Dembski: "Moving On" from ID

freedom through education via technology

In upcoming several articles I will explore specific proposals for breaking up illegitimate concentrations of power that undermine our freedoms. In so doing, I will attempt to take radical decentralization from the drawing board to the next level, what engineers call “proof of concept.” The first thing I will focus on is money. Money is a social technology, but its current technological sophistication is still in the dark ages, despite the fact that computers rather than abacuses now count it. I’m going to propose a radically decentralized, information-based form of money that owes nothing to the state. Stay tuned. [2015 note: what I have in mind is more radical than bitcoin.]

The well has gone dry. Time for him to find another well to pump, so to speak.

Mr. Dembski,

You have been promising to flesh out the "theory" of ID for twenty years now. Quite frankly, you have convinced no one with the tortured mathematical treatment you have so far managed. If you cannot get a coherent theory accepted in a peer reviewed journal, it is disingenuous in the extreme to turn to education. It is apparent that you are not interested in science or in knowledge, but merely want to target the most vulnerable and gullible with unsubstantiated claims. Really, it is time to stop this charade and give up. You have lost, admit it.

His "About" page has more details:

"Bill Dembski is presently an entrepreneur who builds educational software and websites."

https://billdembski.com/about/

Has Dembski been promising to flesh out a theory?

A past philosophy professor, he retired in 2014 from active research and teaching in intelligent design (ID) to focus on the connections between freedom, technology, and education — specifically, how education helps to advance human freedom with the aid of technology.

We are now justified in making the claim that an increasing number of researchers are abandoning ID. Well the number did increase by one.

my 23-years focused on ID

Maybe it's just me, but the phrase "radical decentralization and freedom" has a whiff of pent-up frustration about it.

"Wrong people are wrong because they think their high ideals give them the moral authority to impose their ideals on the rest of us. Wrong people are wrong because they presume to know so much better than the rest of us what is best for us and are eager to force their conception of what is best on us."

"The Principle of Radical Decentralization bypasses the wrong people entirely."

So he's going full McLeroy?

"The watchword for recovering our freedoms is decentralization."

With a dash of "states rights", morphed into "community rights", tossed in, I wager.

"I’m going to propose a radically decentralized, information-based form of money that owes nothing to the state."

Well, nothing could possibly go wrong there...
It will be interesting to see if this gets fleshed out any better than ID.

Joe Felsenstein said: There is no indication that Dembski is retracting anything he said about evolution. His co-authors Robert Marks and Winston Ewert are continuing to advocate for his most recent arguments. On his blog the most recent item is a re-post of an essay he wrote in 2010, calling for "radical decentralization" of society. It has some addenda dated recently. He ends with these sentences:

In upcoming several articles I will explore specific proposals for breaking up illegitimate concentrations of power that undermine our freedoms. In so doing, I will attempt to take radical decentralization from the drawing board to the next level, what engineers call “proof of concept.” The first thing I will focus on is money. Money is a social technology, but its current technological sophistication is still in the dark ages, despite the fact that computers rather than abacuses now count it. I’m going to propose a radically decentralized, information-based form of money that owes nothing to the state. Stay tuned. [2015 note: what I have in mind is more radical than bitcoin.]

So no, he does not seem to be trying to put out software related to Intelligent Design. What he intends to do seems to have nothing to do with Intelligent Design. Arguing for or against his new projects would therefore seem to be Off Topic here.

Reading his "About" page yesterday almost made me feel sorry for the man.

The proper word is hubris.

Here is the google definition of bitcoin.

Bitcoin is the currency of the Internet: a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Unlike traditional currencies such as dollars, bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin.

This guy can't even come up with a bad idea on his own.

But was Friedman merely suggesting that, as leaven diffuses through dough, the right ideas need simply permeate the culture to transform the political climate of opinion and thus bring the wrong people to heel? Reality check: How’s that working out for society at large? Are the wrong people doing the right thing because academics have come up with bright ideas for bringing about the right political climate of opinion? Have the wrong people stopped doing wrong things, such as passing laws that undercut our freedoms or imposing regulations that suffocate small businesses? Are the wrong people still rewarding indolence and apathy, penalizing talent and industry? To pose these questions is to answer them.

Slavery in enlightened liberal democracies is more subtle than in times past, but its marks are readily discerned: An indignant minority identifies a problem, real or imagined, whose solution it regards as absolutely critical to humanity’s well-being. The minority is indignant because the unwashed masses (of which I’m a card-carrying member) are seen – through their greed, inattention, or waste – to be significantly contributing to the problem. The unwashed masses need to change their ways. The solution the minority lights upon, however, entails significant costs, which the unwashed masses are not eager to bear. Bypassing the will of the people, the minority use the power of the state to extract those costs, rationalizing that this violation of freedoms is justified because the problem is so severe. Marxist socialism, liberal progressivism, extremist environmentalism all follow this pattern.

His doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988 focused on chaos and uniform probability, ...

Carl Zimmer said: His "About" page has more details: "Bill Dembski is presently an entrepreneur who builds educational software and websites." https://billdembski.com/about/

Reading his article he seems to have the strange twisted logic that giving others equality under the law is taking away his freedom. My guess is that Dembski always likes money and he is trying to break into the lucrative far right wacko market that don't recognise the government and taxes etc.
I also think that he is more intelligent than the average IDer (who thinks that Darwinism is on the brink of failing) and can see that they have made zero inroads into the scientific establishment and that society is getting more secular.

He put the Jon Stewart show in his list of accomplishments! Really Bill? Really? He was made to look like a fool on that show.

Well he is certainly free to develop a formula for calculating the amount of complex specified information in an organism. Twenty three years and not even a formula, let alone an actual calculation. Who exactly does he think is preventing him from doing that?

And of course, even if he did ever come up with something mathematically reasonable, he would still have to prove that cumulative selection was incapable of producing the result. No wonder he gave up. The Man sure is sticking it to him. It's really taking away his freedom to substitute pseudo science for real science.

Karen Spivey said:

He put the Jon Stewart show in his list of accomplishments! Really Bill? Really? He was made to look like a fool on that show.

He was smart enough to leave off his guest appearance at the American Museum of Natural History.

DS said: Twenty three years and not even a formula, let alone an actual calculation. Who exactly does he think is preventing him from doing that?

Dumbski has screwed up every job he's ever had.

Could be that even the Disco Tute has dropped him. How much of a fuck up do you have to be to get the Disco Tute to drop you?

He means he is moving on to a new full concentration. Not rejecting ID. He has presented his ideas and there they are. Anymore is just repeating himself.
He has become famous because his ideas were a important part of a revolution in the circles that seriously study origins etc.
In the future he will be seen as a noteworthy contributor to scientific accuracy about nature.
Pandas Thumb is right to note his career move. He is one of the reasons PT exists.
I'm sure people in the future will say he was a great inspiration to their thinking on science and origins or any subject.
He truly went against the establishment and is in that group of visionaries who question presumptions in any subject.
I think he is more worthy of these science awards then many who do less.
I hope he takes a few shots now and then but wish him continued success in bringing freedom to areas he learned were not free as the ideal presents.

He means he is moving on to a new full concentration.

Robert Byers said: He has become famous...

Bugs Byers said: He has presented his ideas and there they are.

Bugs Byers said: I hope he takes a few shots now and then

Doc Bill said: Dumbski has screwed up every job he's ever had. Could be that even the Disco Tute has dropped him. How much of a fuck up do you have to be to get the Disco Tute to drop you?

Doc Bill said: Dumbski has screwed up every job he's ever had. Could be that even the Disco Tute has dropped him. How much of a fuck up do you have to be to get the Disco Tute to drop you?

Lots of interesting comments in this thread.

But the most interesting, are the ones Dr. William Dembski offered about his career.

It's pretty safe to say (and please correct me if I'm wrong), that NOBODY currently residing in Pandaville has accomplished as much as Dr. Dembski has over the past two decades.

1. Author/editor of more than 20 books.

2. Has written peer-reviewed articles spanning mathematics, engineering, philosophy, and theology.

3. Was the Phillip E. Johnson Research Professor of Culture and Science at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina, where he helped head its Institute of Scientific Apologetics. SES awarded him an honorary doctorate in 2011.

3. Research Professor in Philosophy at Southwestern Seminary in Ft. Worth, where he directed its Center for Cultural Engagement.

4. Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at Southern Seminary in Louisville, where he founded its Center for Theology and Science.

5. Headed the first intelligent design think-tank at a major research university: The Michael Polanyi Center, at Baylor University.

6. Postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University.

7. Received a $100,000 Templeton Foundation research grant, which issued in two books: No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence (published 2002) and Being As Communion: A Metaphysics of Information (published 2014).

8. Christianity Today‘s Book of the Year Award for two of this books.

9. Three front page stories in the New York Times as well as the August 15, 2005 Time magazine cover story on intelligent design. Multiple appearances and interviews with various media outlets, including hostiles like Jon Stewart.

10. Lectured widely at colleges and universities and appeared on radio and television. I can attest to this one personally, because I watched Dr. Dembski defeat Michael Shermer at Washburn University.

(It was a close debate because both guys are good, but Dembski was clearly the superior man on both Power-Point and Video. He left the lasting images and lasting impressions with the audience. Excellent winning presentation.)

****

Okay, that's 10 items and that's not everything. Anybody here come close to Dembsti's track record?

I don't blame you for hating on him, for William Dembski (along with Michael Behe) has literally changed the entire face of the American origins debate over the past two decades.

Before those two guys appeared, I actually avoided discussing, the origins controversy, even though I believed in the Genesis creation account. No joke. Didn't have the confidence to speak out and publicly question evolution.

That situation, of course, has totally changed because of William Dembski and Michael Behe (and other non-Darwinists, of course).

FL

Dembski's "resume" is shallow and superficial. His "mathematics" is, at best, only at the high school level; and it has absolutely nothinhg to do with how things actually work in the real world.

One can make the same observation about Jason Lisle and all the other ID/creationist "theorists" and their socio/political activist following.

In stark contrast, most of us who have actually worked in pure and applied research during the time that ID/creationism has been engaging in its socio/political war against secular society have far larger resumes and have accomplished far far more than have any of these ID/creationist chatacters who are always padding their resumes and trying to grab the social spotlight. Science isn't about a social ego trip.

FL hasd absolutely no clue about how different real accomplishments are from the consciously manufactured images ID/creationist characters create for themselves.

FL said: William Dembski (along with Michael Behe) has literally changed the entire face of the American origins debate over the past two decades. Before those two guys appeared, I actually avoided discussing, the origins controversy, even though I believed in the Genesis creation account. No joke. Didn't have the confidence to speak out and publicly question evolution. That situation, of course, has totally changed because of William Dembski and Michael Behe (and other non-Darwinists, of course).

Well you knew Floyd would show up sooner or later. He just hates to see rational people celebrate a win, like when someone stops pushing pseudoscience and gives up on the failed idea of ID. And of course his defense of Dembski is simply delusional. It was a completely failed career by any standard. But I guess you have to pretend it was a success if that's the best you can do.

So Floyd, do you agree with Dembski that common descent is true? Yes or no? If yes then stop being an asshole and pretending that it isn't. If no then stop singing the praises of Dembski. Those are your only choices.

Floyd, your hero also claims that Behe believes in universal common descent. How about it? Are they wrong? If you think they are mistaken, why do you worship them so? If you think they are right, why do you denigrate the established science they support? You can't have it both ways sunshine.

By the way, Bill claims that intelligent design cannot explain your scrotum Floyd. Well, does it or doesn't it? Once again, is Billy wrong about this? What is your explanation for your scrotum? How about your prostate Floyd? Does intelligent design explain that? Man, you sure got a lot of splainin to do.

"Institute of Scientific Apologetics". Snicker. And yet, somehow, ID isn't religion.

John Harshman said: "Institute of Scientific Apologetics". Snicker. And yet, somehow, ID isn't religion.

hrafn said:

Robert Byers said: He has become famous...

Dembski is "famous"? Only among ardent creationists and creationism-watchers. The wider public doesn't know him from Adam. Google Trends for example gives him only one tenth the impact of Ken Ham, who is a genuinely famous Creationist.

Robert Byers said:

hrafn said:

Robert Byers said: He has become famous...

Dembski is "famous"? Only among ardent creationists and creationism-watchers. The wider public doesn't know him from Adam. Google Trends for example gives him only one tenth the impact of Ken Ham, who is a genuinely famous Creationist.

Suew he's famous. He's been on tv shows, for what thats worth, and amongst educated peoples, more so, on these issues his name is known. Its more then you might realize. All of academia knows about the iD threat and most would recognize his name I think. Gam reaches the common people more and the creationist hordes. I'm not sure about the educated upper class. hey he might be on a stamp one day.

DS said:

John Harshman said: "Institute of Scientific Apologetics". Snicker. And yet, somehow, ID isn't religion.

They claim that graduates of this program must demonstrate their proficiency in science. Yet, as far as I can tell, they offer only four courses in science: SC404 Biblical and Scientific Perspectives on Human Origins: 3 hours / 3 credits SC403 Chemistry; Molecular Biology: 3 hours / 3 credits SC401 Evolutionary Biology; Intelligent Design: 3 hours / 3 credits SC402 Physics and Astronomy: 3 hours / 3 credits And two of these courses are most likely just more bible preaching. Hard to tell about the other two from the titles, but it is likely that there is very little science in any of them. They do offer about thirty different course on bible studies, so I guess they do get a well rounded education.

AP810 Scientific Christian Apologetics A defense of the orthodox Christian faith in view of the primary current challenges to it expressed in contemporary science, including philosophy of science and creation/evolution. Scientific Apologetics SC501 (401, 801) Evolutionary Biology and Intelligent Design 3 hours A study of neo-Darwinian principles for evolutionary biology, including aspects of natural history (macro-evolution) and population changes (micro- evolution). Problems with the neo-Darwinian paradigm will be surveyed, and and major aspects of Intelligent Design theory will be explored. SC502 (402, 802) Physics and Astronomy 3 hours A study of cosmology (the origin of the universe) and astronomy, including various models of the origin of the universe, cosmic fine-tuning, astro-biology and the origin of our particular galaxy, solar system, and planet; all with an eye toward design. SC503 (403, 803) Chemistry and Molecular Biology 3 hours A study of the various ways in which chemistry, biochemistry and molecular biology reveal design that includes fine-tuning at the level of inorganic chemistry and evidence of intelligence arising from biochemical and molecular biological sub-systems. SC504 (404, 804) Chemistry and Molecular Biology 3 hours A study of the key concepts in human origins and advances in paleoanthropology. Emphasis is placed on the case for the historical Adam and Eve. A practical emphasis is on using insights from genetics and paleontological research for apologetics and evangelism.

I notice you didn't answer my question Bobby. Why is that" Are you ascared? I'll repeat it, one more time. Do you agree with Dembski that common descent is true? He is famous after all right?

Michael Fugate said: A study of the key concepts in human origins and advances in paleoanthropology. Emphasis is placed on the case for the historical Adam and Eve.

So right. They are all just a bunch of bible thumping nonsense. Thanks.

In spite of the Discovery Institute's protestations, the overwhelming majority of creationists believe intelligent design and creationism are fully interchangeable. They also have no clue about what science is or how it is done.

But the most interesting, are the ones Dr. William Dembski offered about his career. It's pretty safe to say (and please correct me if I'm wrong), that NOBODY currently residing in Pandaville has accomplished as much as Dr. Dembski has over the past two decades.

To clarify, my previous comment was in response to FL's post.

Robert Byers said: (Dembski) might be on a stamp one day.

David Carlson said:

But the most interesting, are the ones Dr. William Dembski offered about his career. It's pretty safe to say (and please correct me if I'm wrong), that NOBODY currently residing in Pandaville has accomplished as much as Dr. Dembski has over the past two decades.

You do realize that Joe Felsenstein is a regular contributor to this website, right?

David Carlson said:

But the most interesting, are the ones Dr. William Dembski offered about his career. It's pretty safe to say (and please correct me if I'm wrong), that NOBODY currently residing in Pandaville has accomplished as much as Dr. Dembski has over the past two decades.

You do realize that Joe Felsenstein is a regular contributor to this website, right?

Robert Byers said: Suew he's famous. He's been on tv shows, for what thats worth, and amongst educated peoples, more so, on these issues his name is known. Its more then you might realize. All of academia knows about the iD threat and most would recognize his name I think. Gam reaches the common people more and the creationist hordes. I'm not sure about the educated upper class. hey he might be on a stamp one day.

So is this Bill's version of declaring victory and going home? Thank goodness he never stooped to our pathetic level of detail in his work on ID.

I'd say I've accomplished a lot more than Dembski, if you count only real contributions to knowledge. Of course that isn't a high bar.

I have since realised that by "Gam" Byers meant (Ken) Ham. Yes, Ham has more impact on "the common people", no, Dembski has not had substantively more impact on "the educated upper class" -- both have had a negligible impact (which also means that measuring, let alone comparing, this impact becomes problematical).

Our cleaning lady told me today she saw me on TV yesterday. She said it was a PBS show about Palm Springs California history, and that the clip was from maybe 20 years ago.

Might have been. I'll take her word for it. I don't remember. I do remember ~20 years ago spending an hour with CNN stringers talking about science education and Native American kids. They used 15 seconds. Those 15 seconds were when I said some stupid things.

What made me sad for Dembski was that he peaked at Baylor, and in his victory dance fell into the pit. If he had anything in reserve, he might have tried a comeback in Kitzmiller v Dover. Instead, he pocketed the "expert witness" money and bailed out. His ID creationism was bankrupt from the beginning. But he was at least not as stupid as Casey the attack gerbil.

Discussion of Dembski moving on and (more recently of) Casey Luskin, brings to mind a question of where the ID movement stands in terms of generational handoff. Many of the first generation of ID advocates are nearing retirement age, but there seems to be nobody to replace them. Yes, Luskin spins like a top on speed, but appears to garner little traction (apologies for the appallingly-mixed metaphor), and ID does not seem to be gaining any new recently-doctorated or recently-tenured rising stars (Jonathan McLatchie would appear to be the likeliest candidate, but he hasn't made many waves). What little new intellectual heft ID has been attempting to generate recently has not come from some new star, but from one of its founders, Stephen Meyer, moving from working behind the scenes to coming forward to put a new gloss on a couple of ID's older arguments -- CSI (in SitC) and the Cambrian (in DD).

Will ID and the DI simply fade away when Meyer retires?

hrafn said: Will ID and the DI simply fade away when Meyer retires?

Dr GS Hurd said: Good question. Michael Denton has supposedly rediscovered creationism in a soon to be published book. I suppose they will keep dribbling out IDiot crap for decades, depending on the Last Will and Testament of Segerstrom. Where there is a billionaire's Will, there is a Way!

hrafn said:

Dr GS Hurd said: Good question. Michael Denton has supposedly rediscovered creationism in a soon to be published book. I suppose they will keep dribbling out IDiot crap for decades, depending on the Last Will and Testament of Segerstrom. Where there is a billionaire's Will, there is a Way!

Denton is in his 70s. I doubt if even the "billionaire’s Will" will keep ID alive when they get to the stage of needing a Ouiji Board to talk to its leading lights. Though I suppose the idea of a CGI-resurrected ID advocate does have a certain frisson to it. ;)

Dr GS Hurd said:

hrafn said: Will ID and the DI simply fade away when Meyer retires?

Good question. Michael Denton has supposedly rediscovered creationism in a soon to be published book. I suppose they will keep dribbling out IDiot crap for decades, depending on the Last Will and Testament of Segerstrom. Where there is a billionaire's Will, there is a Way!

FL said: First, over the past two decades, ID arguments have been totally infused and suffused into the YEC and OEC (and sometimes even the TE!) movements.

Second, the DI (including Dembski) have been doing major "Summer Workshops" or something like that, for collegians and grad students annually, many years.

So they've NOT been relying on luck...

By the way, even as a theistic evolutionist, Dr. Denton has always been a compelling author for Non-Darwinists of all flavors, both with Evolution A Theory in Crisis and his later book Nature's Destiny.

I know the evolutionists attacked some of the former book, but they did not have much luck attacking the latter book.

Anyway, Denton should really get credit for being influential and helping the overall Non-Darwinist revolution as well.

A couple of followup questions:

1) Who is the youngest ID advocate to have written a major work in the ID canon?

2) Who is the youngest Senior Fellow at the DI's CSC? Youngest (non-Senior) Fellow?

The answers to these questions would appear to impose a hard limit on the 'Use-by Date' of ID. I rather doubt if ID can keep its 'dog and pony show' running, when its entire leadership is past retirement age and dying off.

You are asking Floyd to provide evidence? Really? Good luck with that. He literally doesn't know the meaning of the word. As for getting him to answer questions, he will only pick out the low lying fruit and not even try to answer anything that is a little tougher. For example, he completely ignored my questions in this thread. I wonder why?

FL said: Now **there's** a seriously worthwhite question and response right there.

DS said: [Flawd] completely ignored my questions in this thread. I wonder why?

hrafn said:

FL said: First, over the past two decades, ID arguments have been totally infused and suffused into the YEC and OEC (and sometimes even the TE!) movements.

Evidence? Like citations of AiG, ICR, Biologos, or some other major YEC/TE apologetics organisation actually using Irreducible Complexity or Complex Specified Information. Otherwise this amount to nothing more than wishful thinking.

Second, the DI (including Dembski) have been doing major "Summer Workshops" or something like that, for collegians and grad students annually, many years.

Evidence that these workshops have had a "major" impact, as opposed to simply being a few seminary students 'drinking the koolaid'?

No, just on wishful thinking. No major ID work from anybody after the 'founding generation' of ID = no evidence of generational continuity.

By the way, even as a theistic evolutionist, Dr. Denton has always been a compelling author for Non-Darwinists of all flavors, both with Evolution A Theory in Crisis and his later book Nature's Destiny.

I know the evolutionists attacked some of the former book, but they did not have much luck attacking the latter book.

His first book attempted to retread that tired, long worn out creationist canard of the eminent demise of the Theory of Evolution, so its hardly surprising that it didn't get much positive press. The latter wasn't so much 'attacked' as largely ignored.

Anyway, Denton should really get credit for being influential and helping the overall Non-Darwinist revolution as well.

I have yet to see any evidence that Denton's 'influence' extended beyond the founding generation of ID advocates (who, as we have been discussing, are reaching retirement age now), nor any evidence that ID's "revolution" has been successful (how many of The Wedge Document's long term objective have been met, for example?).

DS said: You are asking Floyd to provide evidence? Really? Good luck with that. He literally doesn't know the meaning of the word. As for getting him to answer questions, he will only pick out the low lying fruit and not even try to answer anything that is a little tougher. For example, he completely ignored my questions in this thread. I wonder why?

FL said:

DS said: You are asking Floyd to provide evidence? Really? Good luck with that. He literally doesn't know the meaning of the word. As for getting him to answer questions, he will only pick out the low lying fruit and not even try to answer anything that is a little tougher. For example, he completely ignored my questions in this thread. I wonder why?

I get to be picky about it, don't I? Yep. I liked Hrafn's question and Dr. GS answer. Far more interesting than arguing about Dembski vis-a-vis common descent of scrotum. FL

FL said:

DS said: You are asking Floyd to provide evidence? Really? Good luck with that. He literally doesn't know the meaning of the word. As for getting him to answer questions, he will only pick out the low lying fruit and not even try to answer anything that is a little tougher. For example, he completely ignored my questions in this thread. I wonder why?

I get to be picky about it, don't I? Yep. I liked Hrafn's question and Dr. GS answer. Far more interesting than arguing about Dembski vis-a-vis common descent of scrotum. FL

And by the way Floyd, descent of the scrotum is indeed the issue here. Not very intelligent design by any means.

j. biggs said: Here is the google definition of bitcoin. Bitcoin is the currency of the Internet: a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Unlike traditional currencies such as dollars, bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. This guy can't even come up with a bad idea on his own.

DS said: And by the way Floyd, descent of the scrotum is indeed the issue here. Not very intelligent design by any means.

Why do my testicles hang down? Just as your body directs your scrotum to shrivel when it is cold, your body tells the scrotum to loosen up when you are too warm. Your testicles will become larger and more floppy to release extra heat. --Web MD

Question: How does the scrotum maintain favorable conditions for sperm production? (2 people responded: (1st Reply) By being outside the body, and by being able to tense or hang low - sperm has an optimum temperature for survival. The Human body is general too hot, so the scrotum is external, able to regulate its own temperature. When weather is cold, the scrotum shrinks to bring the testes closer to the body and thereby stay warm, and when weather is hot, the scrotum relaxes allowing the testes to be removed from the body and stay cooler. (2nd reply) The hotter it is the more it sags down to effectively isolate itself from the core of body temperature, thus ensuring the cooler temperature for the testicles to do their jobs.

Sorry, here's the citation for that one extended quotation:

https://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140618052839AA2rsIm

FL said: Even your Junk is intelligently and teleologically designed, and that's not even counting that your Junk is totally made up of intelligently designed cells.

FL would have us believe that AiG using the Argument from Design simpliciter (an argument several centuries older than the ID movement) is evidence of ID's influence. The ASA provides a forum for a wide range of views (including those of explicit ID advocates), so publication of a view in its journal is hardly an endorsement of these views by a major TE organisation. FL provided no citation to Hugh Ross, but as I said, non-ID OEC is too small a bit player to matter.

For the rest of his response, FL simply hand-waves around his complete inability to provide any evidence to substantiate his (often unlikely) assertions. If he cannot be bothered substantiating them, I cannot be bothered addressing them further.

He states "Time will tell." I would suggest that time has already told. In the two decades since ID's inception, it has failed to recruit any new members of sufficient stature to add to their canon, and thus give some impression that ID can continue beyond its first generation. If ID had any new ideas or new blood, would one of its founders be retreading a couple of its older ideas, rather than showcasing this new talent?

FL said:

DS said: And by the way Floyd, descent of the scrotum is indeed the issue here. Not very intelligent design by any means.

Design is design. Half-efficient or half-intelligent design is still intelligent design. And evolutionists do an amazingly poor job of coming up with superior designs to what's already there. So Hrafn's question is still much more interesting. But ifffff you want some mental exercise to keep you brain functioning for Thankgiving, go see if you can rationally refute THIS design information, all ye Pandas:

Why do my testicles hang down? Just as your body directs your scrotum to shrivel when it is cold, your body tells the scrotum to loosen up when you are too warm. Your testicles will become larger and more floppy to release extra heat. --Web MD

Question: How does the scrotum maintain favorable conditions for sperm production? (2 people responded: (1st Reply) By being outside the body, and by being able to tense or hang low - sperm has an optimum temperature for survival. The Human body is general too hot, so the scrotum is external, able to regulate its own temperature. When weather is cold, the scrotum shrinks to bring the testes closer to the body and thereby stay warm, and when weather is hot, the scrotum relaxes allowing the testes to be removed from the body and stay cooler. (2nd reply) The hotter it is the more it sags down to effectively isolate itself from the core of body temperature, thus ensuring the cooler temperature for the testicles to do their jobs.

Okay, there you go. YOU are the final proof of Intelligent Design. Even your Junk is intelligently and teleologically designed, and that's not even counting that your Junk is totally made up of intelligently designed cells. Go figure! And happy holidays! FL

FL said: Why do my testicles hang down?

The Biochemistry department at my university using one article from Calvert and Harris on ID for a philosophy of science assignment given to the 3rd year Biochem majors. Basically, they get given the article and asked to explain if,based on the arguments it contained, ID counted as science or not in 8000 words or fewer.

Strangely enough, no one has ever tried to argue in favour of it. Most of the students in my year spent a lot of time cursing the lecturer for making them read religious drivel.

I agreed with the authors that ID wasn't science. I disagreed with their opinion that this was a bad thing.

By being outside the body, and by being able to tense or hang low - sperm has an optimum temperature for survival. The Human body is general too hot, so the scrotum is external, able to regulate its own temperature.

phhht said:

Robert Byers said:

hrafn said:

Robert Byers said: He has become famous...

Dembski is "famous"? Only among ardent creationists and creationism-watchers. The wider public doesn't know him from Adam. Google Trends for example gives him only one tenth the impact of Ken Ham, who is a genuinely famous Creationist.

Suew he's famous. He's been on tv shows, for what thats worth, and amongst educated peoples, more so, on these issues his name is known. Its more then you might realize. All of academia knows about the iD threat and most would recognize his name I think. Gam reaches the common people more and the creationist hordes. I'm not sure about the educated upper class. hey he might be on a stamp one day.

Robert, if Dembski is famous, it is for being a deluded fool and a charlatan. The "ID threat" is comparable to the astrology threat and the UFO threat.

hrafn said:

Robert Byers said: Suew he's famous. He's been on tv shows, for what thats worth, and amongst educated peoples, more so, on these issues his name is known. Its more then you might realize. All of academia knows about the iD threat and most would recognize his name I think. Gam reaches the common people more and the creationist hordes. I'm not sure about the educated upper class. hey he might be on a stamp one day.

1) 'As seen on TV'? ROFLMAO! Do you know how many thousands of people briefly appear on TV shows each year? This is setting the bar for being "famous" ludicrously low. 2) Dembski's target audience isn't "educated peoples [sic]", but the innumerate, who go along to his lectures, don't understand a word of it, but applaud anyway because it 'proves' that Creationism is real sciencey. Among mathematicians (the few who have even noticed him), his work is regarded as "Written in Jello" and hopelessly informal. Among evolutionary biologists (likewise the few), his work is regarded as hopelessly irrelevant to actual evolutionary processes. 3) Almost none of academia has even heard of him -- mostly just creationism-watchers. He has never published in mainstream mathematical or biological journals. What tiny academic profile he does have is likely to be on Robert Marks' coattails in the field of Electrical Engineering. 4) I have no idea what you meant by "Gam [sic?]". 5) Dembski has as much chance of being on a postage stamp as Duane Gish -- both have had their ardent following, but in the end are less-than-towering figures in quixotic attempts to obstruct science -- celebrated by said ardent followers in their day, but soon relegated to a footnote in history.

Comment witheld.
'Nuff said.

1) Byers is "sure he’s been on lots" of important shows, without giving any impression that he has the first idea what shows Dembski has actually been on. In other words, his argument for "as seen on TV" is simply wishful thinking.

2) Byers is sure that Dembski's "target audience is educated people", in spite of the fact that those with the best "understanding" of his work, mathematicians, think his work is "written in jello" and hopelessly informal. This would lead to the obvious conclusion that the best way to have a positive appreciation of Dembski's work is to have no understanding whatsoever of the maths involved (a target audience I'm sure Byers is well qualified for).

3) I rather doubt if Byers reads the primary literature in Evolutionary Biology or Information Theory, so would suggest that he doesn't have the first idea what the relevant "academia" does, or does not "address" ("directly" or "indirectly"). I am however quite sure that he's read numerous EN&V posts where their resident hacks torture logic to claim that this paper or that is somehow related to ID.

Scott F said: Good Lord! FL is using the scrotum as an example of, wait for it, "intelligent design"?? Seriously? The scrotum is nothing more than an ad hoc evolutionary "work around" for a problem that shouldn't even exist for something that is "designed". It is one of the most obvious examples of Evolution in action. He even quoted this:

By being outside the body, and by being able to tense or hang low - sperm has an optimum temperature for survival. The Human body is general too hot, so the scrotum is external, able to regulate its own temperature.

Seriously? So, here (according to FL) is an "intelligently designed" creature, a mammal, able to maintain an almost constant internal body temperature, despite whatever the weather is like outside, a temperature that seems to be pretty optimal for survival, yet the temperature that it maintains is the *WRONG* temperature for the MOST IMPORTANT cells in the male body, those cells that enable the next generation to exist. How "intelligent" is *that*? Seems like pretty "stupid" and "incompetent" design to me. Yet, it is just the kind of ad hoc "design" that evolution would be expected to come up with. Amphibians, insects, and fish don't seem to have any problem with keeping their testes inside their bodies where the sperm are safer, and they don't have a means of maintaining any kind of optimum body temperature, yet they seem to survive and thrive just fine. FL succeeds in an "own goal" yet again.

Malcolm said: If your scrotum was designed, your testes would start out there.

Robert Byers said: Then you agree he's famous! Id the ID threat was like UFO/astrology why is there this blog which is well attended by sell degree-ed sciency people or intelligent observers of science ?? There is no such blogs to deal with UFO's. etc ID is a famous threat in our times and likely will be brought up in the next great election contentions here and there. NOTUFO's. your analyst of this might hint at your analysis ability of the merits of evolution. Give the man his due! give the men doe's who seriously believe they need and can and do take him on.

In partial 'defence' not of their views, but of their lack of understanding, I can see why FL and Byers might think that Dembski has an impressive career. To someone who knows nothing about how academia and universities work, it really might look like D. has done a lot in his career. Wow, 11 jobs! Wow, all those publications! Of course, a below-average professor 10 to 20 years into a career typically would have a much longer service record than this. And me, I never finished my PhD yet my peer-reviewed publication record is almost as long as that of Dr. Right-wing Creep.

The market for the far-right homeschool stuff likely has dried up a little since the chimp in the White House left in 2009. But there's enough out there to sustain a modest career for D. probably. So he can make a buck helping parents teach their children gays are evil and liberals are traitors. On one level, I feel sorry for D. I don't believe in souls so I speak figuratively when I say that D. has soiled his soul. Pathetic end to the career of an arrogant hater.

Robert Byers said: [Dembski] means he is moving on to a new full concentration. Not rejecting ID. He has presented his ideas and there they are. Anymore is just repeating himself. He has become famous because his ideas were a important part of a revolution in the circles that seriously study origins etc. In the future he will be seen as a noteworthy contributor to scientific accuracy about nature. Pandas Thumb is right to note his career move. He is one of the reasons PT exists. I'm sure people in the future will say he was a great inspiration to their thinking on science and origins or any subject. He truly went against the establishment and is in that group of visionaries who question presumptions in any subject. I think he is more worthy of these science awards then many who do less. I hope he takes a few shots now and then but wish him continued success in bringing freedom to areas he learned were not free as the ideal presents.

Robert Byers said: Then you agree he's famous! Id the ID threat was like UFO/astrology why is there this blog which is well attended by sell degree-ed sciency people or intelligent observers of science ?? There is no such blogs to deal with UFO's. etc ID is a famous threat in our times and likely will be brought up in the next great election contentions here and there. NOTUFO's. your analyst of this might hint at your analysis ability of the merits of evolution. Give the man his due! give the men doe's who seriously believe they need and can and do take him on.

Robert Byers said: Some tv shows are seen as more important and more watched and I'm sure he's been on lots. iN short TV says he has mattered. Good grief. his target audience is educated people. the rest couldn't in understanding or interest keep attentive. Everywhere i look ID,not yEC, is addressed directly and indirectly by academia. These folks do remember the names and persons of the leaders of this intellectual threat. Sure they do. Are you the only one in your circles that recognizes his name or cause? He is already a accomplished science innovator winner. Time will only tell if he becomes history famous in science of a famous failure in science. This is a story in our times of science investigation into the uniquely important matter of origins to humans. Sure it is.

Another Intelligent Design Fail

Eight Challenges for Intelligent Design Advocates

phhht said:

Another Intelligent Design Fail

phhht said:

Eight Challenges for Intelligent Design Advocates

phhht said:

Another Intelligent Design Fail

TomS said: A bear femur is a once-living thing, and thus is the product of "Intelligent Design". How can "Intelligent Design" distinguish between different designs?

FL said:

DS said: And by the way Floyd, descent of the scrotum is indeed the issue here. Not very intelligent design by any means.

Design is design. Half-efficient or half-intelligent design is still intelligent design. And evolutionists do an amazingly poor job of coming up with superior designs to what's already there. So Hrafn's question is still much more interesting. But ifffff you want some mental exercise to keep you brain functioning for Thankgiving, go see if you can rationally refute THIS design information, all ye Pandas:

Why do my testicles hang down? Just as your body directs your scrotum to shrivel when it is cold, your body tells the scrotum to loosen up when you are too warm. Your testicles will become larger and more floppy to release extra heat. --Web MD

Question: How does the scrotum maintain favorable conditions for sperm production? (2 people responded: (1st Reply) By being outside the body, and by being able to tense or hang low - sperm has an optimum temperature for survival. The Human body is general too hot, so the scrotum is external, able to regulate its own temperature. When weather is cold, the scrotum shrinks to bring the testes closer to the body and thereby stay warm, and when weather is hot, the scrotum relaxes allowing the testes to be removed from the body and stay cooler. (2nd reply) The hotter it is the more it sags down to effectively isolate itself from the core of body temperature, thus ensuring the cooler temperature for the testicles to do their jobs.

Okay, there you go. YOU are the final proof of Intelligent Design. Even your Junk is intelligently and teleologically designed, and that's not even counting that your Junk is totally made up of intelligently designed cells. Go figure! And happy holidays! FL

I really cannot comprehend how these guys don’t notice that, in the first sentence they postulate an all-powerful, omniscient, time-warping super deity… and then right next they concede that this marvelous being is always being held down and contrained by the laws of nature, unable to break them or bend them to his mighty will.

Daniel said: I really cannot comprehend how these guys don't notice that, in the first sentence they postulate an all-powerful, omniscient, time-warping super deity... and then right next they concede that this marvelous being is always being held down and contrained by the laws of nature, unable to break them or bend them to his mighty will. Why couldn't god just make it so that our testicles wouldn't care how hot it is?? Now that would be miracle.. if I could put my unmentionables in a volcano and still have them functioning, then maybe I would start believing in god. If I could walk around without lungs or a heart, breaking every law of nature, then maybe I would start believing in god. But no... he can only do what nature says is possible to do.

Does anybody have a theory why FL continues to post here? Everybody here knows that ID is dead and I'd say most people posting here would have read more about ID than FL. However, he is here trying to kid us that ID is healthy and Darwinism is about to collapse. This goes beyond just being self deluded.

I feel sorry for Dembski and in some way Behe. I think that they believed and still believe that evolution is mathematically impossible but are smart enough to realise that the criticism of their work was true (although they can never admit it). Reading between the lines they both hoped that teams of ID researchers would take their work and find that smoking gun.

The rest of the diminishing ID industry are hucksters or just dumb.

Does anybody know what has happened to Behe? I saw a reference to a paper from 2010 but nothing else.

MichaelJ said: Does anybody have a theory why FL continues to post here? Everybody here knows that ID is dead and I'd say most people posting here would have read more about ID than FL. However, he is here trying to kid us that ID is healthy and Darwinism is about to collapse. This goes beyond just being self deluded.

Daniel said: I really cannot comprehend how these guys don't notice that, in the first sentence they postulate an all-powerful, omniscient, time-warping super deity... and then right next they concede that this marvelous being is always being held down and contrained by the laws of nature, unable to break them or bend them to his mighty will. Why couldn't god just make it so that our testicles wouldn't care how hot it is?? Now that would be miracle.. if I could put my unmentionables in a volcano and still have them functioning, then maybe I would start believing in god. If I could walk around without lungs or a heart, breaking every law of nature, then maybe I would start believing in god. But no... he can only do what nature says is possible to do.

One question may possibly have dwelt in the reader's mind during the perusal of these observations, namely, Why should not the Deity have given to the animal the faculty of vision at once? ... Why resort to contrivance, where power is omnipotent? Contrivance, by its very definition and nature, is the refuge of imperfection. To have recourse to expedients, implies difficulty, impediment, restraint, defect of power. ... amongst other answers which may be given to it; beside reasons of which probably we are ignorant, one answer is this: It is only by the display of contrivance, that the existence, the agency, the wisdom of the Deity, could be testified to his rational creatures.

FL said:

DS said: And by the way Floyd, descent of the scrotum is indeed the issue here. Not very intelligent design by any means.

Design is design. Half-efficient or half-intelligent design is still intelligent design. And evolutionists do an amazingly poor job of coming up with superior designs to what's already there. So Hrafn's question is still much more interesting. But ifffff you want some mental exercise to keep you brain functioning for Thankgiving, go see if you can rationally refute THIS design information, all ye Pandas:

Why do my testicles hang down? Just as your body directs your scrotum to shrivel when it is cold, your body tells the scrotum to loosen up when you are too warm. Your testicles will become larger and more floppy to release extra heat. --Web MD

Question: How does the scrotum maintain favorable conditions for sperm production? (2 people responded: (1st Reply) By being outside the body, and by being able to tense or hang low - sperm has an optimum temperature for survival. The Human body is general too hot, so the scrotum is external, able to regulate its own temperature. When weather is cold, the scrotum shrinks to bring the testes closer to the body and thereby stay warm, and when weather is hot, the scrotum relaxes allowing the testes to be removed from the body and stay cooler. (2nd reply) The hotter it is the more it sags down to effectively isolate itself from the core of body temperature, thus ensuring the cooler temperature for the testicles to do their jobs.

Okay, there you go. YOU are the final proof of Intelligent Design. Even your Junk is intelligently and teleologically designed, and that's not even counting that your Junk is totally made up of intelligently designed cells. Go figure! And happy holidays! FL

Christine M Janis said: So -- how come elephants don't have testes descended into a scrotum? Do they have a different designer?

Is there any design which is not the response to some other design?

Henry J said:

Is there any design which is not the response to some other design?

Peacock tail?

My view has long been that Dembski never performed a deep enough analysis to realize the fundamental problem with his model.

On the one hand, you have your Complex Specified Information

CSId <== a designer specified it.

but the body of such information is intended to be Complex Specifying Information.

CSIg <== The Information specifies the nature and behavior of a system

The problem arises if the original ultimate Designer of the enclosing system does not allow you to declare your CSId and therefore your CSIg to be read-only -- no stray cosmic ray or hostile chemical can damage or modify the CSI at all.

Evidence from observation of nature indicates genomes are not read-only. But if a genome can be modified, then the descendant system no longer has CSId -- it does not conform to the Designer's intent. But it coninues to be Complex Specifying Information.

Let this whole thing proceed for a few billion years and you get all kinds of very interesting non-Designed systems. The flaws in the products of this process, noted in the discussion above, strongly suggest that the Designer, if there was one, has not intervened in the progress of the change to Its original Design over the years.

In other words, Dembsky can only get as far as the first premises of Deism.

DS saidNow I wonder how Jon Stewart knew exactly what example to give in order make Dembski look stupid on national TV? And I wonder why the fig newton of information obfuscation didn’t have any answer for him?

"Biologist Richard Dawkins, well known evolutionist (Stewart openly agrees with Dembski on this description)...he will write in a book called The Blind Watchmaker that 'biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.' Everything for him (Dawkins) is just the appearance of design, there's no actual design there. So I just have to indicate that there are some clear instances of design there." -- Wm. Dembski

An interesting clip. I can't agree with your assessment. Two panel members were rendered ridiculous, but not by John Stewart. He was there to hand out the rope, so to speak.

Dembski's argument (in the Daily Show video) that Newton demonstrates that having religious scientists is a good thing walks right into the problem that Newton's religious/metaphysical beliefs led him down a number of blind alleys, such as alchemy, and insisting that divine intervention was required to keep planetary motion stable.

Just because X was a great scientist and X was a Christian does not mean that being a Christian makes you more likely to be a great scientist. Beethoven was a great composer, and Beethoven became deaf, but it seems unlikely that becoming deaf made him a better composer.

Let us examine another “bad design” argument more closely—the human testicles. (Jerry) Coyne points out that human sperm requires relatively cool temperatures. Males are ostensibly stuck with the preexisting fish-ancestry body-build that now requires the embryonic testicles to migrate down the inguinal canals to outside the body, a process which eventually leads to weak spots that can develop into hernias (p. 13, Why Evolution Is True). By his own admission, Coyne cannot explain why evolution favored the placement of testicles in an easily-injured position, and the fact that some mammals (e.g. the platypus and elephant) do just fine with internal testicles (p. 235). The heat-intolerance of sperm may be secondary – a consequence, not cause, of the externally-situated human testicles (p. 236). Obviously, the “whats”, let alone the “whys”, of this subject are not well understood. If nothing else, external testicles are a problem for evolutionists. -- John Woodmorappe, 2010 book review (Why Evolution Is True, by Jerry Coyne), at creation.com

Some of you may be thinking that there is a simple answer: temperature. This arrangement evolved to keep them cool. I thought so, too, and assumed that a quick glimpse at the scientific literature would reveal the biological reasons and I’d move on. But what I found was that the small band of scientists who have dedicated their professional time to pondering the scrotum’s existence are starkly divided over this so-called cooling hypothesis.

In the United States, more than 600,000 surgeries are performed annually to repair inguinal hernias—the vast majority of them in men. This increased risk of hernias and sterilizing mishaps seems hardly in keeping with the idea of evolution as survival of the fittest. Natural selection's tagline reflects the importance of attributes that help keep creatures alive—not dying being an essential part of evolutionary success. How can a trait such as scrotality (to use the scientific term for possessing a scrotum), with all the obvious handicaps it confers, fit into this framework? Its story is certainly going to be less straightforward than the evolution of a cheetah's leg muscles. Most investigators have tended to think that the advantages of this curious anatomical arrangement must come in the shape of improved fertility. But this is far from proven.

It's rather humbling to realize that this basic aspect of our bodies remains a mystery. The fact that such a ridiculous appendage evolved twice surely means we should be able to get a handle on it. A successful theory will have to explain the full diversity of mammalian testicle positions, not just the scrotum’s existence. I like Chance and Frey's galloping hypothesis, but could a scrotum really be the only way to deal with undulating abdominal pressure? In addition, do scrotal sperm really differ fundamentally from internally generated tiddlers? Can we definitively prove temperature sensitivity evolved after the expulsion of the scrotum? And signaling is still an outside bet, but if scrotums were really sexually selected, where's the mammalian peacock, some species toting a pair of soccer balls?

...specific, long-standing, and DIFFICULT problems of the scrotum?

In the United States, more than 600,000 surgeries are performed annually to repair inguinal hernias—the vast majority of them in men. This increased risk of hernias and sterilizing mishaps seems hardly in keeping with the idea of evolution as survival of the fittest.

It’s rather humbling to realize that this basic aspect of our bodies remains a mystery. The fact that such a ridiculous appendage evolved twice surely means we should be able to get a handle on it. A successful theory will have to explain the full diversity of mammalian testicle positions, not just the scrotum’s existence.

hrafn said: Dembski's argument (in the Daily Show video) that Newton demonstrates that having religious scientists is a good thing walks right into the problem that Newton's religious/metaphysical beliefs led him down a number of blind alleys, such as alchemy, and insisting that divine intervention was required to keep planetary motion stable. Just because X was a great scientist and X was a Christian does not mean that being a Christian makes you more likely to be a great scientist. Beethoven was a great composer, and Beethoven became deaf, but it seems unlikely that becoming deaf made him a better composer.

hrafn said: A couple of followup questions: 1) Who is the youngest ID advocate to have written a major work in the ID canon? 2) Who is the youngest Senior Fellow at the DI's CSC? Youngest (non-Senior) Fellow? The answers to these questions would appear to impose a hard limit on the 'Use-by Date' of ID. I rather doubt if ID can keep its 'dog and pony show' running, when its entire leadership is past retirement age and dying off.

Now, if only they had some land where they could build an Ark Park …

FL said: In the United States, more than 600,000 surgeries are performed annually to repair inguinal hernias—the vast majority of them in men. This increased risk of hernias and sterilizing mishaps seems hardly in keeping with the idea of evolution as survival of the fittest. Natural selection's tagline reflects the importance of attributes that help keep creatures alive—not dying being an essential part of evolutionary success. How can a trait such as scrotality (to use the scientific term for possessing a scrotum), with all the obvious handicaps it confers, fit into this framework?

Doc Bill said: What canon of work? When it comes down to it Dembski is the ONLY ID "theorist" such as he is. Old Dr. Dr. is the only creationist to try to put some rigor on the ID problem. Of course, it's all bafflegab but at least he tried.

FL said: Design is design. Half-efficient or half-intelligent design is still intelligent design.

Because, if this wasn't designed, then I don't know what would be considered designed. I've seen works of "art", paid for by our obviously blind city council, that have less "design" than that beautiful crystal arrangement.

Design, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. This of course makes it subjective judgement, and so aesthetic rather than scientific. IDers see it in a lot more things than the rest of us, which would be perfectly okay, if they didn't mistake their personal subjective opinion for objective science.

hrafn said:

Doc Bill said: What canon of work? When it comes down to it Dembski is the ONLY ID "theorist" such as he is. Old Dr. Dr. is the only creationist to try to put some rigor on the ID problem. Of course, it's all bafflegab but at least he tried.

I was viewing this from a point of view of 'what do ID followers regard as adding to ID's argument', a rather lower bar than 'attempting to make a positive argument for ID'. From that point of view, I would regard the books by Dembski, Behe, Myers, Wells' execrable Icons, Gonzalez & Richards' book. They allow the ID 'dog and pony show' to continue (at least for the moment), so they count. c In answer to my own question, the youngest CSC Senior Fellow I could come up with a year of birth for was Gonzalez (1963), followed by Dembski (1960), the rest being born in the 1950s or 40s. Gonzalez's Cosmological Fine Tuning argument has always been somewhat peripheral in ID (and Gonzalez himself has not been one of ID's more vocal advocates) and Dembski is leaving to pursue other things, so what's going to happen when the rest of its senior leadership (all of whom are in their late 60s or older) retire? None of their ordinary Fellows have made much of an impact within ID, and many of them likewise are getting on in their years (Kenyon and Thaxton are in their late 70s).

MichaelJ said:I had a look through the authors list on ENV. Meyer and Luskin as the only 2 who are actively publishing ID material. Most of the others if they publish just publish general cultural war stuff. I don't think it is just age. I think that even book output will dry up. The ENV website is just the same 4 or 5 writers and they very rarely quote other ID experts.

Scott F said: Because, if this wasn't designed, then I don't know what would be considered designed. I've seen works of "art", paid for by our obviously blind city council, that have less "design" than that beautiful crystal arrangement.

TomS said:If we consider design to be create, then standard theology would demand that everything is designed. The bacterial flagellum is designed, but also the flagellum-less bacterial precursor. The proteins in the flagellum, as well as the atoms that make up the proteins, and the quarks and electrons and space-time. And the medium through which the flagellum propels the bacterium. And the animal which the bacterium infects and the immune system of that animal which attacks the bacterium. If we infer that the portraits of the presidents on Mount Rushmore are designed, we are saying that they are designed as much as the flora and fauna which are growing there. We are not distinguishing the sculptures from something which just grows there.

MichaelJ said:

hrafn said:

Doc Bill said: What canon of work? When it comes down to it Dembski is the ONLY ID "theorist" such as he is. Old Dr. Dr. is the only creationist to try to put some rigor on the ID problem. Of course, it's all bafflegab but at least he tried.

I was viewing this from a point of view of 'what do ID followers regard as adding to ID's argument', a rather lower bar than 'attempting to make a positive argument for ID'. From that point of view, I would regard the books by Dembski, Behe, Myers, Wells' execrable Icons, Gonzalez & Richards' book. They allow the ID 'dog and pony show' to continue (at least for the moment), so they count. c In answer to my own question, the youngest CSC Senior Fellow I could come up with a year of birth for was Gonzalez (1963), followed by Dembski (1960), the rest being born in the 1950s or 40s. Gonzalez's Cosmological Fine Tuning argument has always been somewhat peripheral in ID (and Gonzalez himself has not been one of ID's more vocal advocates) and Dembski is leaving to pursue other things, so what's going to happen when the rest of its senior leadership (all of whom are in their late 60s or older) retire? None of their ordinary Fellows have made much of an impact within ID, and many of them likewise are getting on in their years (Kenyon and Thaxton are in their late 70s).

I had a look through the authors list on ENV. Meyer and Luskin as the only 2 who are actively publishing ID material. Most of the others if they publish just publish general cultural war stuff. I don't think it is just age. I think that even book output will dry up. The ENV website is just the same 4 or 5 writers and they very rarely quote other ID experts.

hrafn said: Design, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

harold said: Obviously, the survival of the DI will be determined by money. If they have an income from any source, and can keep the lights on, pay whatever clerical staff they have, give themselves whatever they give themselves, etc, it will remain open. If they have some kind of trust fund that gives off income it could hypothetically remain open forever, unless they literally don't bother to recruit new fellows.

hrafn said:

TomS said:If we consider design to be create, then standard theology would demand that everything is designed. The bacterial flagellum is designed, but also the flagellum-less bacterial precursor. The proteins in the flagellum, as well as the atoms that make up the proteins, and the quarks and electrons and space-time. And the medium through which the flagellum propels the bacterium. And the animal which the bacterium infects and the immune system of that animal which attacks the bacterium. If we infer that the portraits of the presidents on Mount Rushmore are designed, we are saying that they are designed as much as the flora and fauna which are growing there. We are not distinguishing the sculptures from something which just grows there.

Yes, that is the contradiction in ID theology. They cannot conceive of something being both (divinely) 'designed' and 'random' at the same time. Thus, they banish their God from every casino in existence, and render 'Acts of God' oxymoronic.

hrafn said:

Doc Bill said: What canon of work? When it comes down to it Dembski is the ONLY ID "theorist" such as he is. Old Dr. Dr. is the only creationist to try to put some rigor on the ID problem. Of course, it's all bafflegab but at least he tried.

I was viewing this from a point of view of 'what do ID followers regard as adding to ID's argument', a rather lower bar than 'attempting to make a positive argument for ID'. From that point of view, I would regard the books by Dembski, Behe, Myers, Wells' execrable Icons, Gonzalez & Richards' book. They allow the ID 'dog and pony show' to continue (at least for the moment), so they count. c In answer to my own question, the youngest CSC Senior Fellow I could come up with a year of birth for was Gonzalez (1963), followed by Dembski (1960), the rest being born in the 1950s or 40s. Gonzalez's Cosmological Fine Tuning argument has always been somewhat peripheral in ID (and Gonzalez himself has not been one of ID's more vocal advocates) and Dembski is leaving to pursue other things, so what's going to happen when the rest of its senior leadership (all of whom are in their late 60s or older) retire? None of their ordinary Fellows have made much of an impact within ID, and many of them likewise are getting on in their years (Kenyon and Thaxton are in their late 70s).

FL yammered:

"Biologist Richard Dawkins, well known evolutionist (Stewart openly agrees with Dembski on this description)...he will write in a book called The Blind Watchmaker that 'biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.' Everything for him (Dawkins) is just the appearance of design, there's no actual design there. So I just have to indicate that there are some clear instances of design there." -- Wm. Dembski

At this point, Mr. Jon Stewart is caught like a rabbit in a trap.

DS saidNow I wonder how Jon Stewart knew exactly what example to give in order make Dembski look stupid on national TV? And I wonder why the fig newton of information obfuscation didn’t have any answer for him?

stevaroni said:

FL wrote:

"Biologist Richard Dawkins, well known evolutionist (Stewart openly agrees with Dembski on this description)...he will write in a book called The Blind Watchmaker that 'biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.' Everything for him (Dawkins) is just the appearance of design, there's no actual design there. So I just have to indicate that there are some clear instances of design there." -- Wm. Dembski

At this point, Mr. Jon Stewart is caught like a rabbit in a trap.

Seriously, what the f*** are you talking about, Floyd? How is this a failed gotcha?

I had to go back over the video several times before I convinced myself that this was even the supposed 'decisive point' you were talking about. How does any of this make Dembski's case?

I suspect that making Dembski look stupid on national TV is not an enormously high bar.

FL said:

stevaroni said:

FL wrote:

"Biologist Richard Dawkins, well known evolutionist (Stewart openly agrees with Dembski on this description)...he will write in a book called The Blind Watchmaker that 'biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.' Everything for him (Dawkins) is just the appearance of design, there's no actual design there. So I just have to indicate that there are some clear instances of design there." -- Wm. Dembski

At this point, Mr. Jon Stewart is caught like a rabbit in a trap.

Seriously, what the f*** are you talking about, Floyd? How is this a failed gotcha?

Pretty easily answered, Stevaroni. As DS suggested, Jon Stewart's little chess move wasn't accidental. (It was, as chess aficionados say, a prepared line.) Stewart, very much aware of the strict time limitations of a TV panel gig, tried to do a "gotcha" against Dembski in such a way that Dr. Dembski wouldn't have enough time to defend against it. Unfortunately for Stewart, Dembski proved to be adept concerning Sound-Bite Chess tactics. He gave the correct pro-ID sound-bite that was needed, one that was easily understood by Jon's TV audience, one that Stewart wouldn't have time to refute. In short, Dembski turned the tables on Stewart.

I had to go back over the video several times before I convinced myself that this was even the supposed 'decisive point' you were talking about. How does any of this make Dembski's case?

Dembski's response dovetailed perfectly with his previous TV statement which Stewart summarized as "common descent can exist in conjunction with intelligent design." Hence suddenly, instead of the scrotum being Jon's big refutation of Intelligent Design, it became a big example of Dembski's "in-conjunction" position that Dembski had already established on Stewart. Thus Stewart was disarmed with no time left on his clock, and WITHOUT Dembski retracting his ID claim at all. This was Stewart's only attack on ID, (it was his only opportunity with such a tight time schedule), so disarming Stewart here, effectively won the entire chess exchange for Dembski. Stewart was forced to acknowledge that Dembski had raised a "very interesting point", as Stewart turned to his evolution expert Ed Larson for a last minute save. (However, Ed Larson provided absolutely NO refutation nor even a rebuttal against Dembski's point. Amazing.) **** You yourself suggest that Dembski came off "seeming like a reasonably rational human being" instead of irrational like the "Metaphysical Consciousness" lady seated next to him, the panelist on which Stewart DID succeed in putting ridicule. Well, THAT "reasonably rational" impression Dembski gave, is because of how Dembski responded to Stewart's attack. Jon Stewart seriously wanted to trip him up, rip him up, create an opening for Jon to ridicule Dembski and ID the same way he ridiculed the "Metaphysical" lady. (Dr. Dembski was Stewart's real target.) Stewart thought that the scrotum argument would give him his best shot to ridicule Dembski and ID. But Dembski blocked him and won the exchange. TV checkmate. ****

I suspect that making Dembski look stupid on national TV is not an enormously high bar.

Well it turned out to be a few notches higher than a Mr. Jon Stewart could jump, that's for sure.

FL wrote: Pretty easily answered, Stevaroni. As DS suggested, Jon Stewart's little chess move wasn't accidental. (It was, as chess aficionados say, a prepared line.) Stewart, very much aware of the strict time limitations of a TV panel gig, tried to do a "gotcha" against Dembski in such a way that Dr. Dembski wouldn't have enough time to defend against it. Unfortunately for Stewart, Dembski proved to be adept concerning Sound-Bite Chess tactics. He gave the correct pro-ID sound-bite that was needed, one that was easily understood by Jon's TV audience, one that Stewart wouldn't have time to refute. In short, Dembski turned the tables on Stewart.

FL said:

Let us examine another “bad design” argument more closely—the human testicles. [snip two long quotes about how descended testicles are a crappy adaptation with little apparent survival value]

So in fact, creationist John Woodmorappe is quite correct on this one. You guys thought you had some kind of big anti-ID "dysteleology argument" there. But in fact the scrotum presents its own specific, long-standing, and DIFFICULT problems for you evolutionists to figure out, if you're EVER going to attempt to claim that "Evolution Did It."

stevaroni said: At some point did I nod off and not see Wild Bill reach into his pocket and pull out the goods*? *_{Probably not an artful metaphor in a thread that has spent way too much time talking about testicles}

Just as a general FYI, I appreciate the attitude "Attack the argument, not the arguer."

That said, I still tolerate occasional name calling and feces flinging -- but not when they involve accusing the arguer of specific acts of terrorism.

If you have knowledge that specific people have committed specific acts of terrorism - please - find a more suitable place than Panda's Thumb to report your suspicions.

FL said: Dembski's response dovetailed perfectly with his previous TV statement which Stewart summarized as "common descent can exist in conjunction with intelligent design."

Scott F said:

FL said: Dembski's response dovetailed perfectly with his previous TV statement which Stewart summarized as "common descent can exist in conjunction with intelligent design."

So, common descent is compatible with "creation" "design". Right? So, what you're saying is that there was no single act, or week, of "creation" "design"; that God intervenes to continually create design new things, new features, new species. What you're describing is theistic evolution, God using the tools of natural evolution to achieve his "design". You're also admitting to (or saying that Dembski was admitting to) common descent.

You do know what scientists mean when they say "common descent". Right?

FL said:

You do know what scientists mean when they say "common descent". Right?

Sure, but you need to listen to what individual scientists say that common descent means, instead of pretending that they're all automatically on the same page. For example, scientist Dr. Michael Behe has said that common descent is true ONLY IF intelligent design is effectively true as well.

from wikipedia, quoting Behe: "For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives." The Edge of Evolution, pp. 71–72

FL said: Next time you want to know my position on common descent and other scams, just ask.

"common descent can exist in conjunction with intelligent design"

FL said: [Bold mine]

stevaroni said:

FL wrote:

"Biologist Richard Dawkins, well known evolutionist (Stewart openly agrees with Dembski on this description)...he will write in a book called The Blind Watchmaker that 'biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.' Everything for him (Dawkins) is just the appearance of design, there's no actual design there. So I just have to indicate that there are some clear instances of design there." -- Wm. Dembski

At this point, Mr. Jon Stewart is caught like a rabbit in a trap.

Seriously, what the f*** are you talking about, Floyd? How is this a failed gotcha?

Pretty easily answered, Stevaroni. As DS suggested, Jon Stewart's little chess move wasn't accidental. (It was, as chess aficionados say, a prepared line.) Stewart, very much aware of the strict time limitations of a TV panel gig, tried to do a "gotcha" against Dembski in such a way that Dr. Dembski wouldn't have enough time to defend against it. Unfortunately for Stewart, Dembski proved to be adept concerning Sound-Bite Chess tactics. He gave the correct pro-ID sound-bite that was needed, one that was easily understood by Jon's TV audience, one that Stewart wouldn't have time to refute. In short, Dembski turned the tables on Stewart.

Let's try this in a different form. An "analogy", something which I believe you (FL) don't comprehend.

Do you (FL) believe that French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese share a common ancestor in the Latin language? That there is "common descent" with modification from Latin to these four modern languages?

If so, why is there still Latin? (That's an amusing, but separate question, not germane to the point at hand.)

Do you (FL) believe that the French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese languages were "designed"? Do you believe that someone started with Latin, and intentionally designed these four modern languages, intentionally "designed" the differences that these languages have today, and intentionally "designed" the languages to have significant similarities?

Or, do you (FL) believe that God gave these four languages as they are today to these peoples at Babel?

Yes, clearly all human languages have "intelligent" origins, because we are a (nominally) intelligent species. That isn't the question. The question is, were these four languages "designed", in the same sense that Klingon and Esperanto were actually "designed" from scratch?

You see, we do, in fact, have many examples of languages that have been "designed". We can tell the difference between "designed" languages, and those that "evolved" "naturally". The differences are obvious, and distinct. Klingon, for example, has no "natural" precursors in any human language. Where "borrowing" has occurred, it is clear and obvious where and how those borrowings occurred.

Just like Evolution.

The point is that Evolution happens. Evolution is a *concept*, a description of a real process. "Evolution" isn't limited to "biology". Many types of systems naturally evolve. Only two things are required: "descent with modification", and "selection". If a system exhibits those two features, then the process of "evolution" naturally results.

Scott F said:

FL said:

Scott F wrote: You do know what scientists mean when they say "common descent". Right?

Sure, but you need to listen to what individual scientists say that common descent means, instead of pretending that they're all automatically on the same page. For example, scientist Dr. Michael Behe has said that common descent is true ONLY IF intelligent design is effectively true as well.

No. "Common descent" means that all living things are descended from a common ancestor. Period. Michael Behe does not disagree with that.

I have no solutions to the difficult problems pointed to by scientists who are skeptical of universal common descent: ORFan genes, nonstandard genetic codes, different routes of embryogenesis by similar organisms, and so on. Nonetheless, as I see it, if, rather than Darwinian evolution, one is talking about "intelligently designed" descent, then those problems, while still there, seem much less insuperable. I certainly agree that random, unintelligent processes could not account for them, but an intelligent agent may have ways around apparent difficulties. -- biochemist Dr. Michael Behe. http://www.discovery.org/a/4097

FL said: Dr. Behe specifically disagrees that common descent is true, UNLESS you first accept that intelligent design is true.

hrafn said:

FL said: Dr. Behe specifically disagrees that common descent is true, UNLESS you first accept that intelligent design is true.

aka 'Cake and Eat It' Descent. Nice to see that Behe is still every bit as muddled as he was on the stand at Dover.

Dave Thomas said: If you have knowledge that specific people have committed specific acts of terrorism - please - find a more suitable place than Panda's Thumb to report your suspicions.

The mistake that Dawkins makes is to claim that RM + NS gives the "appearance of design" when RM + NS is a perfectly good designer. What it is not is "intelligent" design. Dennett makes this very clear in his paper "Darwin's Strange Inversion of Reasoning". You don't need any intelligence to sort fitness differences.

hrafn said:

harold said: Obviously, the survival of the DI will be determined by money. If they have an income from any source, and can keep the lights on, pay whatever clerical staff they have, give themselves whatever they give themselves, etc, it will remain open. If they have some kind of trust fund that gives off income it could hypothetically remain open forever, unless they literally don't bother to recruit new fellows.

Will the money keep flowing if all the people who gave ID any profile retire? Would a DI that consists of Casey Luskin and a bunch of Fellows nobody has even heard of, attract Billionaire Fundamentalist bucks? I doubt it. Whilst their donors wouldn't know real science if they bit them, they're unlikely to fund an endeavor that cannot generate anti-evolution headlines, and will move on to funding somebody who does (be it AiG, ICR, or some new up-and-comer). In this, the DI bears more than a little resemblance to a Republican primary campaign -- even if they like your message, I don't think they will continue to fund you after you fail to demonstrate an ability to generate publicity.

Anybody out there? Seems kinda quiet.

FL said: Dr. Behe specifically disagrees that common descent is true, UNLESS you first accept that intelligent design is true.

That's the thing, these guys really don't care about the science, just as long as there is some hole left for them to shove their god into. But then, when they are shamed into admitting that the science is undeniable, they back off on some points so as not to look too stupid. Of course that doesn't stop them from still spouting some nonsense for the rubes, just as long as they think they can get away with it. Still, their need for the legitimacy of science is so great that they will make almost any concessions necessary in order to appear scientific. Unfortunately they are not able to hold their own ideas up to the same scrutiny and skepticism that they impose on all other scientists. And when their unsubstantiated ideas are rightly rejected by mainstream science, they can't help but play the martyr card, conveniently forgetting that they have actually failed to make their case. Oh well, at least the scam paid the bills for twenty years before even the rubes got fed up.

Take a look at the DI's new report written by John West "Are Young People Losing Their Faith Because of Science?" where West leads off with an anecdote about a teen suicide. He and the young man's father offer a overly simplistic argument blaming the young man's reading of "The God Delusion" (supposedly suggested by a community college biology professor- who else?) for his death. It is scare-mongering at its finest - if you send your child to a secular college atheist professors will ridicule Christianity and lead to a loss of faith. Without faith there is nothing to live for and voila! everyone kills themselves! The Christian conservative victimhood syndrome strikes again exploiting a tragic death for political and monetary gain.

By the way check out West's "truths" about science and Christianity:

• Christianity is not anti-science. Indeed, the Judeo-Christian worldview helped nurture the scientific revolution. [but modern creationism and intelligent design are anti-science]

• Even many secular scientists affirm the incredible fine-tuning of the laws of physics that make life possible. We live on a “privileged planet” designed in a multitude of ways for life and for scientific discovery. [but there is no evidence of an intelligence "fine-tuning" those laws]

• Inside our cells are molecular machines of exquisite beauty and complexity that point powerfully to purposeful design. [um, no they don't - design but no forethought]

• Human beings are special and unique in a multitude of ways. [and so is every other species on the planet]

• Science is a wonderful human enterprise, but it is fallible and can be abused. It is therefore rational (and not “anti-science”) to explore competing scientific explanations, and to scrutinize cultural claims made in the name of science. [creationism and intelligent design are not scientific....]

Michael Fugate said: The mistake that Dawkins makes is to claim that RM + NS gives the "appearance of design" when RM + NS is a perfectly good designer.

Sorry, I accidentally cut out the last sentence of the blockquote, which was something like, "But it is not 'intelligent' design". That was the sentence I was disagreeing with.

JimV said:

Michael Fugate said: The mistake that Dawkins makes is to claim that RM + NS gives the "appearance of design" when RM + NS is a perfectly good designer.

I mostly agree, but not with the last sentence. What is intelligence? How does it work? Unless it contains some magical, hitherto-unknown mechanism, it could be simply neurons generating random variations on existing ideas, and trial-and-error application of those ideas to see which ones survive. In other words, the same algorithm as biological evolution. (There may be some built-in tests that reject conceptual ideas without trial, but biological evolution has also evolved such tests, e.g., millions of sperm to fertilize one egg.) All our "intelligent designs" in fact evolved from older ideas, such as rolling logs to smoothed rollers under heavy objects to the wheel. There were no rabbits in the Cambrian and there were none of Paley's pocket watches in 500 BCE.

I wish we could find predecessors and successors of the Antikythera Device.

Stuff the Paley argument, this is riveting.

Joe Felsenstein said: There is no indication that Dembski is retracting anything he said about evolution. His co-authors Robert Marks and Winston Ewert are continuing to advocate for his most recent arguments. On his blog the most recent item is a re-post of an essay he wrote in 2010, calling for "radical decentralization" of society. It has some addenda dated recently. He ends with these sentences:

In upcoming several articles I will explore specific proposals for breaking up illegitimate concentrations of power that undermine our freedoms. In so doing, I will attempt to take radical decentralization from the drawing board to the next level, what engineers call “proof of concept.” The first thing I will focus on is money. Money is a social technology, but its current technological sophistication is still in the dark ages, despite the fact that computers rather than abacuses now count it. I’m going to propose a radically decentralized, information-based form of money that owes nothing to the state. Stay tuned. [2015 note: what I have in mind is more radical than bitcoin.]

So no, he does not seem to be trying to put out software related to Intelligent Design. What he intends to do seems to have nothing to do with Intelligent Design. Arguing for or against his new projects would therefore seem to be Off Topic here.

This seems to be the only currently available source:

https://billdembski.com/radical-decentralization-and-freedom-preliminary-thoughts/

It seems more than likely that his "breaking up illegitimate concentrations of power that undermine our freedoms" will someday come to include science. He will probably eventually claim that scientists have no right to tell us what to believe and that we should be free to believe anything we want, even things that are demonstrably false. Everything else is probably just a smoke screen for the "final solution".

Having failed miserably on the science front, he now turns to social reform at the grass roots level in order to impose his own distorted view of reality on a gullible public. Oh well, at least we won't have to waste the time reviewing pseudo scientific drivel in fake journals anymore.

DS said: It seems more than likely that his "breaking up illegitimate concentrations of power that undermine our freedoms" will someday come to include science. He will probably eventually claim that scientists have no right to tell us what to believe and that we should be free to believe anything we want, even things that are demonstrably false. Everything else is probably just a smoke screen for the "final solution". Having failed miserably on the science front, he now turns to social reform at the grass roots level in order to impose his own distorted view of reality on a gullible public. Oh well, at least we won't have to waste the time reviewing pseudo scientific drivel in fake journals anymore.

This god-aspiration is why science developed in the West and not in the East.

That is what Steve thinks not me.... take it up with him. He is a pomo who thinks science is just another narrative.

gnome de net said: This seems to be the only currently available source: https://billdembski.com/radical-decentralization-and-freedom-preliminary-thoughts/

"This god-aspiration is why science developed in the West and not in the East." - Michael Fulgate

"Although my critics repeatedly label me a 'postmodernist,' my actual view is that postmodernity is simply our ‘condition’, as Lyotard (1983) originally put it. Put in terms of the current discussion, one cannot have a sensible normative discussion of where humanity should go, unless we are clear about our starting point in history, which is broadly 'postmodern'. But I do not believe that we should stay where we are." - Steve Fuller (2013)

DS said: It seems more than likely that his "breaking up illegitimate concentrations of power that undermine our freedoms" will someday come to include science. He will probably eventually claim that scientists have no right to tell us what to believe and that we should be free to believe anything we want, even things that are demonstrably false. Everything else is probably just a smoke screen for the "final solution".

eric said:

DS said: It seems more than likely that his "breaking up illegitimate concentrations of power that undermine our freedoms" will someday come to include science. He will probably eventually claim that scientists have no right to tell us what to believe and that we should be free to believe anything we want, even things that are demonstrably false. Everything else is probably just a smoke screen for the "final solution".

My read is that he's going after more standard conservative shibboleths that have little or nothing to do with science. Business regulation, social support programs, that sort of thing. See my post from a few days ago for the excerpts that support this, but really the best thing to do is read the 2010 essay gnome de net linked to and decide for yourself.

Dembski’s new move is bizarre

Back in the 1970s, when Morris and Gish were in ascendency with "scientific" creationism, their "arguments" against evolution were so obviously wrong that they often triggered the emotion of consternation in scientists; and some these scientists were thereby taunted into debating Morris, Gish, and others from the ICR into debating them on a public stage.

In the years that followed, the development of ID to get around the courts was no better in the "arguments" its inventors were trying to bring against science, and evolution in particular. ID/creationism "science" borrowed all its misconceptions and misrepresentations from "scientific" creationism; and it has always been egregiously wrong and immature ever since. Its proponents never fooled anyone in the science community on just how wrong the conceptual foundations of ID/creationism actually are. Its "theories" are stupid and incompetent.

On the other hand, the socio/political tactics of ID/creationism were very effective in exploiting the emotions of sectarians and others who were ignorant of science and how it works. The scientists who were lured into debates didn't understand initially that the issues were never about science but were instead about a sectarian socio/pllitical agenda.

It appears that Dembski, at least, has gotten the message that continuing to push his pseudo mathematics is no longer going to attract scientists into debating him; that game is over. People like Granville Sewell and Jason Lisle haven't gotten that message yet; they still seem to think they can continue to fool people with their "mathematical prowess" and taunt the scientific community into debating them. However, no reputable scientist is going to waste time trying to correct the egregious misconceptions and incompetence of any wannabe heroes of the ID/creationist community. The most that an ID/creationist will ever get from a scientist is silence, at best, or a stern admonition to return to high school and start over.

Hence, for ID/creationists like Dembski, it's back to old, basic Right Wing politics. No pseudoscience any longer; just Right Wing sectarian vitriol dumped into the political processes as we all try to seek genuine solutions to real problems facing society and the world.

Only the sheer arrogance of the West in thinking we could understand and control the world as God does – epitomized by Newton – led to modern science. We had to believe we are apart from rather than a part of nature. Evolution, on the other hand, puts us back in nature – as animals functioning within ecosystems – subject to the whims of the environment. Evolution makes us objects acted upon by nature rather than subjects acting on nature. 
For science to be successful, we must believe we are subjects not objects. In other words, science is a result of a human desire to be God (the ultimate subject). Without this, our lives become meaningless – the best we can hope for is something equivalent to the Buddhist avoidance of suffering.
 Given this, evolution should not be the dominant view (truth is not an issue) because it will kill science. Science cannot survive unless we believe we can become like God through our study of the natural world. Humans must be special, we cannot think of ourselves as animals.


Michael Fugate said: I think it is as simple as "if I think it looks designed, it is". If you were to show the average person a basic organic molecule like glucose with it atoms and bonds, most would think it was too complicated to form without help. If you showed them the chemical composition of a rock, they would be amazed.

Michael Fugate said: I think it is as simple as "if I think it looks designed, it is".

Just Bob said: I have never yet had a creationist who "knows when something is designed" answer my question of how he could tell 3 low-grade diamonds apart: one 'natural', one commercially-made industrial diamond, and one designed and created atom-by-atom by God himself and made to appear 'natural'.

We are talking about people for which evidence is superficial - surely you all realize that. God can sneak into any process and how would you know? You guys are thinking like creationists - where God can do anything and everything.

Michael Fugate said: We are talking about people for which evidence is superficial - surely you all realize that. God can sneak into any process and how would you know? You guys are thinking like creationists - where God can do anything and everything.

I and others have asked various 'designists' here for an example of something which is NOT designed. We usually had to press hard for any response at all. But I can recall several: "any rock", "a pile of sand", and "a cave."

Responding with any example implies a claim that they have some way to tell 'designed' from 'natural'.

SETI faces a similar problem, I believe - how to tell if electromagnetic signals from outer-space are intelligently designed, or not.

The only standard against which they have to judge is human-invented electromagnetic communications. So that is what they look for - signals with similar physics and similar statistics.

Creationists have only human-engineered designs as guides for identifying ID. Paley used a manmade watch as his analogy. Anything sufficiently complicated, like a watch, must be 'designed'.

The only reason Paley knew that watch on the heath was out of place: he knew a priori watches were designed by humans, complex, and not the product of natural forces.

The only reason creationists know the universe is designed is that it is complex, and they know they don't have the knowledge to designed it themselves. So obviously someone smarter then they designed it. Guess who.

But they never back up any claim, do they?