It's the "We" that kills me.
More on William Dembski from Baptist Press news service:
Quote:"Darwin is a great man. Darwin's theory is a great idea. His mechanism of random variation and natural selection is a milestone in intellectual history," Dembski said. "It fundamentally changed our conception of history. And yet it's not the whole story."
Although the theory explains many small-scale changes that organisms have undergone over time, Dembski noted that "it has difficulty explaining large-scale changes."
Darwin, writing in the late 1800s, did not foresee the technological advances in molecular biology of the last 30 years that have allowed scientists to look into the single cell -- something Dembski compares to an "automated city" -- and see its complex engineering and design.
"Evolutionary theory provides an important window into natural history," Dembski said, "but it no longer functions as a complete organizational package for biology. It needs to be supplemented."
Dembski said Intelligent Design -- "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence" -- can provide a more comprehensive framework.
Explaining Intelligent Design, Dembski compared it to building a rocket or baking a cake and commented on the design process that goes into doing both.
"Often we don't see that whole process taking place," he said of the design and manufacturing process. "What we're confronted with is the product at the very end."
Intelligent Design, he said, asks whether or not a designer can be inferred from that end product.
"Did that product arise as a result of design or is it the result of a purposeless material process?" he said. "Was this the result of intention or accident?"
He said scientists and observers at SETI -- which stands for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence and made famous by Hollywood movies like "Contact" in 1997 -- do the same thing when discerning radio signals from outer space.
What is seen as perfectly reasonable in many fields, like SETI, has become the cause of great controversy for Intelligent Design, Dembski said, because of the theological implications of the universe having a designer.
"If there is real intelligence behind biology, that would be unevolved [intelligence]," he said. "Then very quickly the G-word [God] comes to the fore."
The most compelling evidence for Intelligent Design, Dembski noted, is the cell's "bacterial flagellum" -- a bi-directional, motor-driven propeller inside the cell that can spin up to 100,000 r.p.m. and change direction in just a quarter turn.
"In Darwin's day, the cell was basically a little blob of Jell-O enclosed by a membrane," Dembski said. "That's why Darwin didn't write about the origin of life; he wrote about the origin of species." The problem was determining how complexity and diversity of life came into being, at a time when most thought single cells were very simple, Dembski said.
"Now you look inside the cell with what we know and you find a world of information processing, storage retrieval, high-tech, high-efficiency, nano-engineered motors," Dembski said. "You need engineering to understand what's going on inside the cell."
There's little comparison to the complexity of the cell, Dembski noted.
"Name your most complicated human artifact -- the supercomputer -- it is dwarfed by even the simplest cell."
Evolution, Dembski said, with its theory of evolving process and slow changes cannot account for the bacterial flagellum's intricate design.
"What needs to happen if you're going to tell an evolutionary story is you have to tell a story of gradual change and at each point there has to be some sort of selective advantage," Dembski said. "The evidence is just not there that these processes can do the sort of design work that I am pointing to."
The bacterial flagellum -- which has become the "icon" of Intelligent Design -- has pointed to serious issues within evolutionary theory's viability, Dembski continued.
"What we're talking about is a pervasive failure [in evolutionary theory] to account for systems like this," he said. "These systems have to be explained because this is where nuts and bolts biology takes place.
"If we're not explaining complexity at the biochemical level, then we have not explained life."
Addressing frequent criticism that there are theological influences behind Intelligent Design, Dembski noted that the same can be said for evolutionary theory.
"I would put it to you also that there are theological implications to evolution -- not that it's implications for God, but against God."
Acknowledging that Intelligent Design often gets mixed together with creationism, Dembski pointed out that there are clear distinctions between the two.
"Creationism is always about the source of being of the world -- where did everything come from," he said. "Intelligent Design is content to look at patterns in an existing world and say, 'Do they point to an intelligence?' but it doesn't get you to a source that's behind everything."
Just as a carpenter, he said, fashions and cuts wood into furniture, the carpenter is not also responsible for the wood itself.
"That's what a doctrine of creation does," he said. "Intelligent Design looks at patterns in nature and [discerns whether there's] good evidence that there's intelligence behind it."
The above is from a recent lecture given by Dembski in Kansas. Dembski continues to use the example of bacterium flagella. Many natural scientists, such as Kenneth Miller, have refuted this viewpoint in essays detailing how the evolution of flagella can be explained through the mechanism of natural selection.
wande-
All that,whilst well said and written,which makes a welcome change,still does not address itself to the social function of belief systems.
If we posit the notion that belief systems,of whatever sort,are vital to the evolution of cultural entities up to and including our own mighty construction,and the evidence is 100% for that proposition,then it seems to me that to seek to remove belief systems from society is tantamount to a species deliberately seeking external conditions in which it will become extinct.
We have no chance (zero) of ever arriving at a definitive answer to the origin of the universe or of the origin of life or of understanding either.There will always be irreducible complexity.
I am well aware that there are certain mentalities which bridle at being indoctrinated.They seem to feel that such a thing is an insult to their intelligence and in their hierarchy of priorities such an insult is not to be countenanced even though the well-being of their society is at risk.
This constitutes in my opinion an excessive pride and excessive pride is easily recognised in the manner in which such mentalities react to challenge.Bombast,bluster,insult,assertion and intolerance and,if the opportunity exists,the crude exertion of power.
Social relations with people who are suffused with personal pride are always a disaster and are conducted in terms of power.
When Mr Bush ends his broadcasts to the nation with the words "God bless America" it represents a humbling notion which is that despite the well known American hubris it is not as self-reliant as the proud like to believe it is.
The problem is confounded by the simple fact that all prominent people,from whichever side,need to have high degrees of pride in order to become prominent and these arguments resolve themselves into clashes between proud people who,once having taken a public position,cannot then bring themselves to back off from it.
The person who is humble in the face of the unresolvable mystery and doesn't wear that humility too prominently on his sleeve is a much more useful member of society and a much pleasanter person in respect of social relations.All the great scientists of the past exhibit this humility and I feel sure would seek,if they could,to distance themselves from some of the sentiments expressed on this thread,and elsewhere,in their name.Darwin himself had such humility.He "thinks" such a thing is so.He "feels" something is likely.He "believes" that-"Grave as these several difficulties are (objections to his theory),in my judgement they do not overthrow the theory of descent by modification."
He also says-"But it deserves especial notice that the more important objections relate to questions on which we are confessedly ignorant;nor do we know how ignorant we are."
That's a long way from "loony","stupid" and "ID-iot".People who use such terms are obviously tempermentally unable to admit ignorance.In my opinion they are unfit to take a part in an important debate about these matters as are those on the other side who wallow in such certainties.
spendi,
I agree it is better to be "humble in the face of unresolvable mystery."
However, in the practical matter of basic science education for our children, metaphysical and theological perspectives should be avoided. Science restricts itself to natural explanations of natural phenomena.
(I am sure there is a social function for belief systems but science needs to be neutral and not be used to support any belief system.)
Its interesting that DEmbski relies upon the findings of molecular biology. The structure of the genome does better by explaining the concept of "common ancestry" which is one of the blocks upon which Darwin's theory stands. Dembski, has the outer appearance of someone who represents a dispassionate view of science but in reality is merely trying to sell his worldview. He never gives up on his own platforms (like flagella or blood clotting) even after more competent specialists have made it clear how evolution affects these organic structures.
Spendius, you are obviously not acquainted with many recognized workers in the sciences so that Id have to say you can be forgiven for youre " a wise scientist humbles himself before what he doesnt understand"
A scientist sees what he doesnt presently understand as mere WORK, not something to worship. I think the use of uncomplimentary terms when describing Creationists and IDers is born out of frustration. When evidence stares one in the face and someone who has no clue disputes its usefulness, that does raise the BP . Thats why most biogists and paleontologists just ignore the IDers, because they are dogma driven and wont ever admit their fallacies in logic or their stretching of truth and outright lies. For the Creationists and IDers, its easy to post on a PBB because you dont have to bring anything except an attitude and a keyboard. If someone really wished to debate, they would come with data, evidence, and counter theory, not whines about being called uncomplimentary names and tired old mantras about blood clotting, and flagella.
Debate is merely the craft and practice of persuasion, and ID-iots play the game energetically, though neither honestly nor well. Law, on the other hand, is the craft and practice of deriving and establishing truth. Of note and comfort is that regardless their ability to remain on the field of public debate, the ID-iots have been summarilly ejected from every courtroom into which they've pushed themselves.
There is no way around the simple, incontestible facts that the ID-iot proposition not only is not science, thus deserving no notice or consideration pertaining to the teaching of science, but as detewrmined by law the ID-iot proposition is the antithesis of science. I suspect the ID-iot crowd anticipate a more conservative US Supreme Court will prove sympathetic to their agenda, and to such end, they continue to press their agenda of legislating their concept of religion into public policy. I expect they will find themselves sorely and finally disappointed, and I look forward to the day.
wande-
I still don't think you can seperate religious beliefs from the other aspects of society.They pervade thinking at the deepest levels.
Science is an extreme minority way of thinking and feeling and the word cannot possibly express what goes on in the ordinary classroom where the possibility of finding a scientific mentality is quite remote. Science is the disinterested pursuit of new knowledge undertaken out of a playful exercise of the natural curiosity.It has no aim.Such a severe discipline is uncommon. Anyone with an esoteric bent in that direction will be unaffected by his classroom experiences. I accept that its prestige is something which others may seek to ride the coat tails of and such a phenomena is itself amenable to scientific study.Especially in regard to funding.
timber wrote-
Quote: Law, on the other hand, is the craft and practice of deriving and establishing truth.
Excuse me whilst I have a tittering fit.
No special dispensation necessary, spendi; I excused you entirely some months ago.
Quote:Science is the disinterested pursuit of new knowledge undertaken out of a playful exercise of the natural curiosity.It has no aim.Such a severe discipline is uncommon. Anyone with an esoteric bent in that direction will be unaffected by his classroom experiences.
I love it when you argue with yourself. PS youre whippin yer ass.
or did you mean dispassionate?
dispassionate will do at a pinch but disinterested is slightly better I think.The two words are next door neighbours in Roget,as adjectives but not as nouns,so there won't be that much between them.I think disinterested is a bit posher.
More ballsy.
A scientists disinterest would never be his dispassion.
That is a wonderful Quote
Quote:If I believe in God. The universe as science sees it also tells me about God.
Rev. George Coyne
Rap
Alone among the hierarchy of Christian religionists, The Vatican at least approaches intellectual honesty and academic integrity.
wande quoted-
Quote: Eugenie Scott, an executive director with the National Center for Science Education said that the weekend sessions at the AAAS sought to address the concerns of the teachers.
Having had some experience of weekend seminars I can vouch that the above statement is correct.
From Kenneth Miller's website, a graphic showing the difference between the design argument and the natural selection argument:
Words ros.Just words."Experts"--Sheesh.
spendius wrote:Words ros.Just words."Experts"--Sheesh.
More than just words Spendi. Context, background, meaning, intention, motivation.
