Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Nobel Laureates for ID

William Dembski
June 24, 2005
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Check out the following webpage: http://www.weloennig.de/Nobelpreistraeger1a.html.

Comments
I hope Dr Coyne does not feel regret for engaging civilly with Dr Behe, even if he does have his lunch handed to him. This debate needs more polite, respectful disagreement. Bornagain at #7, it is odd, isn't it, that Dr Coyne beleieves what he does in spite of having no evidence, as you say. Gil in #6 provides the only explanation I can think of.feebish
December 16, 2010
December
12
Dec
16
16
2010
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
Some of the brightest people I've ever known were homeschooled. Not a YEC among them. I guess we're to settle for today's dismal public school education just for the honor of being exposed to it's politically correct mantra. nostrowski
June 29, 2005
June
06
Jun
29
29
2005
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
"Why do you equate home-schooling with YEC?" By that do you mean why is he a bigot? We can only speculate. Random mutation would be my guess. He was born that way. DaveScot
June 29, 2005
June
06
Jun
29
29
2005
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
Why do you equate home-schooling with YEC?nostrowski
June 28, 2005
June
06
Jun
28
28
2005
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
I am not aware of any scientific theory currently called “Darwinism”. No scientific theories exist in a stasis, and to term the entire body of “theory of evolution” and term it “Darwinism” is the foundation of a logical fallacy. No, a "Darwinist, or an "Evolutionist" is typically a fanatical agenda motivated liberal that uses Darwin's fine theory to rationalize their preconceived and more-encompassing prejudice. These people are typically as impossible to reason with as any equally motivated home-schoolin young earth creationist is.island
June 26, 2005
June
06
Jun
26
26
2005
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
You’ve obviously not read any of Dembski’s work. Do you make it a habit to critique things you’ve never looked at? Now if Dave could only the alter-boy would practice what he preaches... lol... I can't believe the audacity of this guy, who can't even click on a linked article, but can criticize others for stuff that requires more effort than he's willing to put out himself. Note that he apologized after he realized that he isn't going to make many friends by starting fights with everyone that disagrees for good reason with his own flavor of willfully ignorant fanaticism. island
June 26, 2005
June
06
Jun
26
26
2005
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
AEL reminds me of the famous Max Plank quotation: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Qualiatative
June 25, 2005
June
06
Jun
25
25
2005
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT
I may have been a tad short with you above. Sorry.
Even Einstein’s arguments are under question after 100 years.
Relativity is being questioned far less than time and chance is in "the modern synthesis". Is "modern synthesis" acceptable to you for any and all evolutionary theory and related ad hoc hypotheses wherein said ad hoc hypotheses are absent any suggestion of intelligent design? Molecular homology has a ways to go to say the least. Depending on which protein you check for homology or try to use for a clock the results are often self-contradictory or ambiguous. As well, it often doesn't jibe with morphologic and fossil evidence. Genomic evidence establishes relatedness between extant species. It's susceptable to some real boners too from horizontal gene flow mechanisms. The fossil record unfortunately doesn't give us ancient genomes to sequence. There's ample evidence (at least for me and many other IDers) that descent with modification from a common ancestor happened over some billions of years. The commonality across all living things of the codon->amino acid translation table and the common 20 amino acids just about makes that a foregone conclusion for me. It still doesn't logically rule out a common designer creating from a common template of course which is why ID is such a big tent at present. Maybe science will reduce the size of it in the future. Maybe not. Given acceptance of common descent over some billions of years ala the modern synthesis that leaves only mechanisms that caused the modification part of it. Time and chance (rm+ns) is under duress from every direction not just from ID. It's been under duress since Crick began a flood of discovery in just how complicated cells really are. ID doesn't rule out time & chance or any other proposed mechanism of change. It proposes an additional mechanism of change that is, or might reasonably be, reliably detected by one or more rigorous means of analysis. I don't think I can name an IDer that doesn't appreciate the scientific method. That's not even a good straw man. Computer simulations are not reality. Nuclear weapons, aircraft designs, climate models, whatever (all of which pale into insignificance compared to complexity of life) are all tested against reality at some point. The simulations are often way off too when compared to reality.
It’s time to use statistics, sequence homologies and other modern, computerized methods to argue, if you can even call it an argument, against the theory of evolution.
Dembski uses statistics and probabilities applied to various sequences which appear to exhibit complex specified information. That's his claim to fame. His books and papers have examined genetic algorithms and find them wanting due to intelligence and/or specified data being unavoidably or at least unsatisfactorily imported into the search algorithms. I found it humorous that you'd chide Dembski about not talking in the very terms he's been using for a long time. And that brings us back around to my first response - you obviously haven't read his work. DaveScot
June 25, 2005
June
06
Jun
25
25
2005
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
AEL You've obviously not read any of Dembski's work. Do you make it a habit to critique things you've never looked at? DaveScot
June 25, 2005
June
06
Jun
25
25
2005
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
I am not that familiar with "blogs". I'm a biologist, and a retired scientist. I was a genetic engineer for 20 years. I do not know if polite opposition is allowed: Genetic engineering is as valid as any other form of "engineering" and those schooled in the "scientific method" and "evolutionary theory" can provide high quality evidence based only upon: 1. automated sequencing 2. Human genome project 3. various other genome projects - rats, dogs, cats, horses, clover, etc. 4. huge data bases of sequence information on TIGR, NIH and other sites. 5. microarray technology 6. mammalian and human cloning With a comparison of genomic information, there is more than abundant evidence for the "theory of evolution" at the molecular level and therefore at the phenotype level, much of the time (depending upon whether a mutation has caused a change in phenotype or is a silent mutation). If you want to keep current in a debate with "science", please keep up with genetic engineering. The old "design" arguments were once a paradigm and are now outdated as is the term "Darwinism" - over 100 years old. I am not aware of any scientific theory currently called "Darwinism". No scientific theories exist in a stasis, and to term the entire body of "theory of evolution" and term it "Darwinism" is the foundation of a logical fallacy. You can't formulate and argument about what a scientist of over 100 years ago proposed. Even Einstein's arguments are under question after 100 years. Science formulates new hypothesis based upon observations all the time. It's called the "scientific method". That's how it works. It is natural that as the scientific method progresses, that old paradigms are modified, and newer ones are adopted. Maybe this seems crazy to you, but that's just the way science is - with all it's strengths and weaknesses. Darwin, for example, didn't know about DNA, so to make an argument against a man who did not know DNA existed, is absurd. Maybe you don't want to believe in the scientific method, and that is your right, it is just another one of the world's philosophies, and not the only one. However, why the need to term non-scientific arguments as a scientific theory? It's time to use statistics, sequence homologies and other modern, computerized methods to argue, if you can even call it an argument, against the theory of evolution. AELAEL
June 24, 2005
June
06
Jun
24
24
2005
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply