Yale Dwight H. Terry Lectures
by machtA couple weeks ago Yale held its annual Dwight H. Terry Lectures and the topic was the "The Religion and Science Debate: Why Does it Continue?" You can view the lectures here. Sage gives an overview of each lecture.
Editted to add: Check out Ronald Numbers' answer to the first question (asked by Kenneth Miller) after his lecture. I've pointed out before that Numbers sees ID and creationism coming from two different places ("almost non-overlapping" is what Numbers says in his answer) and thus aren't the same.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:31 pm
Nice analysis/synopsis from Sage.
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2006 @ 11:31 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 10:15 am
Hi, Mike:
In your link, you said
And yet we have the world's preeminent IDist, William Dembski, stating that
This would suggest that Dembski's IDism is biblically based, as would the fact that he now teaches at Southern Seminary.
Comment by Aagcobb — September 25, 2006 @ 10:15 am
September 25th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Quite simply, Dembski is wrong.
Comment by macht — September 25, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
macht wrote…
I think I like this "macht" guy
(the devil made me say that)
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 25, 2006 @ 8:52 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 8:59 am
Hi Macht,
I don't think thats something Dembski can be wrong about. Dembski is mainstream IDism, and if he says the source of his IDism is the Bible, then its possible he's lying about that, but its not possible that he doesn't know what the inspiration of his work is. And if the source of Dembski's IDism is the Bible, then the Bible is the basis for what most people would identify as 21st century IDism. People like MikeGene are on the fringe of IDism; Dembski is at its heart.
Comment by Aagcobb — September 26, 2006 @ 8:59 am
September 26th, 2006 at 10:42 am
You sound very confident… but what is the basis for that statement?
Dembski is responsible for certain mathematical formulations of ID; that's agreed upon. But even contributions as significant as his don't mean that he "becomes" the theory or that he has authority to make connections between it and his religious beliefs. He isn't "IDism", and his beliefs on relationships between information theory and John's gospel really don't matter.
Comment by Afon — September 26, 2006 @ 10:42 am
September 26th, 2006 at 10:55 am
Who should we believe - Numbers, who is no friend of ID, but rather a respected historian who specializes in creationism or Dembski, who, at the time of that quote, was speaking to a Christian audience, no doubt trying to gain support for his theory in any way possible? My mind says that Numbers is the better source for this matter.
Comment by macht — September 26, 2006 @ 10:55 am
September 26th, 2006 at 11:36 am
Hi Aagcobb,
You said
He didn't say that. He said
Nothing about ID being derived from the bible, merely that the bible and information theory are two accounts that come to the same conclusion in different ways. ID restates Logos, ID does not derive from Logos.
You then said
I seem to remember reading that Mike also was drawn to ID based on his own religeous experience. Does that put Mike back into the heart of ID, or does it move Dembski to the fringe?
Comment by chunkdz — September 26, 2006 @ 11:36 am
September 26th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Hi Aagcobb,
You wrote…
I have to argue with you on this one. There is a difference between "inspiration" and "basis". Is the basis of Newtonian Physics an apple falling on Newton's head (even it the story is true)? I would say "of course not".
You imply (while avoiding saying it directly) that somehow Dembski gets to say what is and is not "21st century IDism". You are right that chances are Dembski will always be considered a main founder of the "movement", but Dembski lost control of his brain child the moment he told others about it.
If Joy and crew actually identify an extradimensional force that even partially explains why living things "look designed",do want to bet that historians won't be attributing that to the ID movement, even if Dembski identified something like this as way down on the "Totem Pole" as an ID alternative?
Note: I started composing this before the other good comments were posted. I let real work delay me. Please excuse me for repeating other people's points.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 26, 2006 @ 11:56 am
September 26th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Dembski's motivations for supporting intelligent design (whatever they may be) are irrelevant, because ideas are judged on their content, not on the motives of the people believing in them.
Comment by Krauze — September 26, 2006 @ 11:57 am
September 26th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Macht wrote…
Krauze wrote…
I agree with the above statements from both Macht and Krauze. Now that it is lunch time, let me offer some of my observations.
As many of you are painfully aware I push for people to state their positions and have explained why I feel it is important to do that. In my frequent visits to Talk.origins, I have noticed that just about anytime an ID proponent even starts to state a position, the opposition almost immeadiately brings in what other ID proponents have said, especially Dembski and the Discovery Institute. I have seen many ID proponents get barried in their attempts to defend the entire ID movement instead of just their straight-forward positions.
I suspect this goes a long way towards explaining why most ID proponents are shy about stating their posititions.
These ad hominem attacks occur in both directions. It makes for good PR for the ID movement to attack people instead of ideas. It is also a whole lot easier to throw darts at others while keep your targets well hidden.
It reflects badly on both sides when we argue about what others think and say in lue of presenting our own ideas.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 26, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
TP
Who are you talking about when you say 'most ID proponents' are shy?
Is this your response to Aagcobbs quotemining of Dembski? To impugn Dembski et.al.?
Sorry, but Dembski is very openly and rigorously stated his position. The most visible ID proponents are visible precisely because they have vigorously stated their positions.
So who are you talking about?
Comment by chunkdz — September 26, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
chunkdz asked…
Who I was talking about was people like Joy, DonaldM, Bradford and the others that are in the trenches (including those brave enough to post to Talk.origins). And I wasn't saying they were generally shy, just shy about things like whether or not they believe Common Descent is a valid assumption, presenting a scientific hypothesis or even posting a simple debatable proposal.
Believe it or not, I was disagreeing with Aagcobbs and wasn't attempting to "iimpugn" any body.
As tempting as it might be, I won't be drawn into stating whether or not I believe Dembski is a snake-oil salesman willing to say or do anything to promote his cause up to and including putting pepper on boxing gloves. However, I will ask…
What does Dembski mean by "Telic Organising Principles of Nature"
…and…
If it is a godless ID alternative, what are its weaknesses since it is obvious that such a proposal would be more acceptable to the scientific community as a testible, scientific hypothesis?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 26, 2006 @ 1:56 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
TP said
These are the people in the trenches? This is what you call "most ID proponents" What have they published? Where do they teach? Where do they lecture? Any new books coming out on the subject of ID from any of them?
This isn't the trenches, TP, it's the lounge.
The serious ID proponents have lectures, book signings, teach, give interviews, disseminate info, and have well defined stated positions. I don't know of anyone at TT that fits that bill. You may want to restate your thesis, or just take TT a little less seriously.
Comment by chunkdz — September 26, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
chunkdz asked…
The simple answer is "yes".
Thank you pointing out the confusion. Should I call them "ID Loungers" and "Evolution Loungers"
While some are working on the issue full-time (and getting paid for it), that does not mean you can just discount all the part-time thinkers as not being proponents, IMO.
I am a firm believer in that each and every person should think for themselves instead of playing follow the leaders. One of the signs that an individual is not thinking for themselve is when they can't explain something they say they believe in. Speaking of which, you didn't answer my questions…
What does Dembski mean by "Telic Organising Principles of Nature"
"¦and"¦
If it is a godless ID alternative, what are its weaknesses since it is obvious that such a proposal would be more acceptable to the scientific community as a testible, scientific hypothesis?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 26, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
I don't discount them, I just don't expect to see the ID movement defined by them. Therefore, I am not frustrated when they are less than forthcoming.
I don't know. What context did he say it in?
Comment by chunkdz — September 26, 2006 @ 5:50 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
"What's more, the designer need not be a deity. It could be an extraterrestrial or a telic process inherent in the universe."
http://www.designinference.com...
"Whether this intelligence is ET or a telic principle immanent in nature or a transcendent personal agent are all, at least initially, live options."
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/...
…and, finally….
"The problem is not that evolution implies God does't exist. The problem is that if God does not exist, then evolution is the only possibility (well, actually, space aliens who seed the Earth, time travelers, and telic organizing principles in nature are ID alternatives that don't require God; but these are way down the totem pole for most people)."
http://www.uncommondescent.com...
The parenthetical was added after I posted that it appeared Dembski was giving up on saying ID doesn't require God.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 26, 2006 @ 6:03 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
It sounds like it's not his idea, but that he is mentioning someone else's idea, and saying that it doesn't require God. Maybe Dawkins? Spinoza?
What's the point of this exercise?
Comment by chunkdz — September 26, 2006 @ 6:19 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
chunkdz asked…
1. The Telic Processes concept was in Dembski's book, Design Inference where he used it as part of his proof as to why ID was a scientific concept. Apparently, you didn't know that.
2. You stated that "Dembski is very openly and rigorously stated his position.". Which includes that Telic Organizing Principles in Nature is an ID alternative.
3. There are plenty of ID proponents (though you don't call them that) that actually and earnestly believe ID doesn't require God, space aliens or time travelers. BTW, this is the kind of ID alternative that, I too, could learn to embrace.
4. This only leaves Telic Organizing Principles in Nature for those of us bottom-of-the-totem-pole dwellers.
5. Since you insisted that "Dembski is very openly and rigorously stated his position." I thought you know what the heck Dembski was talking about.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 26, 2006 @ 7:30 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
TP
Actually, I just don't remember hearing about 'telic organizing principles in nature'.
Except that it's not really part of his 'position' any more than space aliens or time travelers is part of his position. Do you also demand a rigorous definition of 'time travelers'?
Your right. Then maybe Dembski was referencing Jung, or perhaps some kind of nature worship cult.
Only if you have arbitrarily ruled out a designer.
If it was part of Dembski's position, I might have looked into it. But since it seems like some kind of far-fetched nature worship cult teaching, I think I'll wait. Let me know what you find out.
Comment by chunkdz — September 26, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
I wrote…
"3. There are plenty of ID proponents (though you don't call them that) that actually and earnestly believe ID doesn't require God, space aliens or time travelers. BTW, this is the kind of ID alternative that, I too, could learn to embrace.
4. This only leaves Telic Organizing Principles in Nature for those of us bottom-of-the-totem-pole dwellers"
chunkdz responded with…
It was not I who arbitrarily ruled things out. William Dembski clearly and forcibly posted on his blog…
"The problem is not that evolution implies God does't exist. The problem is that if God does not exist, then evolution is the only possibility."
http://www.uncommondescent.com...
(The "way down the totem pole" items were added as an afterthought).
You may think Dembski consistently and clearly states his position, I do not.
I believe ID proponents (as I call them) are far better off thinking for themselves rather than relying on slick showmen of a giant PR machine.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 26, 2006 @ 10:01 pm
September 27th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Hi TP,
What has he arbitrarily ruled out? He included several alternatives that don't require God.
I think his statement is consistent with his published writings. I'll admit that it could have been worded better, but I easily got the gist of it.
If you are bothered by the fact that he clarified the statement after the original post, I'll remind you that you are sourcing a blog which Dembski calls his "playground". That hearkens to my original comment about looking at published work and public lectures for the real definitions of ID.
No argument from me. And I don't fault you for making Dembski clarify his statement. That was good critical thinking right up until you started your ad-hominems.
Comment by chunkdz — September 27, 2006 @ 11:38 am
September 27th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
chunkdz wrote…
Thank you for noting my critical thinking. I would be interested in you explaining how I committed a logical fallicy (that is entirely possible), because, from my point of view, I wasn't arguing that Dembski's logic was incorrect just that is was unknown and unimportant.
I am more interested in understanding your positions. Do you except Common Descent as a valid assumption. If not, when do you believe the last living organism was created (not descent)? Nothing exact, 100 seconds ago? 10,000 years ago? 2 million years ago, 3 billion years ago?
Do you believe a designer of life was required, or could something like Telic Organizing Principles in Nature be a valid assumption? Do you think that a clearly designerless solution would be a more modest scientific proposal than one that assumes a designer? If so, what are the weaknesses in exploring the possibility that a purely natural process can explain why things look designed?
In short, what is your proposal?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 27, 2006 @ 12:43 pm
September 27th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
I didn't say you made a logical fallacy. I said after Dembski clarified his position you resorted to calling him names.
As an ID proponent, I believe that nature worshiping space aliens placed each species on the earth as part of a "Species of the Month" gift plan. That explains the stasis in the fossil record, and also why evolution is not demonstrable. The aliens haven't brought us any new species for a long time though, so ID proponents have theorized that Earth's subscription has run out.
What is your proposal?
Comment by chunkdz — September 27, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
September 27th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
So, has anybody acutally listened to the lectures?
Comment by macht — September 27, 2006 @ 1:17 pm
September 27th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
macht asked…
Blessed are the peace makers.
No, I haven't looked into the topic of this thread. Excuse me while I go over and sulk in the corner while muttering "It's not fair." and "But, HE started it."
I will research the lectures later.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 27, 2006 @ 2:48 pm
September 28th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Maaht ask…
Ok, I listened (at least to some of it).
I skipped Wuthnow.
Here is a good quote from Krauss' speech…
"The purpose of eduction is not to validate ignorance, but to overcome it."
Because I agreed with most of what Krauss said, I didn't find it that interesting. I agree with Sage's opinion, he was a pretty much cheerleading his opinion.
With apologies to Donald, I couldn't make it all the way through Plantinga. He sounded too much like the philosopher he is.
Miller presented a very good summary of the Kitzmiller v. Dover. I would recommend all ID proponents listen to the first half of the Miller's speach. If you find yourself screaming "THAT ISN"T ID!", you might be understanding what actually happened in that trial. The last half is optional.
I listened to Ronald Numbers for a while, and then skipped to the end and the Q&A with Miller. I agree thar Numbers was saying ID and Creationism is "almost non-overlapping". I think that was what Miller was saying too, but he was saying this split came about recently. Personally, I see the difference too.
In case that causes some confusion, I think while Numbers, Miller and I see the difference, what was presented in the Kitzmiller Trial (my first exposure to ID) was clearly creationism being labeled as ID (with the implicit agreement of the defense witnesses).
I only made it through a third of the panel discussion.
Most of what I heard was as expected. I would be interested if anyone else picked up on something they thought was significant or profound.
OK, I found something interesting in the talk. Take a listen to the Q&A on the part about science and ethics. I think the questioner may have been mixing morals and ethics. Krauss made it clear that he believes ethics is very different from morality. I agree with Krauss on this point. What do other people think?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 28, 2006 @ 10:41 pm