Friday, December 14, 2007

Dembski fails ID test

Everyone, lets play a quick game of "Answer like a Creationist"!!!

Q: Who is William Dembski?
A: The worlds leading biologist, and proponent of Intelligent Design.

Q: What is Intelligent Design?
A: A scientific theory that states the Universe is Designed. Research from all fields of science supports ID Theory, and more scientists are rejecting Darwinism in favor of ID Theory every day.

Q: Is Intelligent Design religion?
A: "The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."

**BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUZZZ!!** WRONG! ID is NOT a religion! Everyone knows that! Who said that?? Some Darwinist?? Some Atheist scientist that hates Christmas and roller coasters and bunnies????

...

Oh, it was Billy D?

Oh.

Alright...



















(hat tip to NCSE)

30 comments:

Brett said...

hey! what do you have against roller coasters and bunnies?!!

Glend said...

Any chance the other IDers, who have vilified their opponents for actually saying that the designer in ID is the Xian God, might actually apologize, now that Dembski said it out loud? Nah, what was I thinking, it would take honesty to do that.

More seriously, as "wrong" as the answer given is in ID dogma, it does seem to be in agreement with the shift to whining about religious persecuation that we see in Expelled. I doubt that this was an accidental slip by Dembski, as he's more knowing and more devious than your average IDiot.

Glen Davidson

Jon Voisey said...

Is Dumbski getting as forgetful about the little charade as Johnson is?

John Kingman said...

Q: Who is William Dembski?

A: The Isaac Newton of information theory, and proponent of Intelligent Design.

(Biology is not his field, but he has been likened to Isaac Newton by his idolaters.)

Ray said...

So Dembski personally believes that the designer is the Christian God of the bible, but he does not speak for all design theorists on that matter. There are plenty of design theorists who are not interested in the identity of the designer. Here are a few: Berlinski,Denton, Wells, Fuller, Flew, and the lsit goes on. It is ridiculous to sayh that because Dembski is a Christian, ID is religious.

Blake Stacey said...

"Who is William Dembski?" sounds like the sort of thing a Jeopardy contestant would say, shortly after saying, "I'll take 'pseudoscientific gasbags' for $300, Alex."

Dale Husband said...

Hello, Abbie. Boy was that funny! Anyway, I've decided to try using a blog here, so here's my newest one if you want to leave comments or suggestions:
http://dalesclassroom.blogspot.com/

Bill said...

It's not the first time Dembski has forgotten the secret code: ix-nay on the od-gay.

Behe's done the same thing on several occasions.

Unfortunately, doofus creationist Ray is as doofusly ignorant when he blabs on about "ID theorists."

First, there are no ID "theorists" because there is no theory of ID. ID has proponents, rather, cdesign proponentists. The two leading ones who Speak for the ID Community are Dembski and Behe.

Berlinski, Flew, Denton and Fuller have neither written nor contributed anything substantive to ID "theory." The only components of ID "theory" have been created by Dembski and Behe. Wells is simply an angry, moth-eaten anti-evolutionist who writes about moths.

And, the list does not go on because that's the end of the list.

If Dembski says that the Designer is the Christian God then that's it. Dembski's the man! You can take that to the bank or court or wherever.

Hey, Ray, do us all a favor and get an education, OK?

Bob O'Hara said...

Dembski's said worse. He could argue that he belives the designer to be the Christian god, but others in the Design Movement disagree.

Except that he has already said that ID is the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

Once you've screwed up like that, it doesn't really matter what you say afterwards.

Bob

Perfectly Candide said...

Dr. Dembski is according to HIV/AIDS researcher S.A. Smith the "worlds leading biologist".

The most perfect future out-of-context quotation.

Hey if you did not mean it, you should not have said it. ;-)

Reynold said...

Meh. Ever since the Wedge Document was presented in the Dover Trial, the jig was up, as far as I'm concerned.


What gets me: They still spin that!

Does intelligent design postulate a “supernatural creator?”
Overview:No. The ACLU, and many of its expert witnesses, have alleged that teaching the scientific theory of intelligent design (ID) is unconstitutional in all circumstances because it posits a “supernatural creator.” Here we provide several actual statements from intelligent design theorists that the scientific theory of intelligent design does not address metaphysical and religious questions such as the nature or identity of the designer.



Too bad only xians are allowed to join (as far as I know) it's funded by christian dominionists (that Ahramson guy), they don't seem to really explain away the governing goals of their "Wedge":

Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Jon Voisey said...

Ray: Dembski wasn't making a personal statement of belief. He says explicitly the ID creator = God. Not "I believe...." But it is.

Keep on spinnin'.

rsht61 said...

Here's Billy's latest on this, from UD comments (and I'm assuming that when he says "God does not need to specifically toggle the bacterial flagellum" he doesn't intend to imply that god couldn't do it effortlessly in a trice if he had the slightest whim, he just doesn't ... need to):

"In the context of the review, I was saying that I — personally — believe the Christian God is ultimately the designer behind the world. I’ve also written elsewhere that the Christian God might use teleological organizing principles to implement his designs (e.g., that God does not need to specifically toggle the bacterial flagellum). And I’ve stressed throughout my writings that there are alternative philosophical frameworks for making sense of ID. None of these considerations undercuts the scientific core of ID.

Come on folks, it’s no secret that I’m a Christian and that I have various motivations for pursuing ID (if you want to put me on the couch, please do the same with Dawkins)."

Olorin said...

John Kingman said: "Q: Who is William Dembski? A: The Isaac Newton of information theory...."

But, John, he is indeed the Isaac Newton of information theory. He knows as much about information theory as Isaac Newton did.

And he's the Fig Newton of probability theory, too. That is, he knows Fig-all about it.

Jay Fuller said...

Thank you and the mighty Internets for introducing me to this awesome FAIL pic. It is full of WIN (a paradox?).

Ray said...

Jon: No he wasn't, read the transcript and the interview that the quote came from. It is just not true, because there ARE plenty of ID THEORISTS who do not believe in the Christian God.

Bil said: Berlinski, Flew, Denton and Fuller have neither written nor contributed anything substantive to ID "theory." The only components of ID "theory" have been created by Dembski and Behe. Wells is simply an angry, moth-eaten anti-evolutionist who writes about moths.

Bill, this is false. If you really believe this then you not read much of anything about Intelligent Design, which would not surprise me. Fuller was an expert witness in the Dover trial, and he has written numerous books on the philosophy of science. Wells has authored numerous books that have contributed to the ID, including one he recently co-authored with Dembski. He is a practicing biologist. It is obvious that you haven't read anything of his either. Berlinski published an essay (The Deniable Darwin) a few years ago that caused havoc among the evolutionists. Have you read it? Didn't think so. Denton wrote the book that launched the movement back in the mid '90's. I'm sure you have read it. And finally, Flew is an example of what happens when one denies the faith of naturalism and follows the evidence where it leads.

So, Bill, I think it is you who needs the education. At least when it comes to this debate.

Jon Voisey said...

Ray: Please underline where the word "believe" is used in either the question or Dumbski's response:

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

...The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.

Ray said...

jon: read the previous sentence, and read Dembski's comment on his blog. Regardless, your little game of insisting that since Dembski is a Christian, ID is scientifically invalid, is illogical.

Bill said...

Hey, everybody, Ray is back for another beating!

Ray, you really need to educate yourself on creationism. You're all muddled up.

We're talking about ID, here, so pay attention.

Denton wrote a book attacking evolution, not about ID. So, you're wrong on that point.

Fuller is all about the philosophy of science, not ID. So, you're wrong on that point, too. Oh, and Fuller was, shall we say "ineffective" at Kitzmiller.

Wells has not published anything in biology since grad school and I'm not even sure about what he did then. Wells is not an ID "theorist" as he has contributed NOTHING to the "theory." Wells is an anti-evolutionist. Dembski contributed CSI and the EF. Behe contributed IRC structures. What has Wells contributed? Do tell? I'm all ears. (due to an unfortunate random mutation)

Berlinski has written nothing about ID. Again, he's an anti-evolutionist and his essay attacks the second law of thermodynamics, of all things, just like old time creationists.

Finally, Flew is a philosopher who has contributed NOTHING to the "theory" of ID. Flew concentrates on the philosophy of science.

Therefore, your original and subsequent comments are both wrong. There are no ID theorists because there is no theory of ID, and the only two people who have contributed anything to the proposition of ID are Dembski and Behe.

Now, Ray, my creationist pal, perhaps your next move will be to shift the goalposts to include anti-evolutionists and ID "theorists" as the same thing.

Ray said...

Bill, Wells just published a Biology book entitled The Design of Life. Just because a book does not fit into your materialistic worldview does not mean it isn't biology.

Refuting Darwinism IS in fact contributing to the ID movement. It is exactly what Phillip Johnson focused his work on, and he is undoubtedly the father of the entire movement.

Further, I think you are playing a game of semantics. All of the names I listed are scholars who have contributed to the ID movement. And ID is a THEORY. It is testable, falsifiable, etc. It is a scientific theory, however much you rail against it.

Olorin said...

ray said: "there ARE plenty of ID THEORISTS who do not believe in the Christian God."

An ID "theorist" is one who has at least tried to adduce positive evifdene for ID. The list is short: Dembski, Behe, and, to be generous, Wells ("Design of Life", polar ejection force), Robert Marks ("added information" papers), and Gonzales (the habitable zone, fine tuning). All of them are Christians. [1] These other guys, Berlinski, Fuller, Flew, and Denton, [2] are only Darwin bashers. They have not even tried to contribute to any new elements of the theory of ID, so their belief status is irrelevant to your statement. The other practicing scientists who profess ID---Minnich, Snokes, Sielke (sp? UWis.), Axe---have likewise confined their ID efforts to disproving Darwin, and have contributed nothing positive to the theory as such; they are not ID "theorists," and their beliefs are likewise irrelevant.

It is important what the real ID theorists believe and say about ID, because it is they who define ID.

=============

[1] Wells thinks he's a Christian, even though the real Christian churches think the Moonies are farther out than the Pastafarians.

[2] Don't forget that Denton has changed his mind and awakened from the bad dream of ID. The Discovery Institute has not yet Discovered this, but it has been ten years.

Jay Fuller said...

Books do not fit into my materialist world view.

oleg said...

Ray,

Fuller gave testimony in Dover "as an expert in the history of science, the philosophy of science, and the sociology of science," not as an ID scholar. See here. In contrast, Behe testified "as an expert in biochemistry, evolution, intelligent design, creationism, and science education."

Jon Voisey said...

read the previous sentence, and read Dembski's comment on his blog.

Perhaps you should work on understanding how the english language works. The comment regarding "belief" did not apply to the sentence I quoted. It merely stated he believed that the Chrisian God had a purpose. The modifier, does not apply to the following sentence.

As far as what Dumbski is trying at his blog, it's called spin. It's something he and his cronies are famous for over there.

Just because a book does not fit into your materialistic worldview does not mean it isn't biology.

You're right. When it fails to make a testable hypothesis, however, that does mean it isn't biology. When it fails to offer any sort of a positive position and instead, relies on the fallacy of bifurcation and arguments from ignorance, that does mean it isn't biology.

It is exactly what Phillip Johnson focused his work on, and he is undoubtedly the father of the entire movement.

Johnson is the father of the movement. And what does he say about it?

Johnson:
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

"This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science, it's about religion and philosophy."

"The objective, he said, is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to "the truth" of the Bible and then "the question of sin" and finally "introduced to Jesus.""


Oops. Guess Dembski's just agreeing with him.

It is testable, falsifiable, etc. It is a scientific theory, however much you rail against it.

We can (and have) shown that systems like the eye, the flagellum, the blood clotting system, etc... are not IC. We've disproven that. However, since Creationism can always just move the goalposts a little further, it really isn't falsifiable.

Also, Behe's own definition of IC from the talk he gave here at KU last winter, shows that even as a negative argument against evolution, it fails because it's a strawman of evolution.

Keep trying.

Jeremy said...

Philip Johnson disagrees with Ray about the status of ID as a scientific explanation.

"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable."

-Philip Johnson,
The Berkeley Science Review, 2006

Laneman said...

Sorry Ray:

ID IS NOT a theory. It is not testable, and is not falsifiable, etc. It is creationism, and therefor religion.

To quote from blog of Massimo Pigliucci:

"...ID is simply a form of creationism...both ID and standard creationism invoke a supernatural agent to “explain” natural processes. This not only is, by definition, not science (because science can only deal with natural explanations), but it also explains precisely nothing (because “God did it” is not an explanation unless we are told how and why she did it). For all the huffing and puffing performed by Dembski & co., they still haven’t progressed intellectually past good old Reverend Paley. And they never will."

Now, go crawl back to your middle ages cesspool you religous freak.

Doppelganger said...

Ray,

Wells also wrot e abook called 'Icons of Evolution.' It was littered with half-truths, out of context quotes, lies, and nonsense. His new book is more of the same. His only real ID-hypothesis - that centriloes generated the polar ejection force premised on the ID notion that because centrioles look sort of like turbines they ARE turbines and therefore desigend - was falsified. He an dhis cronies at the DI rely on PR and propaganda.

He spent 10 years at Berkely and has only 2 multi-authored papers to show for it. That is PATHETIC.

Wells is PATHETIC, and those that actually think he is writing honestly and as a scientist are simply too ignorant to know any better.

Rev. BigDumbChimp said...

Bill, Wells just published a Biology book entitled The Design of Life. Just because a book does not fit into your materialistic worldview does not mean it isn't biology.

Refuting Darwinism IS in fact contributing to the ID movement. It is exactly what Phillip Johnson focused his work on, and he is undoubtedly the father of the entire movement.

Further, I think you are playing a game of semantics. All of the names I listed are scholars who have contributed to the ID movement. And ID is a THEORY. It is testable, falsifiable, etc. It is a scientific theory, however much you rail against it.


What flavor was it Ray?

scripto said...

....(if you want to put me on the couch, please do the same with Dawkins)
Dr. Dr. Dr. Dembski

Together? That's kind of creepy...

monado said...

1. A mediocre mathemetician and self-proclaimed theologian.

2. Not even pseudoscience.

3. *Nudge, nudge, wink wink*