chrstphr

I'm interested in some feedback on the mathematics/logic of "design theory" and William Dembski. I'm currently engaged in a brief discussion of Intelligent Design versus Naturalistic Science. I made comments bashing the argument to design, and got a response which predictably enough accused me of not knowing much and then referred me to some authority figure who would enlighten me. Could someone well-acquainted with Dembski's ideas, and with the design argument generally, both critique my little essay as well as make a response to the other person's suggestion that Dembski has the logic and math of design all figured out?

My input was as follows:

"There's obviously a danger presented to the education of science by people who have an emotional need to be the center of the universe, and nothing but that emotional need to go on. My experience of a lifetime amid fundamentalists and evangelicals has demonstrated clearly, day after day, that they think almost exclusively in black and white terms.

"Fairness really has nothing at all to do with pseudosciences popular in some circles, and the call for fairness and no harsh criticisms in topics like this is absurd, when you have absurd ideas to deal with. Trying to be fair to stupidity is not fair. There is no evidence for "creation science" but an ancient book and a presumption that that book represents "true science"; it's been in the courts and lost there, then the courts are bypassed to sneak the "it's just a theory and there's viable alternatives" mistake into classrooms. It is more than a waste of everyone's time ... if they succeed in diminishing respect for well-established theories then it is ultimately democracy itself that is endangered. "Intelligent design theory" (more accurately, "conjecture") isn't a "paradigm shift" in-the-making, but an attempt to reintroduce untestable supernatural ideas that were prevalent in the Christian middle ages and in most ages before then, excepting a period in Greek culture.

"It's important to recognize what we don't know. And the best science does that; eventually, all science always gets around to doing that, self-criticism is an inherent feature. The worst that could possibly be done is a neanderthal reaction of "Well, if it's so complex that we don't understand it yet then we may never understand it, and since it needs an explanation (because uncertainty and gray areas make me uncomfortable), therefore an unseen intelligence must be involved." Nothing could be more wrong than blocking further investigation on the basis of some religious sentimentalities."

The response is as follows:

"[chrstphr], it's easy to criticize what you don't fully understand.

"Design theory has a strong foundation in mathematics and logic. Read Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities by William Dembski before you are so quick to assert that it is "medieval non-questioning of the supernatural" or "untestable supernatural ideas."

"BTW, could you please explain to me how evolution is "testable?""

Thanks much for any input.

tgamble

Try talkorigins where Dempski is refuted.
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/</a>

Kevin Dorner

A (IMHO good) review of a Dembski work that has been linked to several times here: <a href="http://www-polisci.mit.edu/BR27.3/orr.html" target="_blank">Review of No Free Lunch</a>

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>