Are Scientists Scared of Intelligent Design?
Wow. William Dembski, gave a talk last night on intelligent design to the Campus Crusade for Christ at Kansas University. DaveScot of Uncommon Descent has thrown down the gauntlet once again, making loud claims about how scared scientists are in discussing intelligent design.
In an unsurprising act of cowardice, not a single
Darwimpian defender of the faithscientist had theballsfiber to stand up to our fearless leader in Kansas yesterday.
Well DaveScot, let’s compare and contrast two possible scenarios and see which one’s more logical.
- All the scientists in the vicinity of Lawrence, KS were hiding in dark corners, trembling uncontrollably at the thought of debating William A. Dembksi, the “Isaac Newton of Information Theory” (Rob Koons described Dembski with this phrase in an endorsement on the back cover of this book; quote is cited towards the bottom of the page.)
- All the scientists in the vicinity of Lawrence, KS felt that a science debate should take place in a more neutral location than a Campus Crusade for Christ event.
I’ll take the latter for $500, Alex.
I find DaveScot’s blistering criticism of scientists so funny, in light of the fact that Dembski only recently backed out of such a debate himself with Ken Miller at Case Western University. (You can watch Miller’s excellent presentation here.) On Dec 16th, Dembski indicated on his blog that he would be happy to debate the issues at Case Western. Yet when the time came, alas, Dembski couldn’t make it.
So we’re seeing the same pattern we’ve always seen. Scientific meetings are way too hostile for ID supporters. Meetings at big universities (such as Case Western) are overly hostile also. Campus Crusade for Christ is just right.
Or is it? Seems that Pat Hayes, from Red State Rabble attended the meeting and he put up his description of the event. Apparently Dembski wasn’t too happy when people started asking hard questions.
Dembski, who may have been led to expect a warmer reception for his ideas — he was in Kansas, after all — seemed to grow testy as questioner after questioner expressed doubt about his assertion that evolution is a failed theory and that patterns in nature are best explained as a result of intelligence.
Dembski, who was both expansive and patient early in the question and answer period — even allowing follow up questions — became more combative, frequently interrupting questioners to ask them to get more quickly to the point, as it became clear that many in the audience, perhaps a majority, remained unconvinced.
One young woman, apparently frustrated by the apparent sophistry of Dembski’s demand that evolution explain every single step in the evolution of bacterial flagella, while refusing to provide a similar step by step explanation of how intelligent design might have acted to create biological structures, repeatedly asked Dembski to cite physical data or observations that support intelligent design.
So even Campus Crusade for Christ meetings can be a little testy. Perhaps an even safer venue is necessary for discussing intelligent design? Dembski and Co. might find this audience more placable.
Back to the news article DaveScot linked to, it does have some nice quotes worth interpreting.
“I hope that tonight shows that there is substance to this science,” said Mark Brown, director of Campus Crusade [for Christ], which invited Dembski to campus. “Real science should pursue the truth. Truth is the friend of science and religion equally.”
My interpretation of this statement? — Real ScienceTM had better follow our lead on interpreting the Bible… If we say the world’s flat and 6,000 years old, it ought to be science that’s wrong, not our understanding of God.
When asked about how biology teachers should teach intelligent design theory, Dembski said teachers should “go as far as you can.”
My interpretation of this statement? — We at the Discovery Institute don’t advocate the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, but we’d love it if someone else jumped in to teach it.
Jonathan Jenkins, a KU sophomore and intelligent design proponent, said he came to learn.
Jenkins said he thinks both evolution and intelligent design are faith-based ways of thinking about science.
My interpretation of this statement? — If you think evolution is a good idea, then obviously your religion is atheism. If you’re a Real ChristianTM, then obviously you should support intelligent design.
Oh these crazy times we live in.
Jay,
A commenter on Dembski’s blog attended the KU presentation and gave a similar review, saying that Dembski had gotten particularly annoyed at a question about the falsifiability of ID and had avoided giving a straight answer. I can’t quote the comment verbatim (see below), but the commenter described Dembski’s performance as “sad”.
I saw the comment in the middle of the afternoon. It was lucky that I checked the blog then, because the comment got deleted within the next couple of hours (presumably when DaveScot saw it). Truth may be “the friend of science and religion”, but it gets a frosty reception at Dembski’s blog.
Incidentally, Dembski is teaching a Spring 2006 course at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary entitled “Critical Thinking and the Art of Argumentation.” The course objective reads: “The goal of this course is to help students become adept at making a persuasive case for the truth of the [i.e. “my particular”] Christian worldview.”
Translation: “Assume the truth ahead of time. Follow the evidence if it happens to lead there. Otherwise, make it appear to lead there.” That may also be his approach to the intelligent design debate, which would explain a lot.
Campus Crusade for Christ invited Dembski. The event was on campus, not in a church. The audience was anyone who wanted to be there, not hand selected Dembski supporters.
What about the venue would cause a scientist to believe Dembski would be somehow favored?
Non sequitur. Try again.
How about the fact that the talk was organized by a Christian evangelist group and would, presumably, have an audience packed with religious devotees who weren’t interested in science?
Re: Campus Crusader,
As someone who has a little experience with the CCC and its creationist presentations, I can easily answer your question. The CCC is on many campuses a very large student organization. On my campus, they have more members than any lecture hall can accomodate. Additionally, they network with churches and other religious organizations in the area, bringing scores of additional people for a little faith-reassurance. I had a conversation with an atheist who couldn’t get into one of their presentations until he told them he was the sole representative of his church. Moreover, many scientists and smart students have run into this stuff before and don’t want to waste their time. There are usually a few people in the audience who ask critical questions, but the rest are for the most part there to have their beliefs reaffirmed.
I would just add to the last two excellent responses this:
I’m not criticizing Dembski simply for talking to a religious group. On the other side of the debate, there are after all plenty of Christians who understand evolutionary theory, and if they wish to talk to religious organizations, more power to them.
Rather, I’m criticizing Dembski for seeking out religious audiences while avoiding neutral / scientific audiences. He also avoids making his “scientific” arguments to the scientific community. (Which overwhelming rejects his arguments). It is not acceptable behavior to take your arguments to a religious audience when the scientific community rejects your claims. If you claim to be a scientist, and you claim your ideas are scientific, then the “jury of your peers” so to speak are other scientists.
I also wrote this post because on Dembski’s own blog, someone made that claim that scientists were scared to show up. That is about as bald-faced a lie as they get.
Scientists have repeatedly debated these issues, and will continue to do so. Yet Dembski and his cohorts continue to distort the record and claim that scientists won’t debate them, while at the same time, backing out of debates with scientists. Again, see my post above. Dembski himself, on his own blog, said he would take up the debate at Case Western. Yet Ken Miller wound up giving a solo presentation.
Non sequitur? Hardly.