Sunday, December 16, 2007

Christian God wins the (Intelligent) Design derby

Intelligent Design (ID) proponents used to avoid directly invoking God as the Designer (though it was always presumed). Well not any more. In addition, it turns out the Designer is not just any God, but the Christian God. Here is Bill Dembski, one of the leading ID proponents, talking about his new book about Intelligent Design:
Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer?

I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.

The focus of my writings is not to try to understand the Christian doctrine of creation; it’s to try to develop intelligent design as a scientific program.

There’s a big question within the intelligent design community: “How did the design get in there?” We’re very early in this game in terms of understanding the history of how the design got implemented. I think a lot of this is because evolutionary theory has so misled us that we have to rethink things from the ground up. That's where we are. There are lots and lots of questions that are now open to re-examination in light of this new paradigm.

So too bad if you have been suckered into ID, but you are not a Christian. Your God may be many things but is not the designer of this world.

Dembski is also raising an important research question: "How did the design get in there"? Hmmm..."(Christian) God did it...". Problem solved!

If you can stomach it, here is the full interview.

6 comments:

Only Jesus Savs said...

At least these ID guys are honest and they keep it for themselves, not impose such believe to others. On the other hands, Darwinism defenders do choose to appear neutral or having no assumption.

Ted H Ohio said...

But you will notice that he only admits God is the designed in an interview. In print neither he, nor any other Intelligent Design proponent says it. During the Dover Trial Michael Behe did much the same thing. In court he testified that God is the designer, but in his books he never says it.
This is a tactical move to be able to claim the the lack of a religious connection between ID and Creationism in order to achieve a strategic win of ID in the science classroom.
What I enjoy is watching the efforts of the Discovery Institute whine about how ID isn't religious but then they support Professor Gonzales, who was denied tenure at Iowa State, claiming [among other things] discrimination due to his religious beliefs. Gotta love groups that want their cake and eat it too!

tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/

Marina said...

Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer?

*snort*

Also, I think what he means by "I don’t see how you can read this book, if you’ve not been indoctrinated with Darwin’s theory, and go back to the evolutionary fold" is actually, "if you don't know anything about the facts leading up to the theory of evolution, I can totally sucker you into agreeing with me!"

Ted H Ohio said...

"if you don't know anything about the facts leading up to the theory of evolution, I can totally sucker you into agreeing with me!"

Perfect! Personally I think Dembski's pre-built himself an excuse for when people who read his book dump all over it, like his other books. When other mathematicians were negative on his 'work' he accused them of not being smart enough to understand it.

Dembski does make bold statements about how his research will affect the world of science. Please remember that so far his work hasn't been much impact. I do object to the characterization that anything in this book smacks of research! If he really did research that could prove any of his point he wouldn't be writing in the popular press!

He states "The case against this materialistic, undirected evolution is overwhelming." But doesn't make a case and has never made a case. In fact NO ONE has made such a case. Oh they have opinions and they yell a lot. Or they are like Ann Coulter who uses her bombastic style to repeat word for word what William Dembski and Michael Behe all told her to say.

His book will be a fun read, can't wait for the library to get a copy -- although they keep putting them in non-fiction, which I will never understand!

Salman Hameed said...

"On the other hands, Darwinism defenders do choose to appear neutral or having no assumption".

Actually no, scientists usually don't appear neutral regarding evolution - they don't have to. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and so its a no brainer that evolution should be taught as the established idea behind modern biology. In the same sense, scientists are not neutral about the second law of thermodynamics or Newton's laws of motion (at non-relativistic speeds), etc. What many of the scientists (not all) ARE neutral about are the theological implications of these discovered laws. You can always say that God is the one who established these laws (including evolution via natural selection) in the first place. One way or the other, this assumption is truly based on faith. But Dembski's "science" apriori assumes a Designer - and then any place evolution does not have current explanation, he sees "evidence" for a designer (ah...a Chritian Designer). This is bad science AND bad religion.

Anonymous said...

cheap wedding gowns,
discount bridal gowns,
China wedding dresses,
discount designer wedding dresses,
China wedding online store,
plus size wedding dresses,
cheap informal wedding dresses,
junior bridesmaid dresses,
cheap bridesmaid dresses,
maternity bridesmaid dresses,
discount flower girl gowns,
cheap prom dresses,
party dresses,
evening dresses,
mother of the bride dresses,
special occasion dresses,
cheap quinceanera dresses,
hot red wedding dresses