who said it. But, a hint for those really in-the-know, his general comment about IDists was that he "was too nice... they wanted [him] to join their cause" and he works in Complexity Theory.

This latest exchange by Bill Dembski is really low, though--I mean,

WAD: "Ward says there's a huge problem, and in fact Ward espouses an intelligent design notion."

PT: "Umm, Bill, knock it off. He explicitly said the opposite of what you just did."

WAD: "Ah, wonderful to read your feeble, rhetorical ploy. Indeed, other scientists have admitted that there are problems getting evolution to explain the Cambrian explosion."

PT: "But your point about Ward is still wrong. That was the issue."

WAD: "I await your petulant response."

DC: "Umm, no, you're the one who's being petulant here." (appropriate definition of WAD's choice word: contemptuous in speech or behavior)

I fully support Dembski, and I do not think he is a liar whatsoever. Although I can understand why you perceive the leaders of our movement that way.

It's hard to be put on the spot, Dr. Rosenhouse, especially by you. You among all the rest here at PandasThumb command the most respect from me, and so it is hard to be put on the spot. I was reluctant to post for fear of angering you more.

My explanations may not be satisfying to you, perhaps you might think we are just blind, since William Dembski, after all is family to us, someone who has been insulted and persecuted like the rest of us IDists...

Surely I can understand your irritation and anger at my leaders. However, if you are truly curious to understand why we do not perceive Dembski as a liar, it's actually very easy if you are willing to at least try to understand how IDists and creationists see the world. To us, the physical evidence is not convincing, the Cambrian explosion has no satisfying naturalistic explanation, Ward was wrong to even postulate that there is naturalistic solution, and the same can be said of every other naturalistic evolutionist.

I myself, having degrees in math, computer science, and electrical engineering understand the language of information theory. Dembski's writings are far more correct in my view that the offering of his critics. I have even defended his work at ISCID and responded to his Elsberry and his former teacher Shallit. It was through the process of dealing with Bill's critics, such as Elsberry and Shallit, that I eventually strongly sided with Bill Dembski.

If one reads my early writings on the net, one will see that I actually was fairly sympathetic to Elsberry at first, and his concept of SAI more than Dembski's CSI. That changed as I studied the writings of both sides more thoroughly and concluded Elsberry and (Dembski's former teacher) Shallit were dead wrong in their assessment of CSI.

I have worked in automatic target recognition, the detection of ID artifacts, and from a professional standpoint Dembski's work makes sense. I know of an IDist/biologist at George Mason who will be in at the George Mason's national center for bio defense, and I'm confident she sypmathizes with Dembski's position, as detection of intelligently design bio agents are crucial to her profession...

With respect to the creationists at ICR and AiG, I have posted publicly and at your website where I often agree with you. I have criticized publicly ICR for stabbing fellow YECs in the back, so you need not be troubled that I will defend them before you, even though I myself have strong Young Earth leanings.

However, I consider Bill's scholarship and conclusions materially accurate. For the theory of naturalistic evolution to be true it must overcome major theoretical and empirical hurdles. You've come to my talks at your school, and I've explained things at a superficial level (as was appropriate for my audience), and I have referred the students in my group to your website and writings so that they will have access to what I consider the best counter arguments to the ID position.

We have an IDEA member who has worked in molecular phylogeny for 3 years. The amount of molecular convergence she sees argues against naturalistic interpretations, and the explanations she is given for these phenoman theoretically unsatisfying. She was completely troubled by the molecular clock hypothesis which is used as an explanation for the hierarchical patterns in the molecular sequence divergences. That hypothesis, by the way, was likened by Denton to "a principle more like mideaval astrology than a serious 20th century scientific theory", and explanation of the hierarchical pattern in his view, "amount to little more than apologetic tautologies". I can see why Sternberg finally sided with the IDists, and so can she, and so can I.

Until serious empirical and theoretical problems are resolved, Ward and others will ultimately viewed as being blind to obvious facts, and people like Kurt Wise will continue to graduate from their mentors like Stephen Gould, and people like Dembski will graduate from Shallit's classes, and IDEA members from your school will graduate from biology programs, all believing that the case for naturalistic evolution are unsupported by scientific facts.

In the meantime we see what happens to professors of cellular biolgy like Caroline Crocker and that un-named professor who declined and interview with Nature because he was untenured.

Until your side can offer convincing empirical and theoretical evidence that the complexity of life arose through naturalistic processes, Ward statements in favor of naturalistic evolution can not be viewed as anything more than wishful thinking on Ward's part. Therefore, Ward's words only serve as an example to us of the amounts of collective wishful thinking out there, and thus, the quotation by Dembski is used to reference the one part of Wards work we believe agree with the empirical facts, namely, the Cambrian explosion is a major problem for naturalistic evolution.

So you were curious why I support Dembski, and I have offered some of my reasons.

Salvador, you agree that Ward sees a "naturalistic solution" to the Cambrian explosion, and you agree that Dembski only referenced "the one part of Wards work we believe agree with the empirical facts" but Dembski is not dishonest? Whether Ward is right or wrong and whether you or Dembski believe he is right or wrong is beside the point. Dembski stated that Ward believes that the Cambrian explosion is a problem for ToE when Ward clearly does not think that. It could have been a mistake the first time and Dembski should have retracted when it was pointed out to him. He did not do that, however. Instead, Dembski re-asserted that he was correct all along in his characterization of Ward's view and that Ward himself was lying about his own viewpoint.

So, how does this not make him a liar?

Until your side can offer convincing empirical and theoretical evidence that the complexity of life arose through naturalistic processes,

Ward statements in favor of naturalistic evolution can not be viewed as anything more than wishful thinking on Ward's part.

Therefore, Ward's words only serve as an example to us of the amounts of collective wishful thinking out there, and thus, the quotation by Dembski is used to reference the one part of Wards work we believe agree with the empirical facts, namely, the Cambrian explosion is a major problem for naturalistic evolution.

I myself, having degrees in math, computer science, and electrical engineering understand the language of information theory

Ward was wrong to even postulate that there is naturalistic solution

Ward was wrong to even postulate that there is naturalistic solution, and the same can be said of every other naturalistic evolutionist.

The most generous interpretation I can make of Dembski's original use of Ward is that he rejected Ward's opinion that the problem was not as great as it seemed - and omitted to explain the situation and offer his counter to Ward because of space considerations. Even that is unsatisfactory because it is misleading and incomplete. A less generous interpretation is that Dembski simply did not bother to read that far and missed Ward's real views.

If Dembski had chosen to respond to criticism by candidly admitting the weaknesses of the original piece and filling in the gaps then maybe the matter could have rested there.

But he did not. Instead he chose to use the criticism as an excuse to make groundless and false attacks on his opponents and evolutionary biologists in general.

I don't see how any decent person could defend that.

I don't see how any decent person could defend that

Salvador:

You weren't asked why you supported Dembski's ideas; that's apparent from your many posts.

The question is why you support Dembski as a person -- in your words, as "one of your leaders" -- when he's clearly a liar.

No one is trying to convince you (in this forum) to jettison ID, but we're sincerely curious why you would swear fealty to someone who's just not worth it.

I fully support Dembski, and I do not think he is a liar whatsoever.

It's a shame it's so hollow and without substance that you've never been able to answer any of Dr Flanks challenges (which when he sees you've posted he'll ask again).

Mr. Cordova-

I have to echo the comments of GCT, Jason Rosenhouse, Gary Hurd and others who have criticized Bill Dembski for deceptive and dishonest debating tactics. GCT explains it well and succinctly: whether or not Peter Ward's explanation of the Cambrian Explosion is correct, Dembski is clearly and deliberately incorrect in mis-stating Peter Ward's true intent. Bill Dembski did not state, as you imply, that this was the portion of Ward's writings that he agreed with. Dembski's clear implication was that the quote represented Ward's actual opinion.

Wishful thinking or no, mis-representing Ward's ideas to serve his own purpose is dishonest and I ask you to reconsider your opinion on this issue. In the long run, if ID does have a substantial scientific case to make, then it has nothing to fear and everything to gain by adopting an honest and forthright approach.

Mr. Cordova-

I have to echo the comments of GCT, Jason Rosenhouse, Gary Hurd and others who have criticized Bill Dembski for deceptive and dishonest debating tactics. GCT explains it well and succinctly: whether or not Peter Ward's explanation of the Cambrian Explosion is correct, Dembski is clearly and deliberately incorrect in mis-stating Peter Ward's true intent. Bill Dembski's implication was that the quote represented Ward's actual opinion. He did not state, as you imply, that this was the only portion of Ward's writings that he agreed with.

Wishful thinking or no, mis-representing Ward's ideas to serve his own purpose is dishonest and I ask you to reconsider your opinion on this issue. In the long run, if ID does have a substantial scientific case to make, then it has nothing to fear and everything to gain by adopting an honest and forthright approach.

Is Salvador Cordova a real person or a satirical invention?

If he is a real person, then I apologize for giving offense. But I will say that if you are a real person and your goal is to present a defense of ID, simply rehashing every caricatured stereotype of an ID proponent doesn't get you very far.

When your only alternative to quote mining is citing an article in Rivista.. the choice is clear.

Salvador isn't satire. He's classic Homo concretus. This is a common species.

We have an IDEA member who has worked in molecular phylogeny for 3 years. The amount of molecular convergence she sees argues against naturalistic interpretations, and the explanations she is given for these phenoman theoretically unsatisfying. She was completely troubled by the molecular clock hypothesis which is used as an explanation for the hierarchical patterns in the molecular sequence divergences. That hypothesis, by the way, was likened by Denton to "a principle more like mideaval astrology than a serious 20th century scientific theory", and explanation of the hierarchical pattern in his view, "amount to little more than apologetic tautologies". I can see why Sternberg finally sided with the IDists, and so can she, and so can I.

Dembski writes in Design Inference: As for computational complexity theory, I was introduced to it during the academic year 1987-88, a year devoted to cryptography at the computer science department of the University of Chicago. Jeff Shallit, Adi Shamir, and Claus Schnorr were present that year and helped me gain my footing.

Even if we are wrong, being wrong does not make us liars. Your side is free to express that you disagree, and just because we don't agree with your side, it does not make us liars, it makes us disagreeable.

Only a diehard ID fanatic could possibly continue to take Dembski seriously after following this exchange.

To some extent the situation exposed here does affect the status of Dembski's arguments. In science we have to be able to trust what people say when they are constructing an argument and detailing their case.

Next time I read one of his essays and see a quote contained within, I might be less inclined to take it at face value. This becomes a major problem for me as Dembski writes in areas that are outside my own particular branch of science. In most cases I'd be able to chase up a quote and ascertain its validity, in others its possible that I may lack the requisite expertise to judge.

Anyway, this series of threads has been a thoroughly depressing experience. We expect such dishonesty from the traditional YEC crowd, but I'd have hoped for better from the IDists.

Well no wonder some people misspell Dembski's name.

According to Harry Frankfurt, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Princeton University, a lie is a deliberate act to mislead from the truth or what the liar believes to be the truth.

One interpretation, and the one I accept, is that Dembski is trying to deliberately mislead the reader from Ward's true conclusion by presenting a quotation out of context that indicates the opposite conclusion.

Ironically, Dembski is resorting to an Appeal to Authority in using Ward (the authority) to bolster his (Dembski's) incorrect proposal. What is ironic is that Dembski doesn't need to appeal to authority because the data that supports his view (or not) is freely available.

Unfortunately for Dembski, the data does not support his proposition, he creates a falsehood using an appeal to authority to support his position and, therefore, commits a lie.

The fact that Dembski allows the lie to persist in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary supports the proposition that he has not simply made a mistake or oversight. Intent to lie is demonstrated.

The intelligent design creationist movement is rife with intellectual and moral dishonesty, hypocracy, stealth and humbug which they use with abandon. No different, really, than Rael and the human cloning fraud.

The great thing about arguments is that they stand alone.

SALVADOR: Surely I can understand your irritation and anger at my leaders. However, if you are truly curious to understand why we do not perceive Dembski as a liar, it's actually very easy if you are willing to at least try to understand how IDists and creationists see the world. To us, the physical evidence is not convincing, the Cambrian explosion has no satisfying naturalistic explanation, Ward was wrong to even postulate that there is naturalistic solution, and the same can be said of every other naturalistic evolutionist.

SALVADOR: No, my friend is not confusesd. She's bothered by the kind of uncritically accepted ideas being passed off as scientific fact.

Dismissing it as irrelevant does you no credit.

Okay Michael, if you're so intrested in arguments, here's one:

1. For all x and y, if x intentionally misrepresents a quote from y in order to make it appear that y believes the opposite of what y believes, then x is a liar.

2. Dembski intentionally misrepresented a quote from Ward in order to make it appear that Ward believes the opposite of what Ward believes.

Therefore,

3. Dembski is a liar.

Having looked at the premises of this argument and the facts, I've decided it has merit. Now if you think that whether someone is a liar or not is "of no consequence," we'll just have to disagree. But the point of this discussion all along has been this: Dembski is a liar. That's information that a lot of people may find useful.

One "point" of this discussion is whether any of Dembski's comments can be "taken seriously."

For your little modus ponens to answer that question, you must move from instances of Dembski's errors (willful or negligent) in one area, Dembski's universal error in all areas. Needless to say, that move won't be a logical one.

It is possible for, say, the basic argument of the design inference to be correct, and for Dembski to be incredibly malicious when dealing with his opponents.

Finley, I believe that I understand your desire to treat arguments as ideal forms, and I can certainly sympathize with it. This dialogue is not taking place in a vacuum, however. Dembski's credibility matters in the real world, especially because this is a debate that turns on expert knowledge. Since few, if any, of the participants in the discourse can be expected to have that knowledge on every field that will be invoked, participants that pin their arguments on obscure or difficult facts must ask their audience to take them at their word. This makes a debator's credibility a valid part of the practical discourse.

For instance, I have very little mathematical training. When Dembski makes complex statistical and mathematical arguments, I must accept that he is presenting a rational and honest argument on faith, because I am not equipped to follow every step of that argument. When other mathematicians challenge him, I must also take their arguments (to a limited extent) on faith. This is problematic, but the only practical alternative is to disengage entirely from any discourse that hinges on expert knowledge. That is not an acceptable alternative.

Therefore, at some point Dembski is comparing his credit to the credit of his competitors in the marketplace of ideas. If I can abuse the analogy for a second, he's coming to a point where he must write checks that his credibility can't cash. His unethical behavior has bankrupted him, and many consumers of his ideas will simply stop accepting those parts of his arguments that they don't personally understand on faith. The result will be a disengagement of non-experts from his dialogue, which will seriously diminish its value. He will be sharing ideas exclusively with other experts and with committed ideologues, which is not a pragmatically productive process.

Is Salvador Cordova a real person or a satirical invention?

In any case, how many times have I seen Dembski and myself misrepresented here. None of you guys were coming out and calling your comrades liars were you when IDists were inaccurately represented? I pointed out over at ISCID that Elsberry and Shallit (Dembski's former teacher) did not do justice to Dembski's work nor represented it fairly. Are any of you coming out and calling them liars? Have I ever called your leadership liars? I convey the fact that I believe they do not accurately represent our opinions, but I do not call them liars, and I have no intention of doing so.

— Sal

It is possible for, say, the basic argument of the design inference to be correct

That said, Dembski's arguments can be taken seriously if they are serious. That he made an error here (for whatever reason) does not affect the status (whatever that status is) of his other arguments. Again, they stand alone.

— FInley

In my case my cards have been on the table, my career is ruined so (laughter) it doesn't matter at this point but eh I say just what I want in this regard but it's a real problem.

— Dembski

It is possible for, say, the basic argument of the design inference to be correct, and for Dembski to be incredibly malicious when dealing with his opponents.

However, if you are truly curious to understand why we do not perceive Dembski as a liar, it's actually very easy if you are willing to at least try to understand how IDists and creationists see the world.

I know of an IDist/biologist at George Mason who will be in at the George Mason's national center for bio defense, and I'm confident she sypmathizes with Dembski's position, as detection of intelligently design bio agents are crucial to her profession . . .

— Salvador

GWW, I think its called lying for God.

The end (apparently) justifies the means.

Of course, whats a little white lie? After all, there is no such thing as lying; its all about how you 'see the world.'

Salvador-

I beg you to address the issue at hand.

Nothing in my two posts about this subject had anything to do with whether evolution or ID is a better explanation for the facts of biology. I was not discussing the facts of the Cambrian explosion (except very briefly at the end of my second post), molecular clocks, evolutionary convergence, or Michael Denton's book.

And I'm very aware, thank you, of how people on your side of this view the world. I understand in great detail the arguments Dembski, Behe, and their supporters are making.

We are also not discussing explanations for the Cambrian explosion, or whether Peter Ward's clearly stated opinion in On Methuselah's Trail is correct or not.

I would be happy to discuss any of those issues with you another time. But right now we have before us a very specific situation.

Dembski wrote an essay in which he made it appear that Peter Ward was supporting his conclusion that the Cambrian exposion is a gaping hole in evolutionary theory. But Ward was completely unambiguous in his book that not only does he not support that conclusion, but actually he believes that the Cambrian explosion is a non-issue.

Again, we are not discussing whether Ward is correct in that judgment.

It was also clear that the sentence Dembski used was merely a device employed by Ward to set up his presentation of the history of attempts to explain the Cambrian explosion. He was not describing his own opinion, or the opinion of any contemporary scientist. He was describing how things looked before Darwin arrived on the scence.

Had that been the end, I would have accused Dembski of poor scholarship, and not lying. In the comments to my previous post I offered the possibility that someone simply told Dembski about the quote and he did not bother to check it out for himself, even though I doubt that is actually what happened.

But Dembski escalated. Gary Hurd and David Mullenix wrote a lengthy essay showing in great detail that Dembski had misrepresented Ward's views of the subject. We know Dembski read that essay. So he could no longer claim to be unaware of Ward's views on the subject. How did Dembski respond? He did not apologize for giving his readers an entirely false impression of what Ward had said. He did not offer an argument to show that Ward's conclusion was false. He did not present any facts to show that the Cmabrian explosion remained a serious problem for evolution.

No. He defended his use of the quotation and reiterated his claim that Ward's statement supported his conclusion. That is where error and poor scholarship became lying.

So Gary Hurd and I wrote follow-up posts showing once more that Dembski was wrong. In response did Dembski address any of the facts of the situation? No. He dismissed the facts as irrelevant details. He gloated about provoking responses to his blog entry that were longer than the entry itself.

He then lied further by claiming that the posts by Gary and myself were intended to show that the Cambrian explosion was a nonproblem for evolution. That is what we both believe, but that is not what our posts were about.

As you know, I have defended your integrity both in the comments to my previous post and over at EvolutionBlog. I think you are sadly confused about many aspects of science, but I have been impressed in your talks both by your willingness to let me speak and your own criticisms of certain aspects of ID. That is why I have put you on the spot here. You have all the facts in front of you. Keep in mind it was Dembski who decided to bring this issue up at his blog. He is obviously quite proud of his behavior in this case. I want to know if you, as someone who has described Dembski as providing the best ID has to offer, are proud of his behavior here.

I suspect you are not. I suspect the reason your previous comments to these posts have addressed every issue except the one at hand reflects your understanding that Dembski has behaved badly here, but you have trouble saying so because you generally support his work.

So let's be clear. I'm not asking you to abandon ID, or criticize Dembski's mathematics, or pass judgment on complex specified information or irreducible complexity. I want to know if you believe it is intellectually respectable for Dembski to use Ward's quote in the way that he did. I want to know if you think his smug, dishonest blog entries on this subject reflect well on the ID movement.

I myself, having degrees in math, computer science, and electrical engineering understand the language of information theory. Dembski's writings are far more correct in my view that the offering of his critics. I have even defended his work at ISCID and responded to his Elsberry and his former teacher Shallit. It was through the process of dealing with Bill's critics, such as Elsberry and Shallit, that I eventually strongly sided with Bill Dembski.

I have worked in automatic target recognition, the detection of ID artifacts, and from a professional standpoint Dembski's work makes sense. I know of an IDist/biologist at George Mason who will be in at the George Mason's national center for bio defense, and I'm confident she sypmathizes with Dembski's position, as detection of intelligently design bio agents are crucial to her profession . . .

Why doesn't somebody put it to the National Debate Tournament folks? The sort of quote-doctoring Dembski is doing used to be serious enough to get debate teams disqualified, once upon a time.

Angus Campbell probably hasn't severed all of his ties to practitioners of rhetoric (though from his anti-science book, he might have) -- why not have him take Dembski's stuff up with last year's national champions, or a few highly-qualified debate judges, and see what they say?

Salvador Cordova was prominently featured in Nature last week. Among other nonsense, he actually said this:

"The critical thinking and precision of science began to really affect my ability to just believe something without any tangible evidence."

One of the most beautiful definition of an IDer I have seen.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/full/4341062a.html

Ed writes: "Why doesn't somebody put it to the National Debate Tournament folks? The sort of quote-doctoring Dembski is doing used to be serious enough to get debate teams disqualified, once upon a time."

Funny you should mention that. A student at Washington's State Lincoln-Douglas tournament was recently disqualified for exactly the same sort of quote-mining Dembski has perfected. She, at least, admitted it when caught.

Or are you just blowing smoke up my pant leg again?

Like Bill Dembski I enjoy inferring and generalizing. I infer from Dembski's views on the "Cambrian explosion", that he doesn't understand evolution. Am I safe to generalize that he doesn't understand anything? Or should I limit my generalization to "he doesn't understand what he doesn't want to believe"?

Are my conclusions publishable science (or publishable philosophy)? Or are they only apologetics?

In any case, even if Dembski is wrong, being wrong does not make one a liar. He believes that he is right, and so do I, in his quote of Ward. Even if we are wrong, being wrong does not make us liars. Your side is free to express that you disagree, and just because we don't agree with your side, it does not make us liars, it makes us disagreeable.

— Salvador Cardova

Steven Laskoske:

Salvador has made it pretty clear that he just doesn't see any difference between disagreeing with what someone said (honest), and lying about what someone said (dishonest). Just like Dembski, he has been instructed in elementary integrity at great length. It doesn't take.

Or are you just blowing smoke up my pant leg again?

Perhaps you can explain to me why it is appropriate to treat DNA as if it were an electrical signal in a wire. ... I have difficulty understanding why Shannon's model is considered an appropriate analog for a cell's replication. ... And I think this is rather foundational, since if Shannon's modeling is inappropriate for living things, the entire output of Dr. Dembski is off the mark.

— Ed Darrell

"The critical thinking and precision of science began to really affect my ability to just believe something without any tangible evidence."

I can appreciate your disgust with our side.

It is possible for, say, the basic argument of the design inference to be correct

But for Dembski it means something quite different. For him a "problem" with evolution is something that is fundamentally impossible to explain by naturalistic causes alone. Evolution has plenty of open questions. That is why people continue to do research after all. But the problem evolutionists face is never "How could this possibly be explained naturally?" but rather "Of the many possible naturalistic explanations, which is the correct one?" That is precisely the situation with the Cambrian explosion.

— On Evolutionblog, Jason

"Salvador Cordova was prominently featured in Nature last week."

It didn't mention he's sympathetic to YEC.

Dr. Rosenhouse wrote: I beg you to address the issue at hand.

Dr. Rosenhouse wrote: As you know, I have defended your integrity both in the comments to my previous post and over at EvolutionBlog. I think you are sadly confused about many aspects of science, but I have been impressed in your talks both by your willingness to let me speak and your own criticisms of certain aspects of ID. That is why I have put you on the spot here.

Dr Rosenhouse asked: I want to know if you believe it is intellectually respectable for Dembski to use Ward's quote in the way that he did.

Recall Dembski wrote in Dealing with the Backlash Critics and enemies are useful. The point is to use them effectively. In our case, this is remarkably easy to do. The reason is that our critics are so assured of themselves and of the rightness of their cause. As a result, they rush into print their latest pronouncements against intelligent design when more careful thought, or perhaps even silence, is called for. The Internet, especially now with its blogs (web logs), provides our critics with numerous opportunities for intemperate, indiscreet, and ill-conceived attacks on intelligent design. These can be turned to advantage, and I've done so on numerous occasions. I'm not going to give away all my secrets, but one thing I sometimes do is post on the web a chapter or section from a forthcoming book, let the critics descend, and then revise it so that what appears in book form preempts the critics' objections.

Dembski wrote: Perhaps most significantly, however, we can admit our mistakes and receive instruction.

Dr. Rosenhouse asked: I want to know if you think his smug, dishonest blog entries on this subject reflect well on the ID movement.

You asked: I want to know if you think his smug ...entries on this subject reflect well on the ID movement.

Dealing with the Backlash This may seem unfair and mean-spirited, but let's admit that our aim, as proponents of intelligent design, is to beat naturalistic evolution, and the scientific materialism that undergirds it, back to the Stone Age.

Ed asked: So, does this woman use Dembski's filters to explain which anthrax affliction is natural, and which "intelligently designed?"

Can she determine a human-engineered gene from a naturally-engineered gene, using any of the ID methods?

With the provision that I cannot agree with you that he is dishonest...

In any case, even if Dembski is wrong, being wrong does not make one a liar. He believes that he is right, and so do I, in his quote of Ward. Even if we are wrong, being wrong does not make us liars. Your side is free to express that you disagree, and just because we don't agree with your side, it does not make us liars, it makes us disagreeable.

As I said, I do not believe he is fundamentally dishonest

The molecular clock hypothesis is nothing but tautological post dicition. That, by the way is why the theories agrees so well with the data.

I discussed and argued parts of it here: http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/13/t/0 . . . The chapter in question came from Evolution a Theory in Crisis in the chapter "Biochemical Echo of Typology". I actually agreed with one of Denton's critics on a minor point in the ARN discussion, but Denton's thesis holds. Denton has since suggested some sort of "directed evolution" which would imply a designed molecular clock.

No, my friend is not confusesd. She's bothered by the kind of uncritically accepted ideas being passed off as scientific fact.

I can appreciate your disgust with our side. I can see the seething emotionalism against IDists evident every day at PandasThumb.

However, if you are truly curious to understand why we do not perceive Dembski as a liar, it's actually very easy if you are willing to at least try to understand how IDists and creationists see the world.

Wait a minute, first you approvingly quote Denton claiming the molecular clock hypothesis is like astrology, now you say it's in perfect agreement with the data, and so obvious it's a tautology?

Andrea wrote: Wait a minute, first you approvingly quote Denton claiming the molecular clock hypothesis is like astrology, now you say it's in perfect agreement with the data, and so obvious it's a tautology?

"The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of human evolution and to forensic identity testing. Here, we report a direct measurement of the intergenerational substitution rate in the human CR. We compared DNA sequences of two CR hypervariable segments from close maternal relatives, from 134 independent mtDNA lineages spanning 327 generational events. Ten substitutions were observed, resulting in an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or 2.5/site/Myr. This is roughly twenty-fold higher than estimates derived from phylogenetic analyses. This disparity cannot be accounted for simply by substitutions at mutational hot spots, suggesting additional factors that produce the discrepancy between very near-term and long-term apparent rates of sequence divergence. The data also indicate that extremely rapid segregation of CR sequence variants between generations is common in humans, with a very small mtDNA bottleneck. These results have implications for forensic applications and studies of human evolution . . . The observed substitution rate reported here is very high compared to rates inferred from evolutionary studies. A wide range of CR substitution rates have been derived from phylogenetic studies, spanning roughly 0.025-0.26/site/Myr, including confidence intervals. A study yielding one of the faster estimates gave the substitution rate of the CR hypervariable regions as 0.118 +- 0.031/site/Myr. Assuming a generation time of 20 years, this corresponds to ~1/600 generations and an age for the mtDNA MRCA of 133,000 y.a. Thus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr, is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans. Even acknowledging that the MRCA of mtDNA may be younger than the MRCA of modern humans, it remains implausible to explain the known geographic distribution of mtDNA sequence variation by human migration that occurred only in the last ~6,500 years." Parsons, Thomas J. A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region, Nature Genetics vol. 15, April 1997, pp. 363-367

Andrea wrote: I am not "disgusted" at "your side". I am appalled that people with a less than rudimentary understanding of biology, as you show here, but otherwise intelligent and educated, feel entitled to make public pronouncements about what is and is not supported by evidence and theoretically justified in that field. I cannot even imagine what kind of resistance to self-embarassment one has to have to make this kind of activity a profession, or a personal mission. As for where fundamental cluelessness ends, and self-delusion or sheer lying begin, I think it's almost impossible to decide.

Dembski writes: (Ward is a well-known expert on ammonite fossils and does not favor a ID-based view):

Professor Ward was not at all pleased, and wished us to convey to Dr. Dembski his displeasure at his writing being manipulated in this fashion. We consider this as done herein.

Part of the reason why it's so easy to 'misunderstand' your position is because ID never gives a clear position (Such as a theory) to begin with. If they stood up and actually did some proper science and provided some decent solid theories and predictions that ID can make, we'd go a lot further. But alas...

I have offered that we may be on the verge of finding more emprical refutation of the prevailing paradigms, but I'm afraid unless the political climate changes, these studies won't be pursued with sufficient vigor.

I don't accuse you guys of lying.

I'd be slightly more impressed if all these dissenters from the current paradigm actually got off their arses and published something to challenge the current paradigm. Instead, all we get is suggestions of shadowy deceit. A hidden plot here. A conspiracy there. Its like being in a crappy Robert Ludlum novel.

If you do not see that this is an instance of the EF, then that shows, you're still going by the misconceptions of the EF that are commonly promoted.

— sal

Sal: For the clock hypothesis to be true it has to : 1. violate predictions of interspecific divergence within the species such as a shark, predictions that come right out of my grad level population genetics books (the math by the way is well within my ability to understand)

2. tick differently for the lineages with different species generation cycles 3. tick differently with each protein at different (that's right out my population genetics book, Hartl and Clark)

4. be limited to increasingly smally loci with each subsequent radiation (something the text books do not even discuss!)

5. accomplish this with the kind of phenomenal precision that we have no reason to substantiate based on empirical direct measurements (rather than circularly reasoned measurements), principles of chemsitry. This precision might be actually refuted by empirical measurements, already, but few are willing to explore it further.

Sal: For the clock hypothesis to be true it has to : 1. violate predictions of interspecific divergence within the species such as a shark, predictions that come right out of my grad level population genetics books (the math by the way is well within my ability to understand)

2. tick differently for the lineages with different species generation cycles 3. tick differently with each protein at different (that's right out my population genetics book, Hartl and Clark)

4. be limited to increasingly smally loci with each subsequent radiation (something the text books do not even discuss!)

5. accomplish this with the kind of phenomenal precision that we have no reason to substantiate based on empirical direct measurements (rather than circularly reasoned measurements), principles of chemsitry. This precision might be actually refuted by empirical measurements, already, but few are willing to explore it further.

These are the kind of empirical studies worth investigating further, but unfortunately, not only do they have ID implications, they have creationist implications.

"Salvador Cordova was prominently featured in Nature last week." It didn't mention he's sympathetic to YEC.

Does anyone know at what point this quote-lying stuff becomes libel? Would the victim have to show that they were injured by the offense (denied a job opportunity, etc) before they could sue for libel?

Dembski could be wrong, but unless he knowingly believes he is wrong, then it is arguably a disagreement or a mistake. I have already said, perhaps a little amending of his comments would clear up the matter. But for the record, here is what Bill said: Dembski writes: (Ward is a well-known expert on ammonite fossils and does not favor a ID-based view): and quoting Dr. Hurd: Professor Ward was not at all pleased, and wished us to convey to Dr. Dembski his displeasure at his writing being manipulated in this fashion. We consider this as done herein.

It's true that Ward is displead. But I see what I say and other IDists say manipulated in ways displeasing to us. I do not make charges of lying or dishonety, I've come to expect that's just the way things go, and I'll grant you guys some lattitude in the fact that if you misunderstand our position even after repeated correction, you misunderstand it. I don't accuse you guys of lying.

Salvador,

It is clear beyond any possible doubt that you IDCists are way out of depth on all matters scientific. All yours and Bill's (and his flunkies') diplomas aren't worth the paper they are printed on if you can't acknowledge a deliberate distortion of a quote. The first time it happens it is a mistake. Insisiting that it is not is a plain lie. As for your sweet talking on PT it has never fooled anyone. It is one thing to talk things over a drink. It is entirely something else to carry jocular doubt beyond the point of scientific validity. The folks you meet on PT are a small fraction of a fraction of the scientific community and many others such as me aren't even scientists. Folks like us aren't interested in a red carpet from Bill (as you claim he has rolled out for Michael Ruse). Some of us are glad that Bill's swagger and your sweet talk become flaky on sustained refutation. While your "leader" lost his credibility a while ago his "followers" are now going thru the same process. Today's events at the Kansas Kangaroo Court give us a good idea of the state of IDC quackery. I have read Xipts of Bill's debates and even watched him on streaming video. If this is the best your side can come up with you guys don't need opponents! After you have answered Rev Frank please answer my questions. What is design? What is Intelligence?

Dembski writes: Our critics have, in effect, adopted a zero-concession policy toward intelligent design. According to this policy, absolutely nothing is to be conceded to intelligent design and its proponents. It is therefore futile to hope for concessions from critics. This is especially difficult for novices to accept. A bright young novice to this debate comes along, makes an otherwise persuasive argument, and finds it immediately shot down. Substantive objections are bypassed. Irrelevancies are stressed. Tables are turned. Misrepresentations abound. One's competence and expertise are belittled. The novice comes back, reframes the argument, clarifies key points, attempts to answer objections, and encounters the same treatment. The problem is not with the argument but with the context of discourse in which the argument is made. The solution, therefore, is to change the context of discourse.

Los Angeles Times Reports Christine Caffy, 15, carefully took notes on each speaker's position. The ninth-grader from Bishop Seabury Academy in Lawrence had recently studied evolution in her biology class and came here to learn more about the debate. Afterward, she was curious and confused. "I came here thinking that I understood evolution, that I understood the facts," Christine said. "But now, I don't know what to think. Who's right? Is the science that I'm learning really true?" That sentiment infuriates scientists, a group of whom had gathered nearby. They insisted that though evolution should be open to criticism, the classroom was not the place for critiques based on religion.

Dembski wrote: We don't have a professional guild that we need to keep happy for the sake of our careers. We can be free spirits. This sits especially well with young people, who thrive on rebelling against the status quo and don't like it when an authoritarian elite tells them what they must think and believe. And these young people are the scientists of tomorrow.

I'm not going to give away all my secrets, but one thing I sometimes do is post on the web a chapter or section from a forthcoming book, let the critics descend, and then revise it so that what appears in book form preempts the critics' objections.

Far from wanting to curl up in a corner when attacked, I'm grateful for my critics. Truth be known, their attacks are my idea of a good time. Indifference is a far worse form of violence. William Dembski

Well Salvador can help out matters considerably to stop the belittling.

All he needs to do is two things:

1. Have Dembski apply the explanatory filter to a series of, say 10, real world objects, showing the calculations set out in his writings i.e. NFL theorems.

2. Have Behe list 100 irreducibly complex biological organisms identifyignthe exactly what characteristic is irreducibly complex.

Very simple. Otherwise, all else is hot air and whining.

We give him the benefit of the doubt because his science, in our view, has been right on the mark, more so than his critics.

We do not judge William Dembski's honesty or dishonesty by some disagreement over an interpreteation of Ward's quote. We will give him the benefit of the doubt because of the deadly accuracy of everything else he has said on the major issues... Exactly what Dembski wrote is the way I'm treated here by detractors like GWW and Lenny Flank. The kind of misrerpresentation and ridicule we receive from your side is exactly as I was told it would be!

Our critics have, in effect, adopted a zero-concession policy towards a flat earth. According to this policy, absolutely nothing is to be conceded to flat earth theory and its proponents. It is therefore futile to hope for concessions from critics. This is especially difficult for novices to accept. A bright young novice to this debate comes along, makes an otherwise persuasive argument, and finds it immediately shot down. Substantive objections are bypassed. Irrelevancies are stressed. Tables are turned. Misrepresentations abound. One's competence and expertise are belittled. The novice comes back, reframes the argument, clarifies key points, attempts to answer objections, and encounters the same treatment. The problem is not with the argument but with the context of discourse in which the argument is made. The solution, therefore, is to change the context of discourse.

I encourage the bio students in my IDEA chapters to study evolutionary biology,

Exactly what Dembski wrote is the way I'm treated here by detractors like GWW and Lenny Flank. The kind of misrerpresentation and ridicule we receive from your side is exactly as I was told it would be!

Thank you for pointing out the research related to Parson's study. The reason I brought up the technical points is that, the fundamental question is why we would support Dembski. We give him the benefit of the doubt because his science, in our view, has been right on the mark, more so than his critics.

Have Behe list 100 irreducibly complex biological organisms identifyignthe exactly what characteristic is irreducibly complex.

Far from wanting to curl up in a corner when attacked, I’m grateful for my critics. Truth be known, their attacks are my idea of a good time. Indifference is a far worse form of violence. William Dembski

Dembski could be wrong, but unless he knowingly believes he is wrong, then it is arguably a disagreement or a mistake.

— Cordova

Thank you for pointing out the research related to Parson's study. The reason I brought up the technical points is that, the fundamental question is why we would support Dembski. We give him the benefit of the doubt because his science, in our view, has been right on the mark, more so than his critics.

Dembski writes: "A bright young novice to this debate comes along, makes an otherwise persuasive argument, and finds it immediately shot down. Substantive objections are bypassed. Irrelevancies are stressed. Tables are turned. Misrepresentations abound. " Exactly what Dembski wrote is the way I'm treated here by detractors like GWW and Lenny Flank. The kind of misrerpresentation and ridicule we receive from your side is exactly as I was told it would be!

In contrast, after I took criticisms of not having sufficient biology knowledge, I now have a bookshelf of titles on population genetics and information theory in biology. I have been plugged into to cricles of professors of biology, information theory, physics, chemistry, biotechnology, molecular genetics, etc. who can provide a flow of information.

look at the effect that IDists have on others, an effect that I witness first hand in my work on the campuses:

Beautifully said Dr. Flank, absolutely beautifully said.

Creationism and ID does more to produce atheists than anything else, because when you see the blatant ignorance of these people, you can't help but deny a God that would have such followers.

We do not judge William Dembski's honesty or dishonesty by some disagreement over an interpreteation of Ward's quote. We will give him the benefit of the doubt because of the deadly accuracy of everything else he has said on the major issues.

— Salvador

sal quoted dembski:

"Truth be known, their attacks are my idea of a good time."

Isn't this exactly what JAD says all the time?

I think these folks share a common delusion.

We do not judge William Dembski's honesty or dishonesty by some disagreement over an interpreteation of Ward's quote. We will give him the benefit of the doubt because of the deadly accuracy of everything else he has said on the major issues.

sal said:

"Dembski is followed and revered bacuase he is perceived as being accurate on many matters"

see, sal, that is the difference. nobody here "follows" an individual, we follow where the evidence leads.

that is the difference between a scientist and an acolyte.

you have lost your way, so need to follow the path of others.

we have not, so we only need to use our eyes to show us the way.

You'd think the Christians would be unhappy to be identified with the anti-evolution groups since the only conclusion to draw from their behavior is that Christianity leads to dishonesty and other forms of bad behavior. It's corrupting.

Salvador-

First of all, there is no question of interpretation here concerning Ward's quote. We're not talking about a situation where Ward meant one thing, but because of sloppy writing could be interpreted as saying something else. The reality is that Ward stated his point unambiguously in the book. The point was that the Cambrian explosion, once seen by some as a problem for evolution, no longer is. Dembski knows that was Ward's point. He nonetheless told his readers that the quote he cited was a pretty clear indicator that the Cambrian explosion was aproblem for evolution. Are you following this? Let me put it in simpler terms:

Ward's point was X. Dembski knows this. Dembski told his readers that Ward's point was (not X). Therefore, Dembski lied.

This is hardly an isolated occurrence with Dembski, but since he chose to bring this one up, and since the facts were so simple and so clear in this case, I thought it would be a good chance to see how you would a handle a clear instance of your hero caught in a lie. Now I know.

Now, as Andrea Bottaro has pointed out here, it is obvious that you haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about when it comes to molecular clocks. I thank him for writing at such length. I have pointed out to you during your talks that you are incredibly confused about Carl Woese's work, among many other things. It would have required a talk as long as yours to correct all of the false statements you made during the talk you gave here.

But when confronted with your own ignorance, you don't make any attempt to correct yourself or to get it right the next time. Instead you blather about your credentials. Or you complain about intemperate remarks from other commenters. But it is not your credentials that are at issue. The reason you are treated so shabbily here is that you make it clear over and over again that you are talking about things you do not understand. You cite technical papers such as Woese or Parsons, without seeming to have any understanding of what those papers actually say.

You go on to talk about Dembski's “deadly accuracy” on all sorts of issues. But what examples do you give? A quote from Dembski about people on my side having a zero-concession policy toward people on yours? That's total nonsense. People on my side concede nothing to people on yours not because of some policy but because every argument coming from the Dembskis of the world is wrong. Most of his arguments are wrong for truly obvious reasons. The anger comes from being distracted from more serious work to have to deal with religiously-motivated frauds who don't actually have any interest in doing science.

So when it comes time to document your assertion that Dembski has been deadly accurate about so many things, you make no mention at all of any particular scientific accomplishments. You do not, because you can not. Instead you go on and on about converting the next generation or sowing the seeds of doubt in children. From this I conclude that the science means nothing to you. This is all about public relations. If it weren't, you wouldn't take such pride in being able to bamboozle fifteen year-olds, or brag about winning the support of people who know nothing about science, but like their religion a great deal.

But where things get really creepy is when you talk about Dembski being “revered,” or people “following” him. That's not how scientists talk. That's how cultists talk.

The pattern is clear. Most of the time you argue credentials, or polls, or how many freshmen bio majors you can claim for your side. When you're not doing that you are writing about William Dembski as if he were the Second Coming. Every once in a while you actually write something about science, and when you do you inevitably embarrass yourself. When it is pointed out to you that you have embarrassed yourself you immediately return to your boasting about your credentials or the books on your shelf or how much smarter you are than those who are criticizing you, or how your side is winning the PR battle.

In short, I feel I have learned a lot about you from your comments on this thread. I've learned that my previous willingness to give you the benefit of the doubt was misplaced. I've learned that you are just another ID hack who sees this as a religious campaign. The facts of science are apparently irrelevant to you. You are willing to discard the most basic standards of scholarly integrity if upholding them would require you to criticize William Dembski.

I'm disappointed in you, but mostly I'm disappointed in myself for not having seen through you more quickly.

So how is ID any different from Marxism in the '60s? Just because you get a bunch of young people to believe something doesn't mean it's true. Especially if the reason they're doing it is because of a taste for "rebellion" rather than the merits.

Well, Dr. Rosenhouse, I'm sorry you feel that way about me. I clearly disagree in your assessment, but I respect your freedom to offer your opinions. I do thank you though for keeping our dialogue civil between you and me, both here and before the students of your school.

regards,
Salvador

Observing this consistent refusal to reason scientifically convinced me that HIV-science is pseudo-science, and that its inflated claims are unworthy of belief. . . . A candid discussion of HIV and AIDS statistics would make clear that the extent of the "epidemic" has been exaggerated, and that the incidence of HIV infection in the United States is not increasing. . . . . . . the closed mindset and intellectual dishonesty that rules HIV research. . . . In short, the problem with HIV-science is not that any single piece of evidence conclusively falsifies the theory that a pandemic caused by HIV is ravaging the planet. It is that evidence is piling up in all directions that cumulatively calls every aspect of the theory in question. The HIV-scientists respond with the usual weapons of pseudoscience: unexamined assumptions; ad hoc, question-begging arguments; reliance upon the least reliable evidence rather than the most reliable; manipulation of statistics, and even outright misrepresentation. It is time for the scientific community to insist that HIV- science be abandoned, and that real science take its place.

I've done what I can to give your side as much of a fair hearing in their eyes, and I will continue to do so. That said, the presence of Great White Wonder and Lenny Flank are God's gifts to the ID movement, they help burn what little bridges PandasThumb may be seeking to build toward the young

In regards to me telling the truth or me being mistaken about the facts, I'll let my audiences at the university decide.

I well mention several bio majors graduated from Jason's school this last Weekend, disbelieving Darwinian evolution.

Dr. Bottaro only demonstrated the reasons that the students are turning a deaf ear to the Darwinist side by his responses to position.

There are empirical inconsistencies between the predictions of the molecular clock when mutation rates are directly obvserved. The presumption is the experiments were somehow wrong becuase the grand claims of Darwinian evolution are a fact. None of the publishers of those papers was willing to say perhaps the grand theory of Darwin was wrong, their research some how happened upon an anomaly, when in fact there is a good chance they only uncovered a major, un reparable flaw in Darwinian evolution.

If anyone is ignoring the empirical evidence, and sound theoretical reasoning, it is the Darwinists.

It is becoming clear which side has the demographic advantage in terms of sympathy. The recent graduation of bio majors graduating James Madison University and other secular universities who believe in ID is a taste of things to come. They may be few in number, but there is a strong prospect that will change.

The students should have a chance to decide for themselves, and I'm happy to report a postive trend toward belief in design.

The graduation of ID friendly biology majors from James Madison this last weekend is enough to keep many like myself excited about the prospects for "ID, the future."

Let's settle this controversy once and for all. The only reason the molecular clock runs fast and slow is because it was designed wrong.

The clock I got from K-Mart has the same problem.

There are empirical inconsistencies between the predictions of the molecular clock when mutation rates are directly obvserved. The presumption is the experiments were somehow wrong becuase the grand claims of Darwinian evolution are a fact. None of the publishers of those papers was willing to say perhaps the grand theory of Darwin was wrong, their research some how happened upon an anomaly, when in fact there is a good chance they only uncovered a major, un reparable flaw in Darwinian evolution.

— Sal

And remember, Sal is on the record as willing to take a grenade for Dembski so that Dembski can avoid answering his critics...
At all cost the 'Messiah' has to be protected from criticism and exposure. Luckily enough Dembski seems to be unable to stay quiet and on his own blog presents much evidence of why ID is scientifically vacuous. On PT he is 'helped' by Sal who shows an unwillingness to learn about the Cambrian or phylogeny. My prediction? He will start rambling about some irrelevant topics again.

Sal quoting: One of the Doctoral students I know doing research in the field said, "What if I put random data into these algorithms [phylogeny software]. What would happen in that case." He generated a lot random data, put in the software and they created trees.

Intelligent design, Cordova notes, does not even attempt to prove the type of deity involved, it just points to some sort of supernatural intervention.

"The critical thinking and precision of science began to really affect my ability to just believe something without any tangible evidence,"

— Sal

Sancho Cordova is

1) helping point out that ID is religion in disguise
2) "do[ing] a disservice to religious faith"

I call that a two-fer.

If anyone is ignoring the empirical evidence, and sound theoretical reasoning, it is the Darwinists.

The graduation of ID friendly biology majors from James Madison this last weekend is enough to keep many like myself excited about the prospects for "ID, the future."

"So how is ID any different from Marxism in the '60s? "

marxism makes more sense.