Re: Dembski's Challenge to Baylor biology faculty

From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Sat Oct 11 2003 - 14:12:28 EDT

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: RATE"

    BlankDembski's challenge to the biologists on the Baylor faculty is a clever one. He's asserted in carefully worded statements that he is a researcher in ID (without stating the nature of his research) and his work has been favorably cited in one peer-reviewed biological journal. Then he has challenged any biologist on the Baylor faculty to argue in a debate that ID is not scientific.

    In effect, Dembski has challenged the Baylor biology faculty to put up or shut up. Will a member the faculty rise to the challenge?

    It would be interesting if a member of the faculty would issue a counter-challenge: that Dembski demonstrate that ID is a scientific *theory* and a "research program," as he has claimed on more than one occasion. A scientific theory is a hypothesis based upon observations of natural phenomena and which has been subject to testing and shown to be supported both by tests and by its predictive value. While Dembski could obviously argue that Michael Behe's ideas on irreducibly complex systems or organisms constitutes a claim directly pertinent to biology, he could be challenged to demonstrate that Behe's ID hypothesis has reached the status of a theory. He could be asked, "What *scientific* research on biological systems and organisms has been done to confirm this hypothesis? by what scientific *methodology* or "research program" has such work been done? what results if any from such testing have confirmed the hypothesis, shown that it indeed has predictive value, and thus deserves the name of "theory"? can Demski demonstrate that ID's "research program consists of more than Behe's hypothesis and Dembski's writings that make use of probability theory and information theory?

    Also, since some Baylor faculty have claimed that ID is religion rather than science, one could press Dembski to declare what theological concepts lie behind his scientific claims: if ID claims intelligent design, would Dembski yield to the pressure to come out of the theological closet and make the assertions that so far he has confined to writings aimed at the evangelical community and say publically who he personally thinks the Designer is?

    Could anyone pin Dembski down on these specific points? It might be fun to watch.

    Bob Schneider

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Jack Haas
      To: ASA list
      Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 10:41 AM
      Subject: Dembski's Challenge to Baylor biology faculty

      Greetings
      You may be interested in Bill's ID challenge via a letter to the editor in the Waco Tribune.
      Jack Haas

      Biologist challenge
      http://www.wacotrib.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2003/10/11/1065852729.19830.9581.5576.html

      In Brian Gaar's report about the Dawson family's call to remove Frank
      Beckwith from the Baylor institute named in honor of J.M. Dawson,
      Baylor biology professor Dan Wivagg asserted that intelligent design
      is religion rather than science and is promoted through political
      means rather than through scientific discourse.

      Wivagg is not alone among Baylor biology professors in making such
      assertions. Richard Duhrkopf, for instance, in a front-page story for
      the Houston Chronicle in July 2000, made essentially the same charge.

      I've now been on the faculty at Baylor since 1999. I am among the
      foremost researchers on intelligent design. I have published work on
      intelligent design in the peer-reviewed literature. What's more, my
      work on intelligent design is favorably cited in the peer-reviewed
      mathematical and biological literature (e.g., International Journal of
      Fuzzy Systems and the Annual Review of Genetics). At no time in my
      four years at Baylor has any biologist challenged my views on
      intelligent design to my face.

      I therefore challenge any biologist(s) at Baylor to show, in a public
      debate with me, that intelligent design is not a scientific theory or
      directly pertinent to biology. Name the time and place, and I'll be
      there.

      William Dembski
      _______________________________________


    Blank_Bkgrd.gif

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 11 2003 - 14:17:02 EDT