Pharyngula

Billy Dembski, pious and deluded

There goes Bill Dembski again, revealing both his religious delusions and his ignorance of the state of modern biology in an interview.

4. 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.

Keep that quote in mind for the future, next time they try to claim ID isn’t a sectarian religious belief. Also note that the the “design” he is wondering how it “got in there” hasn’t been demonstrated at all.

It isn’t a Dembski interview without an inflated ego on display:

5. How will your research affect the world of science?

It’s going to change the national conversation. 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. The case against this materialistic, undirected evolution is overwhelming. This really goes to the worldview issues that are underlying this whole discussion: Are we the result of a blind, purposeless, material process, and is our intelligence then just this evolutionary byproduct of our need to survive and reproduce? Or are intelligence and purpose fundamental to our existence? Were we planned? Or are we an accidental happening? That’s really what is underlying this whole debate, and what this book, I think, addresses very effectively.

Intelligent design goes a long way in this culture, which is so infused with materialistic and atheistic ideology.

I’ve got the book he’s talking about, and I’m partway through it. It ain’t convincing. It’s the same old bluster that Wells and Dembski have been pounding their fists over for the last decade; there’s absolutely nothing new in it, just more rehashed chest-thumping from failed religious revolutionaries; I predict it will die a rapid death, simply because the IDers haven’t been able to come up with anything we haven’t already heard multiple times, and that has failed every time to convince anyone in the biology community with a scrap of sense.

Comments

  1. #1 David Marjanovi?, OM
    December 14, 2007

    5. How will your research affect the world of science?

    It’s going to change the national conversation.

    So “the world of science” is limited to “the national conversation”…?

  2. #2 David Marjanovi?, OM
    December 14, 2007

    (Yesss! I can has l33t HTML sgillz!!1 Thanks again, woozy.)

  3. #3 David Marjanovi?
    December 15, 2007

    That’s why I tend to agree with, um, whoever said it, that ID is (in this sense) more about bad science than religion. Of course, it’s *motivated* by religion, but that’s only relevant (given the badness of the science) in legal cases (purpose prong and all that).

    Yes, but ID often makes the step out of science. On the “Wells lies. Again.” thread a few months ago, I pointed out to the cdesign proponentsist that the existence of Stupid Design falsified ID. Not so, said he: we can’t simply say it’s stupid — after all, we don’t know what the Designer may have been thinking. So I pointed out that the Designer was ineffable, and asked the cdesign proponentsist if he felt comfortable outside of science. No answer.

    Which is, as mentioned, not surprising, given the Wedge Document.

    Why the human body is so very much just another mammalian body: Same eyes, same immune system, same blood-clotting system.

    Behe or Dembski or both accept common descent. They simply make an argument from personal incredulity that mutation and selection alone cannot have produced today’s biodiversity.

  4. #4 David Marjanovi?, OM
    December 15, 2007

    Dembski believes humans were specially created. Behe is the one DI fellow that accepts common descent.

    Ah, thanks.

    the all-powerful Biblical God?

    Be careful which part of the Bible you pick. For example, don’t pick Judges 1:19:

    “And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.”

    Omnipotence is a pretty new concept.