Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Guess Dembskis response!

Its going to take me an evening or two to write up the 'Dembski vs Masked Man' post, so to keep you all occupied, and to mix it up a bit-- here are two Qs without the As! Lets see if anyone can guess the general theme of Dembskis responses!

CLUES: Both responses are word-salads that contain the phrase "Well... I mean", rampant passive aggression, numerous inapplicable analogies, and never actually answer the Qs.

Question 1--

Young gentleman-- Since your not actually positing who the intelligent designer is or how he is allegedly doing the designing, how can it be considered a theory? Basically youre setting up a critique or negation of evolution. How are you actually positing anything or proving your theory, outside of just saying theyre wrong, therefore Im right?

Question 2 (got LOTS of laughs and applause from the audience)--
Gentleman-- First, Id like to thank you for acknowledging that science and religion can coexist. Its an underappreciated idea these days. So my question is, seems like what we're hearing a lot of, is evolutions 'shortcomings', and very little evidence for design. Your explanatory filter simply shows that complex structures are unlikely to have arisen under (couldnt hear word) properties. Where is the evidence for ID? (Dembski responds) Motercycles and Mt. Rushmore are very different from biological systems. (Dembski responds) Ive read a lot about the flagellum, and a motorcycle is obviously the product of a designer. But a motorcycle wasnt just designed de novo and ran out on the street. It required a lot of trial and error and tinkering, and selection of the parts...


Anonymous said...

Question 1: we do science, we don't talk about god...uh, I mean, "the designer".

Question 2: PARADIGM!!!

ERV said...

Youre so close, Im giving you the first point, Anon-- PARADIGM!!! is in Question 1!

Dembski-- "Science is... the accepted modes of explanations in science have changed. What science is has changed. Science is an old notion. Traditionally its been called natural philosophy. There are many natural philosophies-- what constitutes a valid mode of causation in that philosophy are varied. Aristotle used to be science! We dont call it science, but its science! The nature of scientific evidence is changing!"

But remember, he is NEVER on topic! Your Q1 answer might actually answer the Q, so it cant be right :)

Anonymous said...

If that's what Dembski said (with no eeeehs), then it was a prepared answer!

Dan said...

Question one: "You're wrong." - with an implicit "and therefore I am right" thrown in there.

Also, whenever they talk about Mount Rushmore and being designed, I think of the old man in the mountain. Stone face, completely natural. If you have enough stones, after a while a few look like faces.

If you added natural selection, we'd have Mount Rushmores and old men of the mountain everywhere. However, since natural selection for facial structure is not applied to rocks, and rocks do not reproduce, we do not.

Which is why Mount Rushmore almost HAS to be designed, while organisms do not. The Mount Rushmore comparison basically refutes itself.

Dan said...

... while I'm talking naturally occuring faces, I might add food with Jesus' face on it.

You know how that happens, right? And people infer God has intervened and altered their food, because it's improbable? And they don't even know the elementary math needed to realize that if a few billion people eat daily, eventually a face will show up?

That's Dembski, right there. All hail the face in the waffle.

Dan said...

Being shameless, I have no fear of spamming to add: I really ought to write the face-thing up as a proper essay. The entire premise of "design inference" is so very retarded it'd almost be cruelly unfair to attack it, though.

A. Thinker said...

These are incredibly entertaining, ERV. And you are incredible!

Dembski answer 1: "Ehh, euuhhh, aekhhkk. Heh heh heh, ehhhh."

Dembski answer 2: "Ehh, euuhhh,
it's like a motorcycle climbing a stack of pancakes. Ehhh, pancakes. Flapjacks. Euhhh, urinal cakes."

Fred Ross said...

Off topic, but I thought you'd appreciate this quote from the blog Heaven Tree (which is actually not a science blog at all):

That was 250 million years ago –...249,994,232 years before God, awaking from primordial slumber pronounced, retroactively, the life-giving formula “Let there be light.”

J-Dog said...

He said " I don't have to match your pathetic level of detail".

Then he said "Mommy, make them stop, they're hurting me".

It's the Dembski Dichotomy:
Good Bill, Bad Bill.
Sciencey Bill, Religious Bill.
Nice Bill, Mean Bill.

IMO, Dembski is a walking, talking poster boy for Schizophrenia.
The coolest thing to consider though though, is that according to him, he must have been designed that way. WTF? Bill - Your god obviously hates you and holds you up for public ridicule! Bwa Ha Ha Ha!

386sx said...

If you added natural selection, we'd have Mount Rushmores and old men of the mountain everywhere. However, since natural selection for facial structure is not applied to rocks, and rocks do not reproduce, we do not.

Yes you're right, that is a pretty lame analogy to make. But this is all they have. Bad analogies, appeals to ignorance, nay-saying, bad math, and don't come from no monkeys, is all that ID amounts to, I'm afraid. It's a very sad thing to witness.

Physicalist said...

I imagine somebody must have brought this up in the context of the Mt. Rushmore analogy, but if anyone's pursuing it, you should also compare it to the Old Man of the Mountain in New Hampshire (before it collapsed a few years ago). Was it designed? Note that folks from New Hampshire sometimes claimed that it was put there by god "to remind them of how tough New Hampshire folk are" or something . . .

G said...

Science has stopped being "natural philosophy" since... Newton?

What Dembsky is reaching for is relativism, not knowing that by using his same argument we could defend astrology (it used to be science!)Hasnt he read the Dover transcripts?

Also, he seems to by implying that instead of producing scientific evidence he can just produce whatever he wants and call it science. That's very lame and arrogant.

(I was the first Anon)

Torbjörn Larsson said...

I don't have to match your pathetic level of detail

[Dembski] EVERYBODY expects the Dumbski Inquisition! Our chief weapon is pathetic absence of detail...absence of detail and mechanisms...absence of mechanisms and detail.... Our two weapons are pathetic absence of detail and mechanisms...and prediction.... Our *three* weapons are absence of detail and mechanisms...and prediction...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Bible.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as pathetic absence of detail, mechanisms....

I'll come back again.

monado said...

Torbjörn, that's hilarious! Is it OK if I quote you on my blog?