Dog Bites Man; Dembski Says Designer is God

William Dembski, in an interview with Focus on the Family:

4. Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer?

I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent
design is, ultimately, the Christian God.

The focus of my writings is not to try to understand the Christian doctrine
of creation; it’s to try to develop intelligent design as a scientific
program.

There’s a big question within the intelligent design community: ‘How did
the design get in there?’ We’re very early in this game in terms of
understanding the history of how the design got implemented. I think a lot
of this is because evolutionary theory has so misled us that we have to
rethink things from the ground up. That’s where we are. There are lots and
lots of questions that are now open to re-examination in light of this new
paradigm.

The assertion that will be of interest is putting these things together:

‘The Designer is the Christian God, and one is wrong to say that “intelligent design” is not solely science.’

Somehow, Dembski and others expect to show up in a courtroom, somewhere, sometime, and convince another judge that this line of doublethink makes sense.

Then there’s the introductory statement:

Leading scientist and mathematician William A. Dembski has devoted years to researching intelligent design.

These guys have no shame. None whatsoever.

Wesley R. Elsberry

Falconer. Interdisciplinary researcher: biology and computer science. Photographer. Husband. Christian. Activist.

7 thoughts on “Dog Bites Man; Dembski Says Designer is God

  • 2007/12/16 at 7:14 am
    Permalink

    You see Wes, you have to consider the weasle word “ultimately”.

    This could mean that the designer of the flagellum say was not God, but that THAT designer himself was designed, possibly by another designer…but that ultimately it’s not designers all the way down, but it’s God (Dembski’s God of course) on the bottom (or is it at the top?). And God does not require a designer. Because saying that wouldn’t be scientific.

    This intermediate designer(s) is just someone who is maybe supernatural and has the skill set of God, but is not necessarily God.

    Do you see the science now and how it has nothing to do with God?

  • 2008/09/12 at 6:14 am
    Permalink

    I think that the theory of evolution and the Biblical story of how God created the world and created life completely contradict each other and cannot be reconciled. If the theory of evolution is correct, the world and human life have no purpose. If the Biblical story that tells us how God created our world and created human beings tells us the truth, then the other stories in the Bible are also true. All the Biblical stories tell us that God created the world and made human beings with a well defined purpose in mind

  • 2008/09/12 at 6:50 am
    Permalink

    You might want to brush up on the phrase “secondary causes”. Evolutionary science cannot confirm or deny purposes in the mind of God. If you take Genesis in a literalist interpretation of six 24-hour days of creation between 6 and 20 thousand years ago, then you have a problem, since the evidence says plainly that the world is 4.55 billion years old. The standard literalist interpreter claim is that if Genesis is “false” (that is, not to be understood via the literalist’s interpretation), then none of the rest of the bible can possibly be true, which is different from what you state above. The conclusion does not follow, and plenty of Christians do not require the crutch of literalism for their faith.

  • 2008/09/13 at 2:50 am
    Permalink

    The word days as it used at the beginning of Genesis does necessarily mean days of 24 hours. In the English language the word days is often used in the meaning of: an indefinite period of time. We can say something was normal in the days of antiquity or in the days of our grandparents or in the days before the second world war.
    It stands to reason that for the Bible to be true it can never contradict what has been proved by science.
    But the theory of evolution is no science. It is a theory. It has not been proved

  • 2008/09/13 at 4:29 am
    Permalink

    Literalist interpretation requires all that, to be sure, but other modes of Christian (and Jewish) thought do not, as noted before.

    Funny, though, that I talked about the age of the earth, and now you are railing against evolutionary science. To dispute the age of the earth, one has to dispute the basis of absolute age determination. This falls in the realm of physics, and requires the young-earth advocate to deny a number of well-tested matters within that discipline.

    Beyond that, evolutionary science certainly is science. Theories are the product of science, being well-tested mechanisms explaining a body of observed data. “Theory” does not mean “just a guess”, as your usage above implies. Science doesn’t operate on the sort of proof common to formal systems such as found in mathematics and propositional logic. Science works on consilience of the available evidence with proposed mechanisms. Many of the issues antievolutionists have with evolutionary science don’t involve the level of theories; denial of basic observations is de rigeur there. For example, the two incompatible responses antievolutionists have to observed instances of speciation are (1) straightforward denial of all such instances and (2) insistence that change does not proceed beyond the level of the “kind”. The second approach is a grudging acknowledgment that the data of such instances is incontrovertible.

    From stuff I wrote about a decade ago:

    I tend to think of SciCre argumentation, and even some of the ID argumentation, as a search for a “magic bullet”. By this, I don’t mean it in the sense that Ehrlich did when searching for a cure for syphilis. I mean it in the sense of werewolf movies. There, the magic bullet is simply a silver slug that will destroy the lycanthrope on contact. Those wielding the magic bullet need invest no other effort in dealing with the lycanthrope, are not required to be pure in spirit, and certainly have no need to *understand* lycanthropy in any deep sense. Similarly, the SciCre “professionals” are engaged in the peddling of “magic bullets”, which retain their magic only so long as they aren’t used on real lycanthropes. The magic bullet users, as Scott relates, remain secure in their faith that the evil lycanthropes can be held at bay or vanquished, right up until the time the magic bullet is fired — and is found to have lost its virtue.

    Instead of magic bullets like “too little moon dust” or “materialistic philosophy”, more good would come of trying to understand what exactly evolutionary biology is. As it is, creationist belief has tended more and more to resemble evolutionary biology. In little more than a century and a half, we have seen a change from general adherence to the doctrine of special creation to a range of beliefs, at the most different from evolutionary biology, creation of each separate “kind” (which when defined at all, tends to be defined such that the evolutionist term “clade” comes close to fitting the concept), and at the least different, a belief in physical common descent but separate imbuement of spirit.

    “Special creation” started out as each species being a special production of the creator. I think that there is essentially no chance that we will settle pon a larger number of original separate ancestors than 100. That number is two orders of magnitude away from the hardline stance of a single common ancestor, but seven orders of magnitude away from the probable number of total species over time that would characterize “special creation”. Which of these concepts is over time coming to “resemble” the other? I’d tend to say that the one that has changed more would be the one to say that about. The concept of “special creation” has definitely altered more than concepts of common ancestry.

    Personally, I find the existence of the canonical genetic code a very large stumbling block for any number of original common ancestors larger than about three, with a strong likelihood that one will, after all, turn out to be the right number.

  • 2009/03/02 at 12:21 am
    Permalink

    The intelligent design is an ambiguous movement (unlike creationism) which is similar to that of the 12 Step program. In that particular program of course advocates a higher power, but doesn’t identify it, leaving up to the person to decide who or what the higher power actually is if anything.

    So I’m not surprised with William Dembski’s statement during the interview back in 2007 which he should have clarified a bit more. I understand it to be his own personal opinion rather than the opinion of the whole ID movement.

  • 2009/03/02 at 1:51 am
    Permalink

    Not the opinion of the whole IDC movement…

    Let’s see… the usual gambit when using that line is to say, “Look, David Berlinski and Scott Moody are agnostics or atheists, so our movement is not wholly comprised of believers in the Judeo-Christian deity!”

    Somehow, I’m reminded of the Crisco commercials of long ago that said, “It all comes back except two tablespoons!” That the IDC movement has managed to attract a couple of generic anti-“Darwinian”s doesn’t immunize the motivations and goals of the movement as a whole.

    The whole upper echelon of the IDC movement is comprised of Christian theists. The vast preponderance of IDC advocates, cheerleaders, and other hangers-on are Christian theists. You get a tiny sub-group of people of the Jewish faith, or Islamic, or agnostic/atheist that has signed on to the “Dissent from Darwin” list.

Comments are closed.