http://www.designinference.com/documents/2000.11.ID_coming_clean.htm
I’ll come back to what it means for design in nature to have empirical content, but I want for the moment to stay with the worry that intelligent design is but a disguised form of creationism. Ask any leader in the design movement whether intelligent design is stealth creationism, and they’ll deny it. All of us agree that intelligent design is a much broader scientific program and intellectual project. Theists of all stripes are to be sure welcome. But the boundaries of intelligent design are not limited to theism. I personally have found an enthusiastic reception for my ideas not only among traditional theists like Jews, Christians, and Muslims, but also among pantheists, New-Agers, and agnostics who don’t hold their agnosticism dogmatically. Indeed, proponents of intelligent design are willing to sit across the table from anyone willing to have us.
That willingness, however, means that some of the people at the table with us will also be young earth creationists. Throughout my brief tenure as director of Baylor’s Michael Polanyi Center, adversaries as well as supporters of my work constantly pointed to my unsavory associates. I was treated like a political figure who is unwilling to renounce ties to organized crime. It was often put to me: “Dembski, you’ve done some respectable work, but look at the disreputable company you keep.” Repeatedly I’ve been asked to distance myself not only from the obstreperous likes of Phillip Johnson but especially from the even more scandalous young earth creationists.
I’m prepared to do neither. That said, let me stress that loyalty and friendship are not principally what’s keeping me from dumping my unsavory associates. Actually, I rather like having unsavory associates, regardless of friendship or loyalty. The advantage of unsavory associates is that they tend to be cultural pariahs (Phillip Johnson is a notable exception, who has managed to upset countless people and still move freely among the culture’s elite). Cultural pariahs can keep you honest in ways that the respectable elements of society never do (John Stuart Mill would no doubt have approved). Or as it’s been put, “You’re never so free as when you have nothing to lose.” Cultural pariahs have nothing to lose.
Even so, there’s a deeper issue underlying my unwillingness to renounce unsavory associates, and that concerns how one chooses conversation partners and rejects others as cranks. Throughout my last ten years as a public advocate for intelligent design, I’ve encountered a pervasive dogmatism in the academy. In my case, this dogmatism has led fellow academicians (I hesitate to call them “colleagues” since they’ve made it clear that I’m no colleague of theirs) to trash my entire academic record and accomplishments simply because I have doubts about Darwinism, because I don’t think the rules of science are inviolable, and because I think that there can be good scientific reasons for thinking that certain natural systems are designed. These are my academic sins, no more and no less. And the academy has been merciless in punishing me for these sins.
http://www.iscid.org/
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000577.html
Dembski's defense: quote and link(s) for the non-dogmatic
by Shining One 27 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Shining One
-
-
tetrapod.sapien
so rex, a question for you that i would prefer in your own words:
Repeatedly I’ve been asked to distance myself not only from the obstreperous likes of Phillip Johnson but especially from the even more scandalous young earth creationists.
how old is the earth, and how long did god take to create it?
-
Leolaia
Anyone see Dembski tonight on the Daily Show? I almost felt sorry for the guy...the New Age lady got more air time than him....
-
tetrapod.sapien
Ask any leader in the design movement whether intelligent design is stealth creationism, and they’ll deny it.
LOL. of course they do, of course they do.
and agnostics who don’t hold their agnosticism dogmatically.
ya. because people who "just don't know" can get pretty godmatic...
Indeed, proponents of intelligent design are willing to sit across the table from anyone willing to have us.
yes so are jehovah's witnesses. it's called doin' sum ministree.
In my case, this dogmatism has led fellow academicians (I hesitate to call them “colleagues” since they’ve made it clear that I’m no colleague of theirs)
as would i. it's an evil atheistic conspiracy! dogmatic darwinists! beware world!
simply because I have doubts about Darwinism,
oh yes. the poor xian getting picked on my all the evil atheists. bearing his cross while the atheists tear him apart in the lions den of acadamia.
because I don’t think the rules of science are inviolable,
the rules? oh, like you mean established theories and laws like gravity and evolution?
and because I think that there can be good scientific reasons for thinking that certain natural systems are designed. These are my academic sins, no more and no less. And the academy has been merciless in punishing me for these sins.
hmmm...sounds like he should be punished. plus, he'll be getting it from jesus at the rapture for lying about something so convincingly.
TS
-
Abaddon
Fish. Barrel. Shooting, Shining One. Debating with. Is like.
The above words and phrases may be re-arranged to form a well-known sentence.
Shiny-whiney, just to make this clear, I don't expect a coherent or cogent response from you, I'm just having my morning coffee and this is kind of fun in a very nerdy way. If others enjoy it, great. If not, I'm having fun. I don't however expect to 'convert' you, and can think of scriptures involving dogs and swine that are rather applicable when applied to your post topics..
... ask any leader in the design movement whether intelligent design is stealth creationism, and they’ll deny it.
Ask any leader of the British National Party whether the BNP is stealth Nazism, and they'll deny it.
All of us agree that intelligent design is a much broader scientific program and intellectual project.
You mean "All [believers in intelligent design] will agree [with each other] that it is is a much broader scientific program and intellectual project [than sitting round a fire with a bone through your nose prasing the god of mud]".
Interestingly enough, all members of the BNP will agree that the BNP is a far broader program and intellectual project than the National Front ever used to be...
Theists of all stripes are to be sure welcome.
Bigots of all stripes are to be welcome.
But the boundaries of intelligent design are not limited to theism.
But the boundaries of bigotry are not limited to racism.
I personally have found an enthusiastic reception for my ideas not only among traditional theists like Jews, Christians, and Muslims, but also among pantheists, New-Agers, and agnostics who don’t hold their agnosticism dogmatically.
Curiously enough, the UK Independence Party found an enthusiastic reaction to their ideas not only from traditional bigots like Nazis, but also amongst Conservatives, Labour supporters, and single-issue voters responding to broadly-painted facile characterisations of the issues raised.
Indeed, proponents of intelligent design are willing to sit across the table from anyone willing to have us.
That is one sentence I don't need to lampoon.
That willingness, however, means that some of the people at the table with us will also be young earth creationists.
That willingness, however, means that some of the people at the table with [sanitised far-right parties pushing racially devisive issues] will be [unsanistised ultra-right wing racist nutters].
Throughout my brief tenure as director of Baylor’s Michael Polanyi Center, adversaries as well as supporters of my work constantly pointed to my unsavory associates.
http://www3.baylor.edu/Lariat/Archives/2000/20000406/art-front01.html
Throughout my brief tenure as director of [a department accused of pseudo-science by the science departments of the University it was a part of], adversaries as well as supporters of my work constantly pointed to my unsavory associates.
People still point out how many people within the BNP, even at the highest level, used to be members of the National Front.
I was treated like a political figure who is unwilling to renounce ties to organized crime. It was often put to me: “Dembski, you’ve done some respectable work, but look at the disreputable company you keep.” Repeatedly I’ve been asked to distance myself not only from the obstreperous likes of Phillip Johnson but especially from the even more scandalous young earth creationists.
So unfair eh? Like a political leader being advised to stay clear of Nazis, convicted racists, screaming homophobes, ranting misogynists and ultra-nationalists as they make it look like he has no ethics.
I’m prepared to do neither.
The Hitlers can still come to tea.
That said, let me stress that loyalty and friendship are not principally what’s keeping me from dumping my unsavory associates. Actually, I rather like having unsavory associates, regardless of friendship or loyalty. The advantage of unsavory associates is that they tend to be cultural pariahs (Phillip Johnson is a notable exception, who has managed to upset countless people and still move freely among the culture’s elite). Cultural pariahs can keep you honest in ways that the respectable elements of society never do (John Stuart Mill would no doubt have approved). Or as it’s been put, “You’re never so free as when you have nothing to lose.” Cultural pariahs have nothing to lose.
Simply put "Nazis, neo-nazis, holocaust deniers, every-day racists and their ilk will say things no reasonable person would ever say, so I like hanging with them".
Even so, there’s a deeper issue underlying my unwillingness to renounce unsavory associates, and that concerns how one chooses conversation partners and rejects others as cranks. Throughout my last ten years as a public advocate for intelligent design, I’ve encountered a pervasive dogmatism in the academy.
This guy's tongue should cleave to his mouth when he uses a word like dogmatism;
1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant
2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premisesID is based on the premise that complex things require a designer, yet offers no evidence of this other than assertion, and no explanation for how the designer (a complex thing) arose. Thus, by definition, someone who believes in ID to the extent they reject all other possibilities is dogmatic.
In my case, this dogmatism has led fellow academicians (I hesitate to call them “colleagues” since they’ve made it clear that I’m no colleague of theirs) to trash my entire academic record and accomplishments simply because I have doubts about Darwinism, because I don’t think the rules of science are inviolable, and because I think that there can be good scientific reasons for thinking that certain natural systems are designed. These are my academic sins, no more and no less. And the academy has been merciless in punishing me for these sins.
Those he criticises in the above simply object to someone who asserts that complex things require a designer (yet offers no evidence of this other than assertion, and no explanation for how the designer (a complex thing) arose) claiming they are being scientific when they are not - again, by definiton.
Just as a reputable political scientist might not like having faculty members who were nazi apologists, they might feel that the smell of sh*t spreads...
Of course someone is probably going to be sniffy at comparing for the purposes of parody right-wingers and ID-ots. I'm sorry if you miss the point. If you do miss the point, try jabbing yourself with a sharpened pencil, maybe that point will work...
-
Shining One
Wow Abaddon. You took a long time to try and harpoon Dembski and come up empty! All you did was flame, spout analogies that DID NOT APPLY and demostrated your closed mindedness. This reply took about ten seconds. LOL
Rex -
Shining One
Hi Tetly,
I don't know how old the earth is. I guess that makes me in similiar to scientists, right? I can just guess and speculate! I can postulate hypothesis and try to pass them off as 'fact' in order to support my new found belief system, which is called naturalism. I could also be like you and get some measure of bitterness and satisfaction by gaining 'revenge' on God for 'letting JW's fool me for so long'. LOL
Now, as for the answer of 'how many days', I must ask this: how long were the 'days' and do they correspond to our present understanding of 'day', so I then need to check out the meaning of the Hebrew word used to relay this info.
Next, I need to analyze the scripture and then consult commentaries on Genesis. Are they an example of God using myths (not made up stories but stories that have an origin in truth) to tell us why certain things are as they are? Conversly, do I view them as absolutely literal truth conveyed to us in scripture?
The only one who as there at the time, our Lord Jesus Christ has an opinion on this. The first and foremost question about that is: how did He view Genesis? He was there. You weren't there. No scientist of any stripe was there. Science has no firm answers in Origins, it only has more questions arise as they postulate theories that are later proved wrong! I hope this helps, Tetly.
Rex -
Abaddon
Hang on, where's my sunglasses...
... there we go... I was getting glare from the light reflecting off your flat head.
Yes, of course, you wouldn't get it. Literary analysis is not your forte, as you have so abundantly illusratated, but as I made clear, I enjoyed it and that was why I did it. I'm not suprised you either can't understand or don't want to engage with what I said, as this either is your abilities being streached or your modus operandi being demonstrated, or quite possiblly both.
Don't worry though, we appreciate you being such a wonderful illustration of the damage toxic religion can do. A true service to the community...
-
tetrapod.sapien
rexette,
I don't know how old the earth is. I guess that makes me in similiar to scientists, right?
no, actually, you're still just rex. scientists know how old the earth is.
I can just guess and speculate! I can postulate hypothesis and try to pass them off as 'fact' in order to support my new found belief system, which is called naturalism.
i'm glad you're finally coming around. you're going to have to drop jesus though and start kissing hank's ass.
Now, as for the answer of 'how many days', I must ask this: how long were the 'days' and do they correspond to our present understanding of 'day', so I then need to check out the meaning of the Hebrew word used to relay this info.
Next, I need to analyze the scripture and then consult commentaries on Genesis.this explains a lot. thank you.
Are they an example of God using myths (not made up stories but stories that have an origin in truth) to tell us why certain things are as they are?
nice. so god uses some dumb-ass myths to explain things instead of just coming out of his omnimax shell and saying it as it is? yup. sounds about right to me! (your implicit assertions aside)
The only one who as there at the time, our Lord Jesus Christ has an opinion on this.
speak for yourself. even if he did exist, i wouldn't worship him. until you can prove that he exists, you're going to have to kiss hank's ass too.
The first and foremost question about that is: how did He view Genesis?
nonsense. the first question, logically, is do i have evidence to back my extraordinary implied assertions? or in fundy lay-man's terms: does he even exist?
Science has no firm answers in Origins, it only has more questions arise as they postulate theories that are later proved wrong!
yep, that's about right rexette. it amazes me that you actually know how science works. of course, your faith's explanation is even worse off, as it raises more questions than there are possible answers for. like who created god? you'd think that with all the dogmatic born-agains like you running around crying bloody mary-jane, that there would be some scientific evidence for your simple assertions.
well, i actually found a web site "by a former atheist" (he must have had a mental breakdown, or developed temporal lobe epilepsy) that states scientific evidence for the existence of god. on this page, he answers why god always was, scientifically OF COURSE. note all the scriptures, and not a single reference to a science paper to prop up his little worldview. he also, in true xian style, misquotes carl sagan: http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/WhoCreatedGod/WhoCreatedGod.html
I hope this helps, Tetly.
it's been good for a romp and a tickle.
TS