Comparing Two Dembski Answers

Wesley Elsberry has an interesting post up where he details a question and answer exchange with Dembski at a conference last weekend. I think it's worth highlighting for the same reasons Wesley does. First, because it has Dembski saying that he thinks putting ID into high school science classes is "premature" - while simultaneously cheering on President Bush when he says ID should be taught in high school science classes and offering $1000 to any teacher in Wisconsin who will teach ID to break a prospective new law.

Second, because it shows how completely differently Dembski answers questions depending on the audience he's in front of. When he's speaking to a church group, he speaks explicitly about the religious purposes of ID and overthrowing the atheistic orthodoxy and so forth. When he speaks to mixed audiences with scientists present, he sounds perfectly reasonable and talks about how he has no problem reconciling with evolution, he's just motivated by good science. I'll put the two answers below the fold.

At the Greer Heard Forum last weekend, Wes asked the following question of Ruse and Dembski:

Actually I'm interested in a public policy aspect of this whole thing. Last month, I got on the Web of Science database search and looked up the term "cold fusion" and it came up with 900 papers there. "Cold fusion" is the poster child for the "not-ready-for-prime-time" physics theory, something that is not ready for going into 9th grade biology, no, physics textbooks. We see the process of science in things like plate tectonics, and the endosymbiotic theory, the neutral theory, and punctuated equilibria, these are things that have earned a place in the textbooks, because the people put in the work, they convinced the scientific community that they had a point, and that's why they're in the textbooks. So, what I'd like to hear from both of you is, is there a justification for giving intelligent design a pass on this process?

Ruse answered simply, "No." Dembski's answer was a bit more detailed:

That was short, but I think I can expand on that a little bit. A few years back, I wrote a paper, in fact I think I delivered it at a conference that I think that you attended, what was the title, Becoming a Disciplined Science, Pitfalls, Problems, various things confronting intelligent design, and in that paper I addressed what I thought a real concern for me that intelligent design would become in instrumental good used by various groups to further certain ends, but that the science would get short-shrifted, and I argued that the science was the intrinsic good, and indeed that's my motivation, ultimately. I could make my peace with Darwinism if I had to, and I'm sufficiently theologically astute to do the fancy footwork, but it's the science itself that I don't think holds up, and that's what motivates me to critique Darwinism and develop intelligent design. But as I argued in that paper, intelligent design has to be developed as a scientific program, otherwise you, you can't get a pass, I'm with you on that. And I was not a supporter of this Dover policy. Once it was enacted, once the Thomas More Law Center was going ahead with it, I did agree to be an expert witness there, but I think it is premature.

All very reasonable, don't you think? He doesn't have a religious objection to evolution, he could reconcile his theological views with evolution if he had to, he just doesn't think the science supports it, but gosh he sure hopes that the science doesn't get forgotten because "various groups" might use ID to further their political agenda. That's a "real concern" for him. And it's too soon to put ID into science classes, not until it's "developed as a scientific program." Now compare this to two previous statements, the first in response to President Bush saying ID should be taught in science classes:

President Bush is to be commended for his courage, wisdom, and foresight in publicly supporting the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution.

And the second one in front of a church group in Texas, where he says his real motivation is that evolution is stealing glory from God:

I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed...And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done -- and he's not getting it."

We'll just add these to the already enormous list of conflicting statements made by Dembski in this regard. I really am convinced that the man simply doesn't care about truth or accuracy. Whatever you have to say to any audience at any given time, you say it and you just count on your followers being sufficently ignorant or apathetic about it. Seems to work, too.