Dembski V. Shermer

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Random Thoughts

Dembski v. Shermer

by Jeff Prewitt

 

On Thursday, March 23, I had the pleasure of attending a formal debate between Dr. Michael Shermer of the Skeptics Society and Dr. William Dembski of the Discovery Institute on the campus of the University of Kentucky. It’s been two days, but the events are still quite vivid.

 

I traveled with my brother and a good friend, and, as expected, we had excellent, thought-provoking conversations on several topics spiritual and temporal. It was almost as though we were warming up our brains (so to speak) for the night’s event. We arrived an hour and a half early and, to my surprise, were the first ones there apart from the diligent sound crew. We took seats about five rows back in the center, and watched as people trickled in. I must note for those who haven’t seen it that Memorial Hall looks very much like a church. I felt the strangest urge to genuflect when I entered. It seemed altogether fitting and quite odd at the same time.

 

After several minutes, seats began filling. Though the hall wasn’t packed until a few minutes before the debate began, it was noticeably more populated at 30 minutes till. It was very interesting just listening to the conversations of the people around me while we waited for the night’s action. I’m sure there were many firm creationists that came to pull for Dembski, but everyone within earshot seemed to be of a more skeptical bend. Despite never having been in a congregation (!) of skeptics before, I quickly felt that these were my kind of people. I listened to men my father’s and grandfather’s age discussing the South Park episode of the night before (Chef’s Farewell — a hot topic!), a man presented another with a Flying Spaghetti Monster emblem, and there was talk of the JREF and the health of Mr. James Randi. Eventually, Dr. Shermer entered the room. He had come from a dinner with KASES members that I was unable to attend. A combination of backwardness and not wanting to disturb the man right before his debate kept me from approaching him, but just being in the same room was enough for me.

 

A few minutes after 8 local time, the debate began. Dr. Dembski showed examples of very complex systems found in nature (his favorite seemed to be bacterial flagella), and presented the case that evolution through natural selection could not account for the complexity of such systems. He also presented his belief that the statistical improbability of life as we know it happening by chance was so high that it seems unreasonable to believe that such life began by natural processes. Dembski was quite civil during his opening remarks. He even had a funny clip from Dumb and Dumber which related to his probability theme. His delivery was somewhat dry and he rarely cracked a smile (though he seemed a little under the weather — I can’t really judge since I’ve never watched him before), but on the whole he was worth listening to (much more so than, say, Kent Hovind).

 

Dr. Shermer was given 25 minutes to speak next, and I feel he made the very most of it. Shermer rebutted that complexity can come through natural selection, and presented examples of earlier forms of flagella that were steps up the evolutionary staircase to those mentioned by Dembski. He argued that we simply don’t know what the probabilities are in the formation of life, so any attempts to quantify the improbability of our being here are only guesswork. Shermer noted that many systems in the body show more evidence of a bottom-up tinkerer than a top-down designer. In other words, we seem like we came to our present form more from trial-and-error than from the necessarily perfect design of a perfect creator. Why do I have an appendix and nipples, when I don’t need either to function?

 

Shermer went on to say that being pro-evolution does not require you to be anti-religious. There are many scientists, Christian and otherwise, who see the overwhelming evidence for evolution and are honest enough to realize that it must take place. He said that science is not about miracles. We (science) don’t know yet how we got here on the cosmological scale, but as we learn how it could happen, we can test things in a lab. Saying “God did it,” though it may come from a strong belief, is not science. It can’t be tested unless He decides to show himself and submit to tests (sound of crickets chirping).

 

The homerun of the night, in my opinion, came when Dr. Shermer put up a quote by Isaac Newton. In that quote, Newton pointed out that the planets in our solar system lie roughly in a nice, level plane. This, he argued, was proof positive of design by a benevolent (and somewhat artistic) creator. Why don’t Intelligent Design proponents use this argument now? In the centuries since Newton said this, science has shown that this is completely a natural phenomenon. No one, not even IDers will argue that point. Because we didn’t know how it was done, we attributed it to God. The more we learn happens naturally, the less there is for God to do. Our species has gone from our cave-dwelling ancestors attributing everything to a Deity to now, only putting Him in charge of a few, ever-decreasing number of things. What do we think of now as so impossible it must have been done by God? By Dembski’s own words, he feels that evolution is one such thing.

 

In the question and answer session that followed, I was surprised by the fact that every question asked seemed to come from the skeptic side. I had fully expected the churches to mobilize against the “Darwinists” and to quote scripture to Shermer. This was absolutely not the case. Dembski was called upon to defend his work. Was it peer-reviewed? What theories have Intelligent Design contributed to science? Did he support the “Wedge Document” that the Discovery Institute formulated as their plan to bring religion back to education?

 

Finally, it was time for closing remarks. Here, Dembski took a cheap shot that seemed somewhat unbecoming of him. He took issue with Shermer’s remarks that a Christian can believe in evolution, and that it doesn’t require losing your faith to accept the theory. He said that Shermer did not, in fact, remain an evangelical Christian — seeming to suggest that evolution was the sole cause of this. Unfortunately, that remark was probably enough to stop some honest, open-minded religious type from searching out the truth for him/herself. There’s nothing like the fear of eternal damnation to stop someone from thinking for themselves and resume following the clergy blindly.

 

The point of it all for me, is that science takes what we see and makes conclusions and finds answers (more like tentative solutions) based on the evidence. ID starts with the answer that they want, and tries to make the evidence fit that answer. That is simply not science.

 

eSkeptic is a free, public newsletter published (almost) weekly by the Skeptics Society. Contents are Copyright © 2006 Michael Shermer, the Skeptics Society, and the authors and artists. Permission is granted to print, distribute, and post with proper citation and acknowledgment. Contact us at skepticssociety@skeptic.com. | This webpage is coded by Rocketday Arts to W3C compliant XHTML 1.1, adhering to accessibility guidelines set forth by the W3C’s Web Accessibility Initiative and US Section 508, using Dublin Core RDF metadata. | Subscribe to eSkeptic by sending an email to join-skeptics@lyris.net. Unsubscribe by sending an email to leave-skeptics@lyris.net. | Browse, search, and read the eSkeptic archives online. Read other articles, order books, cds and dvds, browse announcements of events, and subscribe to Skeptic magazine at www.skeptic.com.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

What I don't get is the Argument from Design, it makes no sense. We can watch a snowflake form and we know why and how it forms its complexities and realize that it doesn't require the hand of a creator to make.

 

As far as his evidence by using his little petrie dish it's like what Bertrand Russel said, "...it is not that our environment was made suitable for them, it is that they became suitable for their environment." Or to paraphrase Woody Allen, if this is the best that god can do then he is basically an underachiever.

 

Using something alive and working is not evidence for or against a creator and to use it preys upon the ignorant. Why couldn't he bring something that failed to evolve and survive and show that it was a sinner of some kind and that god rained down his punishment wiping it from the face of the earth?

[Reverend AtheiStar]

What I don't get is the Argument from Design, it makes no sense. We can watch a snowflake form and we know why and how it forms its complexities and realize that it doesn't require the hand of a creator to make.

 

As far as his evidence by using his little petrie dish it's like what Bertrand Russel said, "...it is not that our environment was made suitable for them, it is that they became suitable for their environment." Or to paraphrase Woody Allen, if this is the best that god can do then he is basically an underachiever.

 

Using something alive and working is not evidence for or against a creator and to use it preys upon the ignorant. Why couldn't he bring something that failed to evolve and survive and show that it was a sinner of some kind and that god rained down his punishment wiping it from the face of the earth?

 

The argument from design doesn't need to make sense. It just needs to click with previous programming. I.e., it needs to be in parallel with the training since birth that says some invisible bearded wite guy in the clouds made the universe and everything here on planet Earth.

 

Yeah, the fine tuning brand of creationists, like so much else, have the equation backwards. They look at our planet and say "Wow, it's all so perfect for life!" "It must have been designed!" No, it's not designed for us, we evolved to it.

 

And what of the rest of the universe? It's cold, barren and as far as we can see, is devoid of life. It's been pointed out that our universe has the perfect environment for producing blackholes. There are asteroids, comets, exploding stars and forces so large that whole galaxies can be torn apart! Why would a benevolent deity create such a harsh and sterile place?

 

I'm waiting for some creationist to say that the dinosaurs were sinners (maybe they all started turning homosexual) and that's why they were destroyed. They failed to comprehend His glory and didn't understand how to bow down. And in His ultimate love, he had them destoyed by the glorious impact of an asteroid -- or in the flood, depending on which flavor of creationist we're speaking of.

[Zach]

Sounds like a great time. Wish I could have seen it.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Sounds like a great time. Wish I could have seen it.

 

<sigh> Yeah, sounds like it would have been awesome for our local group, FAVA (Freethinkers and Atheists of Virginia). Alas, Kentucky would be quite a road trip! We did the Atheists in Foxholes event, put on by AA, though, and that was one of the best Atheist experiences I've had! So many unbelievers! Wow! So many charged up speakers! We brought the kids along, too. We shared a first there!

[theunraveler]

i always liked shermer's works. he and sagan are my favourites when it comes to skepticism

[Reverend AtheiStar]

i always liked shermer's works. he and sagan are my favourites when it comes to skepticism

 

Have you subscribed to E-Skeptic then? It's a great periodical with plenty of great articles from him and others, such as Dawkins.

[theunraveler]

i always liked shermer's works. he and sagan are my favourites when it comes to skepticism

 

Have you subscribed to E-Skeptic then? It's a great periodical with plenty of great articles from him and others, such as Dawkins.

nope but i am on yahoo groups skeptic forums, its quite an active group. i get flooded by emails everyday from the group...

[Reverend AtheiStar]

i always liked shermer's works. he and sagan are my favourites when it comes to skepticism

 

Have you subscribed to E-Skeptic then? It's a great periodical with plenty of great articles from him and others, such as Dawkins.

nope but i am on yahoo groups skeptic forums, its quite an active group. i get flooded by emails everyday from the group...

 

This won't affect you much at all. It's something that's published maybe once a week.

[MrSpooky]

You know, a friend of mine goes to UK and he was the one who asked about the Wedge Document thing after asking for my advice on what to say. I mentioned the Wedge, but also said that it was likely to be taken as an Ad Hom.

 

Neat to see how we can click together in some way or another on the interweb.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

You know, a friend of mine goes to UK and he was the one who asked about the Wedge Document thing after asking for my advice on what to say. I mentioned the Wedge, but also said that it was likely to be taken as an Ad Hom.

 

Neat to see how we can click together in some way or another on the interweb.

 

 

I have that on my site here.

[MrSpooky]

I've got the pdf scan of it. =D

[Bobo]

The suboptimal design argument (i.e., appendix/male nipple) is a wound from which intelligent design cannot recover. It is indeed a mortal blow.

 

In the appendix of Dembski's book Intelligent Design, he addresses some common objections to ID. One of them is suboptimal design. He responds that ID makes no claims about the nature of the designer and that this traces back to the philosophical problem of evil. In short, he skirts the issue. And yet he is Christian and even mentions a "fallen world" -- clearly a creationist tactic that makes a claim about the nature of the designer.

 

Although Dr. Shermer cited the numerous Christians who support evolution, what do those Christians really mean by that? Even Dembski agrees that the universe is billions of years old and that many of the processes of macroevolution are well established. It is the Darwinian idea that life originated from purely natural causes with which ID really takes issue. So, if those Christians claim to believe in evolution, they're really advocating ID on a philosophical level.

 

Strict fundamentalism/biblical literalism advocates a young earth, which science has discredited so severely that even most Christians find it absurd. Plus, the idea that a book so riddled with errors and contradictions could come directly from the hand of a perfect God presents a serious problem. But at least the fallen world argument is logically (if not scientifically and historically) compatible with suboptimal design.

 

Although intelligent design seems to have some scientific credibility, the suboptimal design argument and the problem of evil render it incompatible with monotheism, including anything remotely resembling Christianity. It does, however, seem to be compatible with deism -- creator(s) of some sort who got the evolutionary ball rolling and didn't bother to intervene afterward. As a creationist once told me, evolution is inherently naturalistic or deistic. He was right.

[Bobo]

Perhaps I should get to the point faster.

 

Because there's scientific "evidence" on both sides of this issue, it would be pretty difficult to convince a committed Christian that ID was false. Dembski, Behe and the other intelligent design advocates aren't stupid. They actually do present some credible science, and they have degrees from widely respected secular institutions.

 

BUT the beauty of the suboptimal design/problem of natural evil argument is that it places the Christian in a logical corner. Either he has to accept the fantasy of the Garden of Eden or reject monotheism (and therefore Christianity) entirely.

 

When it comes to faith and philosophy, I've learned the hard way that there are no compromises.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Perhaps I should get to the point faster.

 

Because there's scientific "evidence" on both sides of this issue, it would be pretty difficult to convince a committed Christian that ID was false. Dembski, Behe and the other intelligent design advocates aren't stupid. They actually do present some credible science, and they have degrees from widely respected secular institutions.

 

BUT the beauty of the suboptimal design/problem of natural evil argument is that it places the Christian in a logical corner. Either he has to accept the fantasy of the Garden of Eden or reject monotheism (and therefore Christianity) entirely.

 

When it comes to faith and philosophy, I've learned the hard way that there are no compromises.

 

You might find this interesting:

 

http://www.reverendatheistar.com/malevolent_design.htm