Saturday, April 05, 2008



William Dembski is in the Baptist Press signaling the faithful furiously as to the proper use of the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean?" that constitutes the sole rational of Intelligent Design Creationism. He does almost nothing to deny that ID is religiously motivated or that the "Designer" under consideration is not only God, but the Christian God of fundamentalists' desires. He merely refuses to say it outright. Strangely enough, he also all but gives up his (bogus) claim that ID is similar to SETI in trying to find intelligence without reference to a known intelligent entity:

Many fields of study within modern science involve intelligent design, including archeology, forensics and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), Dembski said. An archeologist, for example, examines the evidence -- such as a curiously shaped stone -- to determine whether it might be the product of a human intelligence.

"These sciences, however, are uncontroversial because any intelligence detected through them could be an 'evolved' intelligence," Dembski said. "Most of the action with ID, on the other hand, centers in biology, so that any intelligence involved with the emergence of living things is likely to be an 'unevolved' intelligence. ID therefore challenges materialistic theories of evolution, such as Darwinism."

Unlike biblical creationism, ID does not begin with the Genesis account of creation, nor do its proponents attempt to describe the nature of the intelligence that designed the universe. Despite this fact, Dembski noted, "ID is friendly to Christian theism in a way that materialistic forms of evolution never have been."

"One of the biggest obstacles to people coming to Christ in Western culture is the impression that science has disproved the Bible and Christianity," he said. "ID therefore helps to correct this false impression by showing that our best science supports belief in a higher intelligence responsible for life. ID does not give you the Christian God as such, but it puts you in the right ballpark."
And so, even if they won't say the Designer is God , it winds up that the Designer is in the same ballpark as God. So, the issue is now, just how do they plan to scientifically study this ballpark god?

Well, if it's a football ballpark, all they have to do is wait for the next game. Listen carefully in the locker room to hear if one of the teams prays for victory. Then check the score at the end of the game.
Won't work. They all pray. Apparenty, though, the Giants prayed best.
This is somewhat on topic, somewhat off topic. Above all, I think it's important, since it shows that whatever Stein's rhetoric of "freedom," he can't help but allow his despotic authoritarian tendencies to come out as he indicates that he just wants scientists like Darwin to shut up. This is a cross-post:

More dull, ignorant repetition from the highly prejudiced Stein:


5. What would you like to say to Darwin?

[Ben Stein says]"You are a wealthy man, you married a wealthy woman, why don’t you just live quietly out in the countryside and not torture us with your half-baked suppositions, which have caused so much misery?"

I want to emphasize, Darwin was not like the crazed neo-Darwinists of today. Darwin believed in the freedom of inquiry. He encouraged there to be further study and debate. He said that in writing before he died.

Neo-Darwinists ask us to believe in things not seen. We’re not supposed to have an established religion in America, but we do, and it’s called Darwinism.

The guy can't help but contradict himself. All he wants to happen is for Darwin, and those who accept his theory, to shut up, the complete opposite of their claims to desire freedom and open inquiry

And of course we happen to believe in freedom of inquiry, Stein is just too stupid and dishonest to even consider how this could be the case.

Certainly we don't want them to believe in things not seen (the IDists obviously do), we want people to have the freedom to observe and to follow the evidence. The evidence of evolution is quite visible and quite easily seen, except for those who just want scientists to shut up, as Ben obviously does.

Well, they said they wanted the truth to come out. It did, it just happens that the truth is that they're censors who are opposed to allowing scientists the freedom to conduct the methods of science--like publishing their results.

Glen Davidson
You would think the God of intelligent design could do a better job getting school board polices passed. It’s not like there chiseled in stone. (Oh….wait, ummm, scratch that)
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .


How to Support Science Education