Weird Dembski Post

A fundamental problem with the Appellate decision is that it appears to accept an implicit assumption that "those who endorse atomic theory" do so because they have made a rational, independent evaluation of the scientific data offered as evidence for its truth. But if, in fact, they endorse atomic theory because they have chosen to give unquestioning deference to science experts, it may be appropriate to treat their position as simply another religious position, rather than being a position divorced from religion. This may affect the application of the constitutional test, if it appears that the plaintiffs are in effect trying to support their own religious views by suppressing the Sticker. The court should take evidence as to the reasons why, prior to filing the lawsuit, the particular individual plaintiffs "endorsed" atomic theory, rather than simply presume that their reasons for endorsing atomic theory were grounded in their science education.

So whenever a non-expert accepts the word of an expert in matters related to his/her expertise, that's a "religious position?"

So, since I've never been to Iraq myself, and since I thus have to accept the word of a US soldier that this place I've never seen actually exists, does that mean that my belief that Iraq exists is actually a "religious" belief? So now we gotta "teach the controversy" about the existence of Iraq in our high school geography classes?

I'm not surprised that Dumbski hasn't given this much thought -- he's a bit busy humping Ann Coulter's leg, remember?

Well yes, the premise is ridiculous as well, but I rather like the implications. And frankly, I think he's busy humping her adam's apple, not her leg.

Ahem. Ed, I believe that "Wierd Dembski Post" is a redundency, as ANY Demsski post is wierd. That said, this is another great example of IDiocy in thought and action. Excuse me, cross out "thought", make it another great example of IDiocy, period end of story.

Dave S - Excellent commenet - You could also substitute "nucular theory" for even more fun.

Raging Bee - Great comment too, but you paint a truly fugly word picture! Might be a good diet plan, because I just lost my appetite. And my breakfast...

Although he probably doesn't know it, I think Dembski is onto something.

To paraphrase Dembski, a fundamental problem with many of our wordly assumptions is that such assumptions rest on recieved learning. This is not surprising. The independent evaluation of scientific data is beyond the vast majority of people. Moreover, those that are sufficiently versed in physics are unlikely to be sufficiently versed in biology. Thus, it is true that the validity of ones world view rests largely on "faith" in the right experts.

I most certainly part company with Dembski when he suggests such "faith" is tantamount to a religious position. But clearly "what" you believe depends on how well you choose, evaluate and follow experts in fields you barely grasp.

Sorry, J-Dog, it's hard to evem mention the Blonde Brainstem without going into fugly-town; she's ugly on the outside, and on the inside. I feel your pain, trust me. Why even Dumbski would consent to be seen near her I have no clue. I knew he was sinking as the ID movement lost its raison d'etre, but that low already?

Thus, it is true that the validity of ones world view rests largely on "faith" in the right experts.

Yes, that's true, but the difference between that and ID is our so-called "faith" in the right experts can be tested and verified, and in fact almost always is. We don't have "faith" in experts whose work is repeatedly and successfully challenged.

The only experts in evolutionary theory (or any other scientific field for that matter) that become trusted are those whose work stands up to peer review, repeatable experimentation, etc. ID "experts", on the other hand, not only do not submit their work for peer review, but they can't even seem to agree amongst themselves on the basics of their "theory".

This "evolution is faith-based, not science" meme seems to be the latest strategy, if you can call it that, from the DI and other anti-evolution crowd. That physics teacher in Pennsylvania who wanted to debate evolution had a similar premise in his debate question.

The strategy is oddly self-defeating, since Dembski and Co. run the risk of encouraging readers to question Christian dogma as well as evolution "dogma." It also, willfully or not, mangles the whole notion of what faith really is, which then can run Dembski and Co. afoul of one of Christianity's stickier theological questions.

I am a physicist with some passing knowledge of genetics and biology. I have confidence, not faith, in the conclusions of biology and paleontology experts, since I understand the process of scientific inquiry. We apply reason to the evidence to develop a cogent framework which rests on that evidence.

Faith, on the other hand, is an unquestioning acceptance that (a) God exists and (b) that church "experts" are correct. (Catholics might add that the Pope is infallible.) Despite efforts Aquinas and others to use reason to prove the existence of God, for most Christians faith does not require evidence or proof. In fact, for many, trying to prove scientifically that God exists actually demonstrates a lack of faith.

Dembski and Co. clearly are conflating two meanings of the word "faith," the common meaning of "confidence in something" and the theological definition. It seems like very shaky ground to walk on, particularly for someone associated with a theological seminary.

Faith, on the other hand, is an unquestioning acceptance that (a) God exists and (b) that church "experts" are correct. (Catholics might add that the Pope is infallible.) Despite efforts Aquinas and others to use reason to prove the existence of God, for most Christians faith does not require evidence or proof. In fact, for many, trying to prove scientifically that God exists actually demonstrates a lack of faith.

So then I take it that requiring evidence or proof for "faith" is a bad thing, and "unquestioning acceptance" is a good thing.

Anyway, I think you're wrong. Trying to prove scientifically that God exists doesn't actually demonstrate a lack of faith. What it does demonstrate is either:

A) Snake oil hucksterism.

Or

B) Having enough faith (i.e., enough "confidence in something", namely confidence in their faith) to start out with the premise that there is scientific evidence for the existence of God, and then sticking it to the rest of us.

This meme going around that says "trying to prove scientifically that God exists actually demonstrates a lack of faith" is, frankly, a load of hoo-hoo. (In my opinion, of course.) You can play all the word games you like about (alleged) theological definitions of "faith", but what's to stop people from having confidence in their "theological" faith.

This argument is no more applicable to evolution than it is to any other scientific theory. I suspect most American college graduates could not personally prove that the earth is spherical. To the extent that they believe it, they rely on "received knowledge."

This is a variation of the old "Let's apply the limits of inductive logic to itself" that inhabits Phil101 courses. Since we can never really know anything for certain, therefore probabilities of inference are irrevalent. Hogwash.

Any theory of knowledge is based upon the reception of prior knowledge from other humans; otherwise, we could literally know nothing, since even our own sense perceptions would be in doubt. The question is how do we apply hermeneutics to available information to make a coherent whole.

Ironic as it may be, this is also the fundamental question of Protestant belief, in that each person comprises the the "Priesthood of the Individual." Therefore Sisson would do better challenging his received interpretations of scripture than science.

The problem of what we know and how do we know it may be classic phil-101, but that doesn't make the answer clearer. In fact, I don't think one can argue such questions are settled at any level.

However, I think you struck on one of the best responses by invoking "probabilities of inference." It may be emotionally unsatisfying, but perhaps the best that can be said is that Intelligent Design is "probably" wrong, Evolution is "probably" right, and I "probably" exist.

386sx --
So then I take it that requiring evidence or proof for "faith" is a bad thing, and "unquestioning acceptance" is a good thing.
You are imposing value judgments where there were none intended. I have no opinion one way or the other, since I'm agnostic at best. I was attempting to point out that the tack Dembski and Sisson are taking rests on shaky theological ground. The nature of faith and whether we can prove the existence of God with science or logic are long standing issues for Christianity. Aquinas and Newton would certainly fall on one side of that fence, with Fox, Calvin and Wesley on the other.

DI, Dembski and Co. have failed in their attempts to attack evolution from a scientific perspective. They are now taking a religious tack: equate acceptance of evolution with a kind of cultic faith, then attack the "faith" as irreligious. Since their understanding of science was so cockeyed, that approach was doomed to fail. Their understanding of theology seems to be equally cockeyed, and this new approach will also fail.

You are imposing value judgments where there were none intended.

Sorry about that, Mr. wheatdogg. I saw this...

In fact, for many, trying to prove scientifically that God exists actually demonstrates a lack of faith.

... and remembered that the meme "trying to prove scientifically that God exists actually demonstrates a lack of faith" goes pretty much unopposed among the non-creationist crowd (as far as I know), and yet that particular meme strikes me as being kind of dumb. So I'm wondering: What gives? I thought those guys were supposed to be smart? :-)

Their understanding of theology seems to be equally cockeyed, and this new approach will also fail.

If you say so. Name one person who has an understanding of theology that isn't cockeyed. If their approach fails, it won't be because of theology, it will be because of science and logic. Theology can be whatever anybody wants it to be. Anyways, sorry again for jumping to conclusions. Cheers.