On Friday, Feb. 3rd, I was able to pose a question to Greer-Heard Forum headliners Michael Ruse and William Dembski. Here’s a transcript of that segment:
WRE:Actually I’m interested in a public policy aspect of this whole thing. Last month, I got on the Web of Science database search and looked up the term “cold fusion” and it came up with 900 papers there. “Cold fusion” is the poster child for the “not-ready-for-prime-time” physics theory, something that is not ready for going into 9th grade biology, no, physics textbooks. We see the process of science in things like plate tectonics, and the endosymbiotic theory, the neutral theory, and punctuated equilibria, these are things that have earned a place in the textbooks, because the people put in the work, they convinced the scientific community that they had a point, and that’s why they’re in the textbooks. So, what I’d like to hear from both of you is, is there a justification for giving intelligent design a pass on this process?
Dembski: That was short, but I think I can expand on that a little bit. A few years back, I wrote a paper, in fact I think I delivered it at a conference that I think that you attended, what was the title, Becoming a Disciplined Science, Pitfalls, Problems, various things confronting intelligent design, and in that paper I addressed what I thought a real concern for me that intelligent design would become an instrumental good used by various groups to further certain ends, but that the science would get short-shrifted, and I argued that the science was the intrinsic good, and indeed that’s my motivation, ultimately. I could make my peace with Darwinism if I had to, and I’m sufficiently theologically astute to do the fancy footwork, but it’s the science itself that I don’t think holds up, and that’s what motivates me to critique Darwinism and develop intelligent design. But as I argued in that paper, intelligent design has to be developed as a scientific program, otherwise you, you can’t get a pass, I’m with you on that. And I was not a supporter of this Dover policy. Once it was enacted, once the Thomas More Law Center was going ahead with it, I did agree to be an expert witness there, but I think it is premature.
The conference mentioned was the 2002 “Research and Progress in Intelligent Design” conference at Biola. I was at the pre-conference dinner and public event, courtesy of conference organizer Jed Macosko, but was also kept out of the conference because, he said, the conference was only for ID supporters. Richard Sternberg presented there, I should note.
There is an appreciable difference between the motivation given by Dembski at the forum last Friday and the one he gave to a Sunday School class two years ago. If this represents a change over time, it is in the right direction.<= get_option(\'vc_tag\') ?>> = get_option(\'vc_text_before\') ?> 6349 = get_option(\'vc_human_count_text_many\') ?> = get_option(\'vc_preposition\') ?> 2437 = get_option(\'vc_human_viewers_text_many\') ?> = get_option(\'vc_tag\') ?>>