Coragyps

The daughter dutifully reported back on this event, and said Dembski didn't fare too well. Darwin (the Younger?) indicated that Dembski practiced "Apophnia- the spontaneous perception of connections and meaning in unrelated phenomena."

pz

Just a minor correction: it's "apophEnia". That's exactly right, though -- it's the same phenomena that keeps phony psychics and mediums like John Edward, Sylvia Brown, and James van Praagh in business. Dembski fits right in.

dk

I suspect the debate will persist for some time to come, and began long before Aristotle proposed the 4 senses of causation
<ol type="1">[*]Material: the thing that is changed;[*]Efficient Means by which the old thing became the thing that is changed, the term, or manner of being, or essence, that is induced in that which is changed;[*]Formal the active agent that produces the change, or accomplishes the existence of the new term, manner of being, or essence,[*]Final the motive, or reason why the latter acts.[/list=a]
I’ll be quite honest a rigorous interpretation of such technical discussions about theoretical and pure mathematics lays beyond my meager abilities. In theory IC represents an alternative to the random processes of natural selection. But it’s not the idea of IC that upsets orthodox scientists, and leaves them pulling their hair out, but the potential for Christians (anti-evolutionists) to employ IC to vindicate and activate their arguments. I am a bit surprised by the viciousness evoked.

Personally I think the debate in different senses more transparent and complex. In my opinion science has provided adequate evidence that people think about particular things from universal concepts that aren’t contained in finite things, but are contained in one another (persons). For example the universal laws of Newton are rendered finite by QM and Relativity. This evokes a struggle to judgment that binds intellect with a purpose of act called necessity. Necessity as ‘the mother of invention’ forces people to engage in a struggle of universal themes to wrench purpose from the particulars of a finite reality, where none exists. What gets lost in the mix deconstructs the universal themes that bind people together in friendship, leading people to squabble over the particulars without purpose.

Neruda

lol, that's a great word! I'll have to remember that one.

Clutch

dk, You're certainly right that the idea of IC does not upset "orthodox" scientists (also known as "scientists"). It is a sophomorism that was comprehensively debunked -- vis a vis the uses to which it was put -- immediately. There is nothing there to upset anyone. What does leave scientists pulling their hair out, along with anyone who cares about critical thinking and good education, is not the potential for IC to ground any arguments. Quite the opposite. Despite its transparent inability to "vindicate" anything at all, a cadre of true believers insists on holding up IC as science, no matter how thoroughly vacuous it has been shown to be. That is frustrating.
This is neither intelligible nor communicates even a vague sense of relevance to the topic at hand. Who, for instance, ever held that universal concepts are "contained in" finite things? And on what grounds do you distinguish people from finite things? And what "adequate evidence" supports the thesis in question, whatever it is? This might be an awkward and inelegant way of saying that Newtonian mechanics holds as a special case of GR (though your reference to QM is mysterious). But how it serves as an example of "universal concepts" being "contained in... persons" is utterly opaque. (Of course, I'm relying on "orthodox" reasoning, here.) Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

By the way, I'm still waiting for your explanation of how "logical positivism" was co-responsible for the moral decline of America. You ought to retract your old jabberwock before writing more of it.

Dr Rick

Of course, but does warm fornication explain fish that pedal styrofoam, even as red still forms blight with neither meaning but air-conditioning?

Rick

Xeluan

Yes....Yes, it does.

Xeluan

Coragyps

Dammit, Dr Rick, that's what I was gonna ask!

Bubba

Rufus, there must be a fair number of Christians in your grad program. How do they reconcile evolution and Christianity?

BTW, I fully agree with your buddy. Dembski is an ass.

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Bubba

Bubba

Whats scary is that Ric is the most coherent of the two.

Bubba