Dembski Came To Berkeley To Give A Talk And I Came Out Grinning.

[MrSpooky]

I gotta admit, I was slightly nervous about confronting Dembski, and if it wasn't for the bravery of those that came before me I probably would've remained in my seat rather than getting on the podium to ask him a question.

 

I'm glad I did.

 

I'm not going to reiterate the entire lecture, but I am going to enumerate certain major flaws I've seen in Dembski's reasoning. First off, Dembski referred to teleology, and in particular seemed to stick with Paley's brand of teleology, which gave me ample ammo to address the major flaws in his arguments later. This is because when Dembski put up a bunch of slides of things that we infer to be designed, he not only included the prototypical Mount Rushmore among other things ("this couldn't have been carved from wind and rain") he put up a photo of the Face on Mars.

 

Now of course, the Face on Mars isn't designed, it's a trick of the light that captured a mountain in a very specific way. But it's important to note that yes, the Face LOOKS designed, but looks aren't everything.

 

This is just ample evidence that mere perception is inconclusive when it comes to trying to determine whether or not something is designed. Thus, Dembski's appeals to analogically comparing bacterial flagella to motors and such has an ultimate flaw: he's relying on perception, not scientific or forensic determination. He gave no details as to HOW we percieve design and how it relates to ID.

 

Another interesting note is that Dembski emphasized on at least one occasion that relying on the bacterial flagellum argument "wasn't a God of the Gaps." However, he at the same time points out that evolution cannot account for the flagellum, despite tantalizing clues of its origins from cooption, and hence the flagellum was designed. Kinda self-contradictory there, I think.

 

As I previously mentioned, yes, I got up and asked a question. I asked:

 

If an archaeologist came across the ruins of an ancient civilization, it's not the end of his inquiry. He'd want to determine the nature of the civilization that built that city. Now, I know you were on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and Jon asked of you, these are his words, not mine, "My testicles are held in a little sack that anyone can come across and smack with a baseball bat." So taking into account the vulnerabilities of the body and things like HIV and bubonic plague, the ID proponents seem to be very reticent with providing details as to the nature of the designer.

 

I'm sure we all agree that evolution must provide details about the bacterial flagellum and such, but it seems as if ID is trying to set a different standard of itself from evolution.

 

He stood there, silent, digesting the question for about five long, delicious seconds as he stared at me. Someone behind me gave a short clap of approval.

 

I grinned inside.

 

All in all, it was a good day.

[pandora]

Did he answer?

[MrSpooky]

Did he answer?

 

Yep. He pretty much said that it wasn't a problem for Intelligent Design. He was struggling a bit for the words, but he compared it to asking if Caesar had a mole on his left leg. We may never know for sure, but it doesn't mean the question is unintelligible. Or somesuch.

[Light_of_Reason]

He pretty much said that it wasn't a problem for Intelligent Design. He was struggling a bit for the words, but he compared it to asking if Caesar had a mole on his left leg. We may never know for sure, but it doesn't mean the question is unintelligible. Or somesuch.

 

In other words he essentially said, "I don't have an answer for that question, and since it embarrasses my position, it must not be important."

 

I wish I could see Dembski talk and have an opportunity to throw some good hard questions his way. I be seeing him pause for a good while and stumbling for words was the best entertainment of the whole presentation.

[Zach]

Which is a complete non sequitur, of course. Not having an answer to a historical detail is completely different from inferring standards of design in contrast to evidence of imperfection. He came pretty close to implying that imperfect anatomy suggests an higher unknown purpose, which as I'm sure you're aware, is a God of the Gaps.