• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

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."
 
I thought this was interesting.

Remember in 2006, the intelligent design creationists were claiming there was viewpoint discrimination going on. Yet, the cases they cited as proof of a "Darwin conspiracy" turned out to be false.

It seems the intelligent design creationists were right to be worried about losing their position if they go against consensus. That's because religious schools have a doctrine of beliefs that must be accepted and obeyed. In contrast, secular schools don't which is why creationists like Phillip Johnson worked as a professor at UC Berkeley while trying to push the intelligent design ideas on to the public.


As Dembski learned himself about thinking outside the bounds of the religious school you work for:
HOW OLD? Age of Earth debated among SBC scholars
Florida Baptist Witness
October 20, 2010
By DAVID ROACH, Witness Correspondent


...
It began with a 2009 book by Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary professor William Dembski but includes a broader dialogue about evolution and the boundaries of the Baptist Faith & Message 2000.
...
He also argued that Noah’s flood likely was limited to the Middle East rather than being global in scope. However, he later retracted that claim in a statement released by Southwestern.
...
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.
...
He noted that even Southern Baptists who disagree with Dembski on the age of the earth should appreciate his contribution toward defeating naturalism.
...
Click to expand...
Full: Florida Baptist Witness


I guess there is an issue of academic freedom. Why doesn't the Discovery Institute challenge Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary over this? Maybe they wouldn't unless they agree with the Seminary's view...
 
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.
Click to expand...
Implied, of course. They'll lie for Jesus as needed.
Secondly, the fact that some physicist is a fundy would not mean that physics is not scientifically based.
Click to expand...
It's already been proven wrong, so where is that going?
 
Questioninggeller said:
... As Dembski learned himself about thinking outside the bounds of the religious school you work for:

Full: Florida Baptist Witness

I guess there is an issue of academic freedom. Why doesn't the Discovery Institute challenge Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary over this? Maybe they wouldn't unless they agree with the Seminary's view...
Click to expand...


A perfect illustration of what "academic freedom" means to Creationists...


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

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

==============
 
Gawdzilla said:
You don't think this will make it tougher for them to defend "teach the controversy" in court?
Click to expand...
No, I don't. Dembski's personal beliefs have nothing to do with any arguments to do with "teaching the controversy".
And I'm pretty sure there was no mention of the personal beliefs of the ID-proponentsists in the Kitzmiller case, and rightly so.
 
Last edited:
H'ethetheth said:
No, I don't. Dembski's personal beliefs have nothing to do with any arguments to do with "teaching the controversy".
And I'm pretty sure there was no mention of the personal beliefs of the ID-proponentsists in the Kitzmiller case, and rightly so.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see if it plays out that way the next time it comes up.
 
This should make it easier to dismiss him - anyone who is a Biblical inerrantist is so clueless as to not deserve any time at all. He can't even have read the first two chapters!
 
CurtC said:
This should make it easier to dismiss him - anyone who is a Biblical inerrantist is so clueless as to not deserve any time at all. He can't even have read the first two chapters!
Click to expand...

As I understand it ID has been trying to camouflage the religious nature of ID by claiming that they are simply trying to present a different scientific take on how we got here. This is, I hope, one more way we can challenge the impartiality of the ID proponents. If they keep helping us like this it will be harder to lose a court case in the future.
 
H'ethetheth said:
And I'm pretty sure there was no mention of the personal beliefs of the ID-proponentsists in the Kitzmiller case, and rightly so.
Click to expand...

I think you're wrong about that.

One of the relevant considerations for the court was the historical background of ID and the creation/evolution battles. It's one of the reasons why the "cdesign proponentists" thing was an issue: it showed that ID was basically "creation science" tweaked to attempt to get around Supreme Court precedent. Ditto for the "Wedge Document."

On page 25 of the decision, Judge Jones noted: "it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God"

The court also wrote:

A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants’ protestations to
the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of
leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the
God of Christianity. Dr. Barbara Forrest, one of Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, is the
author of the book Creationism’s Trojan Horse. She has thoroughly and
exhaustively chronicled the history of ID in her book and other writings for her
testimony in this case. Her testimony, and the exhibits which were admitted with
it, provide a wealth of statements by ID leaders that reveal ID’s religious,
philosophical, and cultural content. The following is a representative grouping of
such statements made by prominent ID proponents.5
Click to expand...

And went on to discuss the publicly stated views of Philip Johnson and other ID advocates, including Dembski specifically:

Dembski has written that ID is a “ground clearing operation” to allow Christianity to receive serious consideration, and “Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion.”
Click to expand...

The personal beliefs of the school board members who lobbied for and voted for the policy were also discussed at length, because it was relevant to both the endorsement and Lemon tests that the court was applying.

Getting back to the previous poster's comment that sparked this line of discussion: I think Dembski's "conversion" to young earth creationism would be relevant in any future discussion, because it evidences a prominent ID theorist allowing his supposedly scientific views to be determined by religious beliefs and pressures rather than the scientific evidence. But it won't make a whole lot of difference, because ID is pretty much dead in the water legally unless and until the Supreme Court changes the relevant legal doctrines. The "we're just informing students about a scientific controversy" argument is not something any court is going to buy.
 
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...

Six degrees of William Dembski is Keven Bacon. Seven degrees of Dembski is Cheetah.
 
H'ethetheth said:
Ffffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

hehe.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom