Speaker stands behind theory [Dembski on Intelligent Design in Kansas]

Lawrence Journal-World ^ | 24 January 2006 | Sophia Maines

[PatrickHenry]

Kansas never ceases to be entertaining. Apparently, Dembski hasn't heard about Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 340 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[AntiGuv]

Dembski, a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

Did Baylor finally decide they didn't wanna be associated with Dembski's nonsense anymore?

[PatrickHenry]

Did Baylor finally decide they didn't wanna be associated with Dembski's nonsense anymore?

It seems that way:

Having been spurned by colleagues at Baylor, who worried about the potential erosion of that university's hard-earned reputation in scientific research, the demoted and disparaged Dembski is now ensconced at what's left of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, after the darkness fell. He's there to teach and to head up a new Center for Science and Theology.

Source: It's possible for Christians to render unto God and unto Darwin.

[Coyoteman]

===> Placemarker <===

[sagar]

You can't call ID a "theory". Unless hocus pocus, locus focus **poof** the universe came into existence is now considered a theory. ID can NEVER be tested and can NEVER have ANY evidence to claim its out-of-this-world(literally) claim of supernatural intelligence creating the very universe within which everything exists. Unless God(who passes scientific scrutiny) shows and proves that he indeed created the universe.

Until then, ID is just a philosophy.

[Tinman73]

If you have any of my previous posts here about this subject, you know my position that "Intelligent design" is not a science, but a belief.
I lump this in with "Scientology" Or how the universe comes up with "magic numbers" as present fuzzy sciences.

Please, let's keep Theology and the sciences separate.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." (Kansas State immunologist Scott Todd).

An opinion with which a good many ideologues would heartily agree. Despite the vociferous, non-applicable criticisms of ID, the consideration is reasonable and legally valid in a public, scientific context.

[VadeRetro]

... at the Lied Center.

There's gotta be some kind of play on that. (I know, it probably the German word for "song," but who cares?)

And Dembski said intelligent design receives nowhere near the financial support that evolution does.

What would be the idea of paying people to think of ways we'll never understand things except by saying "Goddidit?"

[andysandmikesmom]

Read that article in your link...interesting...especially the part about Feb. 12, being called 'Evolution Sunday'...that should provide for numerous howls of outrage, and the endless posting of scriptures...

[Fester Chugabrew]

ID can NEVER be tested . . .

As if there is no such thing as organized matter that performs specific functions.

[Dimensio]

Dembski, a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., expounded on the theory and criticized evolution before a nearly packed auditorium.

I wasn't aware that I resided so close to greatness. A great clown, that is.

[longshadow]

Memorable quotes:

Intelligent design proponent William Dembski stood on an empty stage Monday at the Lied Center.

Drips with unintended irony.....

“Another thing about this case is it’s not going to the Supreme Court,” He [Dembski] said. “It’s one narrow ruling.”

Narrow? Bwaaaaaaahahhhaaaaaaaaaaha! What planet is Dembski living on? Most of the hysterical anti-evo bedwetters complained that the Dover judgement was TOO broad for their tastes. Can't these kooks even sing from the same page in the sheet music?

[Rudder]

And Dembski said intelligent design receives nowhere near the financial support that evolution does.

ID certainly doesn't propose actual empirical research does it? I cannot begin to imagine the genesis of a research proposal write up for ID...and apparently neither can anyone else.

[VadeRetro]

ID certainly doesn't propose actual empirical research does it?

How do you test a theory that handles anything you'll ever see?

[Fester Chugabrew]

I cannot begin to imagine the genesis of a research proposal write up for ID.

Can you list any research proposals that were specifically dedicated to the theory of evolution?

[Fester Chugabrew]

How do you test a theory that handles anything you'll ever see?

You tell me. What evidence exists that controverts the theory of evolution? What evidence exists that could not be attributed to so-called "natural" causes?

[VadeRetro]

Most of the hysterical anti-evo bedwetters complained that the Dover judgement was TOO broad for their tastes.

They're right, too. It didn't just rule on the board's actions (which it called unconsitutional) and whether board members lied (yes, in spades). It ruled on whether ID is science (no) and whether ID is creationism repackaged (yes). That's pretty broad.

[b_sharp]

This is my post for the day.

[Fester Chugabrew]

What planet is Dembski living on?

The same one you are. Would you care to prognosticate the destination of the Dover ruling WRT the Supreme Court since it will not be appealed?

It does represent the effort of one judge to establish non-theistic science by law, and as such it is a case that controverts the words and intent of the Constitution, but there will likely be other cases to deal with the unconsitutional establishment of non-thesitic principles in a public context.