• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

William Dembski comes out

His education seems impressive.

BA psychology (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1981)
MS statistics (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1983)
SM mathematics (University of Chicago, 1985)
PhD mathematics (University of Chicago, 1988)
MA philosophy (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1993)
MDiv theology (Princeton Theological Seminary, 1996)
PhD philosophy (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1996)
 
Nerd said:
His education seems impressive.

BA psychology (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1981)
MS statistics (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1983)
SM mathematics (University of Chicago, 1985)
PhD mathematics (University of Chicago, 1988)
MA philosophy (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1993)
MDiv theology (Princeton Theological Seminary, 1996)
PhD philosophy (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1996)
Click to expand...

I guess this proves that you can have seven degrees and still be a complete fool.
 
Nerd said:
His education seems impressive.

BA psychology (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1981)
MS statistics (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1983)
SM mathematics (University of Chicago, 1985)
PhD mathematics (University of Chicago, 1988)
MA philosophy (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1993)
MDiv theology (Princeton Theological Seminary, 1996)
PhD philosophy (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1996)
Click to expand...

Even when the topic is Biology? See that anywhere on that list? ;)
 
Also, I'm not sure what this changes. Before, he was a man with seven degrees who promoted creationism; now he's a man with seven degrees who promotes biblical creationism. His statistical arguments are just as flawed as they were before.

ETA: When I read the thread title, I secretly hoped he had come out and admitted he lied for jesus on purpose. Now that would have changed something.
 
Last edited:
Nerd said:
His education seems impressive.

BA psychology (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1981)
MS statistics (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1983)
SM mathematics (University of Chicago, 1985)
PhD mathematics (University of Chicago, 1988)
MA philosophy (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1993)
MDiv theology (Princeton Theological Seminary, 1996)
PhD philosophy (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1996)
Click to expand...

Except for the last three, yes.
 
Vic Vega said:
I guess this proves that you can have seven degrees and still be a complete fool.
Click to expand...
Hmm ... "Seven Degrees of Foolishness" -- by Richard Dawkins ...

Now THAT would be a runaway bestseller!
 
Doesn't this simply kill their "equal times for all theories" campaign? They can no longer claim "the Theory of Intelligent Design is a scientifically based theory, not religiously based"?

Or am I wrong?
 
Gawdzilla said:
Doesn't this simply kill their "equal times for all theories" campaign? They can no longer claim "the Theory of Intelligent Design is a scientifically based theory, not religiously based"?

Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...
You are wrong.

Firstly, they can still claim it, and will. Reality has never stopped them before, so it will not now either.

Secondly, the fact that some physicist is a fundy would not mean that physics is not scientifically based.
 
H'ethetheth said:
You are wrong.

Firstly, they can still claim it, and will. Reality has never stopped them before, so it will not now either.

Secondly, the fact that some physicist is a fundy would not mean that physics is not scientifically based.
Click to expand...

But isn't Dembski's "Specified Complexity" theory one of the very few - if not the only - attempts of the ID-movement to actually build up an actual theory beyond "goddidit" (and of course, quite flawed at that)? It's quite different to say there's one fundie physicist among thousands than that the only ID-er with an original "theory" is one.
 
ddt said:
But isn't Dembski's "Specified Complexity" theory one of the very few - if not the only - attempts of the ID-movement to actually build up an actual theory beyond "goddidit" (and of course, quite flawed at that)? It's quite different to say there's one fundie physicist among thousands than that the only ID-er with an original "theory" is one.
Click to expand...
Yes, but at no point does that theory invoke anything that has to do with biblical literalism. The theory of specified complexity is perfectly meritless on its own.
 
I thought you were gonna reveal he was gay.

I remember receiving a paper written by dembski and it was full of complex math that I didn't know anything about...Luckily I have a friend that does. I gave him the copy and asked him to look over his math and see what he thought.
He came back the next day and simply stated...
"This guy doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. He's an idiot."

That was good enough for me to not really pay attention to anything else he had to say.
 
H'ethetheth said:
Yes, but at no point does that theory invoke anything that has to do with biblical literalism. The theory of specified complexity is perfectly meritless on its own.
Click to expand...

This sort of thing does come up in court, though. The courts have no business ruling on whether generic "meritless" science does or does not belong in the classroom. If Kitzmiller vs. Dover had been about a school's teaching of (say) vaccine denial, or 9/11 conspiracies, or whatever, then the parents wouldn't have had a court case. That'd be a crappy school, but not an unconstitutionally crappy school; the right way to turn it around would be to wait a few years and vote out the school board.

Intelligent Design/Specified Complexity is different than vaccine denial, specifically because it's a false front for creationism/anti-Darwinism. It only shows up in classrooms when there's a religious motivation, and the proponents think ID is a loophole.

The fact that ID proponents always turn out to be closet creationists, is part of the evidence that ID "science" is closet creationism. (The fact that ID is meritless is the rest of that evidence.)
 
ben m said:
This sort of thing does come up in court, though. The courts have no business ruling on whether generic "meritless" science does or does not belong in the classroom. If Kitzmiller vs. Dover had been about a school's teaching of (say) vaccine denial, or 9/11 conspiracies, or whatever, then the parents wouldn't have had a court case. That'd be a crappy school, but not an unconstitutionally crappy school; the right way to turn it around would be to wait a few years and vote out the school board.

Intelligent Design/Specified Complexity is different than vaccine denial, specifically because it's a false front for creationism/anti-Darwinism. It only shows up in classrooms when there's a religious motivation, and the proponents think ID is a loophole.

The fact that ID proponents always turn out to be closet creationists, is part of the evidence that ID "science" is closet creationism. (The fact that ID is meritless is the rest of that evidence.)
Click to expand...
Look, I agree with most of this, but honestly, any theory that Dembski, or Behe, or whoever comes up with, contending it is science, should be judged by its scientific merits. Whether or not the originator turns out to be a loony (like Newton, for instance) does not matter in the least. What matters, and what mattered in court, is whether it has scientific merit.
Since that matter has already been decided upon, I don't see what there is to gloat about.
 
Last edited:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Apparently all the discussion over the years with William Dembski concerning the reasonableness of intelligent design has been utterly pointless:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/10/are_we_at_all_surprised.php

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

This does seem to be a stepping back from his "old earth" viewpoint.

However, is it not the case that his employers have pressured him into that statement, under threat of losing his job? If so, I suggest that some degree of sympathy might be called for.
 
John Hewitt said:
However, is it not the case that his employers have pressured him into that statement, under threat of losing his job? If so, I suggest that some degree of sympathy might be called for.
Click to expand...

Wow, you're right. From the discussion Pharyngula linked to:

Southwestern Seminary president Paige Patterson told the Witness that while he disagrees with Dembski’s assessment of the earth’s age, he is confident of his character, Christian commitment and adherence to the Baptist Faith & Message.

Patterson said that when Dembski’s questionable statements came to light, he convened a meeting with Dembski and several high-ranking administrators at the seminary. At that meeting, Dembski was quick to admit that he was wrong about the flood, Patterson said.

“Had I had any inkling that Dr. Dembski was actually denying the absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, then that would have, of course, ended his relationship with the school,” he said.
Click to expand...

On one hand: yes, that's a violation of academic freedom. On the other hand: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is not an academic-freedom-obeying institution, and doesn't pretend to be, and Dembski knew that when he (voluntarily) signed on. So any sympathy for Dembski is no different than, say, sympathy for the White House Press Secretary, or for a trial lawyer on a hopeless case, or whatever. It's not "Oh no, your freedom of expression has been violated by your employer's thought police!" It's more "Tough job you signed up for, isn't it? Hope it pays well."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom