Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 10:12 PM
26 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,129 Year: 5,166/19,786 Month: 1,288/873 Week: 184/460 Day: 29/97 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Questions for William Dembski
Modulous
Member (Idle past 213 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 16 of 31 (421230)
09-11-2007 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by taylor_31
09-09-2007 2:17 PM


If I was to meet someone like Dembski and was afforded the opportunity to ask him anything it would be to ask about implementation of the design and if any work was being done to detect implementation of design.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by taylor_31, posted 09-09-2007 2:17 PM taylor_31 has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1157 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 17 of 31 (421255)
09-11-2007 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by taylor_31
09-09-2007 2:17 PM


The lecture includes a Q&A session towards the end

How do you know this?

Theist scholars do not usually allow questions from inferior persons.

Questioning presupposes superiority, that is, the superior questions the inferior. I doubt that a person like you will get a chance to question the superior.

If you want to ask Dembski a question then go over to his site and ask him (Uncommon Descent).

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by taylor_31, posted 09-09-2007 2:17 PM taylor_31 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 09-11-2007 7:04 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-11-2007 9:52 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 21 by sidelined, posted 09-12-2007 7:50 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 27 by nator, posted 09-18-2007 8:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 18 of 31 (421257)
09-11-2007 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object
09-11-2007 6:58 PM


Theist scholars do not usually allow questions from inferior persons.

I can understand why. It must be embarrassing when an "inferior" knows more about the subject than the so-called "scholar".


I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-11-2007 6:58 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 19 of 31 (421294)
09-11-2007 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object
09-11-2007 6:58 PM


Theist scholars do not usually allow questions from inferior persons.

If by "theist scholars" you mean "theist scholars", then this is an oddly-phrased libel on theist scholars; but if, as I suspect, you mean "creationists" then I don't suppose that your assertion has ever been put to the test --- where would a creationist find an inferior?

Questioning presupposes superiority.

What a lot of lies you tell, to be sure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-11-2007 6:58 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12590
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 20 of 31 (421334)
09-12-2007 4:24 AM


Thought for the Day
If one can't think of a constructive response, it is better to say nothing at all.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 31 (421347)
09-12-2007 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object
09-11-2007 6:58 PM


Cold Foreign Object

Theist scholars do not usually allow questions from inferior persons.

That makes sense if they wish to keep hidden the man behind the curtain.

Questioning presupposes superiority, that is, the superior questions the inferior. I doubt that a person like you will get a chance to question the superior.

What a croc! Questioning has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority , it has to do with understanding by inquiry.It does not matter who the person is on a given topic questioning is to be encouraged as it is the means by which the validity of an arguement is tested.
A person who merely relies on their level of education or their reputation as support for a position is not a sensible fellow and should know better in the first place.


It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-11-2007 6:58 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
taylor_31
Member (Idle past 4032 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 yet responded
 Message 26 by bluegenes, posted 09-18-2007 8:01 PM taylor_31 has responded
 Message 28 by Zhimbo, posted 09-18-2007 8:59 PM taylor_31 has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-18-2007 11:31 PM taylor_31 has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 87 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 23 of 31 (422881)
09-18-2007 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by taylor_31
09-18-2007 1:27 PM


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.

"seems?" nay, it is. i know not seems.

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.

oh, man, i seriously hope someone had a camera and puts that on youtube. i wish i'd been there for that one!


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by taylor_31, posted 09-18-2007 1:27 PM taylor_31 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Taz, posted 09-18-2007 4:58 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 09-18-2007 6:32 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1400 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 24 of 31 (422891)
09-18-2007 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by arachnophilia
09-18-2007 4:37 PM


arachnophilia writes:

i wish i'd been there for that one!


Well, I would have traded my arm to be there.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by arachnophilia, posted 09-18-2007 4:37 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 213 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 25 of 31 (422912)
09-18-2007 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by arachnophilia
09-18-2007 4:37 PM


oh, man, i seriously hope someone had a camera and puts that on youtube. i wish i'd been there for that one!

IT was recorded. PZ Myers wrote this about the event:

quote:
Not if you listen to Bill Dembski's Q & A last night…where he said, "I've got plenty of ulterior religious motive, I'd like to see ID succeed because of my Christian background and beliefs." In addition, it sounds like not only did a professor get up and rip him apart on the flagellum, but the audience was laughing at poor Dembski. That's what we need more of: the creationists getting laughed off the stages at their propaganda ops.

There is a rough link to a transcript (as it happened) to the ripping here

quote:
Once again, another offer to explain the flagellum. By popular demand the prof is up there explaining it right now. I love this. Flagellum evolved in four steps – bacterial pilli, needle, ATP syntase, time beat dependent transport systems. Combine these four together you see a step-wise mechanism for the evolution of the flagellum. “and you know this for sure? Can you show me the exact genetic changes that occurred, the probabilities for them, you have to have protein homologues that are folded in and I’m not seeing the specificity” “how many steps do you need” “I want a detailed explanation” :laughter: “it’s a great just-so story, but you still have to prove more to me, show me how you get from that to the next step ok you’ve got another one there another system along the way step by step do the genetic changes make sense” the proteins that make up the flagellum are so closely related to those that make up the pillli and the needle so they aren’t just proteins from different systems that have been co opted for this function, if yo’re going to lecture on this particular subject I suggest that you obtain an adnvance d degree in biochemistry” :applause:

The recording isn't up yet, but this person has apparently done an audio recording and will hopefully post it. Meantime there is this to read:

And finally, a link to the professor who made the night so successful.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by arachnophilia, posted 09-18-2007 4:37 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 586 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 26 of 31 (422924)
09-18-2007 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by taylor_31
09-18-2007 1:27 PM


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?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by taylor_31, posted 09-18-2007 1:27 PM taylor_31 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by taylor_31, posted 09-18-2007 10:44 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 31 (422932)
09-18-2007 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object
09-11-2007 6:58 PM


quote:
Questioning presupposes superiority, that is, the superior questions the inferior.

Wha?

What kind of school did you go to where the students were not permitted to ask the teacher questions?

Anyway, questioning each other's results and hypotheses is what scientists do, Ray. A scientist should start worrying for her job if her collegues stop having enough interest in her work that they stop challenging it with rigorous questioning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-11-2007 6:58 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 4121 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 28 of 31 (422940)
09-18-2007 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by taylor_31
09-18-2007 1:27 PM


quote:
It seemed to me to be a sexed-up version of Paley's watchmaker argument,

Ding ding ding! You win the prize! Actually, it's considerably less sexy; the eye (Paley's fave example) is much cooler and easier to talk about than blood clotting cascades.

quote:
and that the scientist had only added "two more islands between Los Angeles and Tokyo".

And here Dembski tips his hand completely as a "God of the Gaps" proponent. Of course, he starts by maintaining there were NOT any islands between L.A. and Tokyo...but when shown to be wrong, he now says that every intervening step just creates more gaps, the classic "God of the Gaps" response.

As a side note, the "L.A. to Tokyo" schtick is an interesting rhetorical choice on his part, because we know there are wide expanses of ocean between the real L.A. and Tokyo. He could just as easily have chosen Key West and Florida, but that wouldn't bias people's intuitions nearly as much, would it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by taylor_31, posted 09-18-2007 1:27 PM taylor_31 has not yet responded

  
taylor_31
Member (Idle past 4032 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 yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3709
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 30 of 31 (422965)
09-18-2007 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by taylor_31
09-18-2007 1:27 PM


Dembski's ID is theistic evolution
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.

Those of the Discovery Institute (DI) are generally vague about how their design details fit into the big picture. They won't take any stand on the age of the Earth. And seemingly, they refuse to admit that their design considerations are (at best) details in what is mainstream evolutionary theory. Personally, I prefer "God in the details" over "God of the gaps".

Dembski is citing Michael Behe material. Behe is, IMO, a theistic evolutionist, accepting the bulk of the mainstream theory of (biological) evolution. Dembski would seem to be the same. Their "design" is trying to document God having, at least to some small degree, guided evolution.

The DI seems to want to have it both ways - They are essentially old Earth evolutionists, but they don't want to disassociate and/or alienate themselves from the young Earth creationist (YEC) ID crowd.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for — but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by taylor_31, posted 09-18-2007 1:27 PM taylor_31 has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019