Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions for William Dembski
taylor_31
Member (Idle past 5924 days)
Posts: 86
From: Oklahoma!
Joined: 05-14-2007


Message 1 of 31 (420771)
09-09-2007 2:17 PM


Hello everybody!
After a zoology class last week, I saw a poster on the wall advertising a lecture given by William Dembski at my university in a week. The lecture includes a Q&A session towards the end, and I'd like to participate. I'm not terribly familiar with Dr. Dembski's work - I've never read any of his books or essays - but I do know he's a mathematician, theologian, and major proponent of intelligent design.
I don't want to be a smartass to him or anything stupid - I know he's a very intelligent man who probably knows more than I ever will. But I don't want to kiss his ass, either - I want a tough question. For instance, I've heard that there has never been a peer-reviewed, scientific paper describing intelligent design. And I don't understand if IDists are advocating supernaturalism in science or not - I assumed that science was wholly naturalistic. Maybe this will be an opportunity to learn something about intelligent design from one of it's most formidable advocates.
So what do you think I should ask? Anyone out there who's more familiar with his work and wants to ask him something? Thanks for any input!

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 09-09-2007 3:28 PM taylor_31 has not replied
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 09-09-2007 3:39 PM taylor_31 has not replied
 Message 5 by jar, posted 09-09-2007 3:45 PM taylor_31 has not replied
 Message 6 by sidelined, posted 09-09-2007 4:19 PM taylor_31 has not replied
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2007 7:54 PM taylor_31 has not replied
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 09-10-2007 7:33 AM taylor_31 has not replied
 Message 15 by bluegenes, posted 09-11-2007 4:16 PM taylor_31 has not replied
 Message 16 by Modulous, posted 09-11-2007 4:25 PM taylor_31 has not replied
 Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-11-2007 6:58 PM taylor_31 has not replied

  
taylor_31
Member (Idle past 5924 days)
Posts: 86
From: Oklahoma!
Joined: 05-14-2007


Message 12 of 31 (421057)
09-10-2007 10:07 PM


Thanks for the suggestions, everybody; they were all great.
Taz writes:
In short, I'd just like to say that I'm no geologist and does not pretend to know the first thing about geology. We leave the surgeries to real surgeons. Why not leave the science to the scientists? A theologian should not have a say in science and vice versa.
I agree wholeheartedly, but I think this may be a little too personal: It might sound like I'm saying he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. And regardless of whether he does or not, I don't want to become too confrontational.
Chirop writes:
Personally, I would like to know whether any method for identifying ID has been tested on objects or systems that are already known to have been intelligently designed or produced without intelligent intervention, and of complexity similar to the biological systems that are under discussion. If so, what is the false-positive rate?
That sounds really interesting, but I need to make sure I understand the question first. Is this meant to show that IDists have no real methods for testing intelligent design? And what are some examples of complex, unintelligent features that rival biological systems? This would be a great question to ask, but I want to make sure he doesn't blow smoke and not address it.
jar writes:
why has almost every life form that ever existed gone extinct.
This seems to be a simple question and it sounds great. But what exactly is the percentage of extinct species in relation to the total number of species that have lived on Earth? I've heard around 97%, but I'm not too sure about that. Anyway, it sounds like the "Intelligent Designer" wasn't the most competent technician, but maybe he'll have an answer.
sidelined writes:
If yes , then ask him what intelligence designed the intelligent designer that designed the world.
Sorry, but I pretty much agree with Doddy here: He'll simply spout off the usual "God is outside space and time" garbage. And, because I probably won't get to ask a follow-up question, he'll look like he adequately defended his position against the argument.
And besides, I never was very impressed with this "who made the Designer" argument, anyway, even with Richard Dawkins making it the centerpiece of his case against theism. Maybe someday I'll recognize it's validity, but right not I don't think it's terribly convincing. Thanks for the input, though.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 09-11-2007 2:13 PM taylor_31 has not replied

  
taylor_31
Member (Idle past 5924 days)
Posts: 86
From: Oklahoma!
Joined: 05-14-2007


Message 22 of 31 (422839)
09-18-2007 1:27 PM


The lecture was last night and lasted about one hour. The Q&A session lasted two full hours; there was quite a long line to ask questions. Due to the large number of people, I decided to sit back and enjoy the show.
Overall, I was very unimpressed with Dr. Dembski's representation of intelligent design. He pointed out two examples of "irreducible complexity": the bacteria flagellum and the pathway from DNA to protein production ("every step is necessary, and could NOT have evolved"). Also, he also had a long, convoluted process for detecting design through pattern recognition and other criteria.
But I don't see why a few examples of unexplained phenomena is devastating to evolution, especially when it appears that science is making headway on those examples without invoking a designer. And his process may indeed detect "design" in biological systems; but I never understood how this process dismantles evolutionary theory, because evolution explains the illusion of design with naturalistic processes. It seemed to me to be a sexed-up version of Paley's watchmaker argument, designed to persuade the layman with dense and impressive-sounding terminology.
My favorite moment was when a professor from our school - a man who has spent thirty years researching the bacteria flagellum, according to one of his students - offered to explain the evolution of the flagellum, offsetting stuttering protests from Dembski and wild cheers from the crowd. Dembski was forced to put the slide of the flagellum back up on the wall, and the professor explained to him the four steps of the flagellum evolution, and answered every one of Dembski's objections with a factual statement. Eventually, a red-faced Dembski said in a panicky voice that he wouldn't believe it until he saw "every step", and that the scientist had only added "two more islands between Los Angeles and Tokyo".
This was an extremely revealing exchange for me. It showed that Dembski is employing a simple "God of the gaps" theory; it also showed that Dembski is not a scientist and that he borrows outdated work from other, more scientifically trained individuals; and it showed that normal, evolutionary-based biology is making progress on these difficult questions, without the "revelation" of intelligent design. I was quite proud of our professor.
I was glad that Dr. Dembski came to our university, but he showed absolutely nothing that convinced me of intelligent design; in fact, I walked away more confident than ever of evolutionary theory and its explanatory power.

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by arachnophilia, posted 09-18-2007 4:37 PM taylor_31 has not replied
 Message 26 by bluegenes, posted 09-18-2007 8:01 PM taylor_31 has replied
 Message 28 by Zhimbo, posted 09-18-2007 8:59 PM taylor_31 has not replied
 Message 30 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-18-2007 11:31 PM taylor_31 has not replied

  
taylor_31
Member (Idle past 5924 days)
Posts: 86
From: Oklahoma!
Joined: 05-14-2007


Message 29 of 31 (422959)
09-18-2007 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by bluegenes
09-18-2007 8:01 PM


Re: What did you ask?
Thanks for the account, taylor. As a matter of interest, did you manage to get a question in, and if so, what was it, and what was the answer?
The line for questioning was so long that I decided to simply watch. The Q&A session was supposed to have lasted forty minutes, and it was twice as long as the actual lecture! (And it was far more interesting.)
I have to give Dr. Dembski some credit: He has some thick skin. If I had been up there taking a hammering like he was, I would have ran off the stage in tears. (Then again, if I was deliberately misleading the public on scientific affairs, I would definitely deserve it.) He also, to my surprise, waited until the entire questioning line was empty. Even if the answers were pretty crappy, at least he didn't run and hide from the questions.
But overall, I was not very impressed with him. He came across as intelligent but rather arrogant, like someone who always believes that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Indeed, I think in fifty years he'll still be out there somewhere, preaching his message of intelligent design to some zealous church or youth group.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by bluegenes, posted 09-18-2007 8:01 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024