The Internet and the intelligent design controversy

Apparently, Bill Dembski is taking some heat over the occasional use of some animated footage captured from the Internet that turned out to belong to Harvard:

Back in September of 2006 I announced at my blog UncommonDescent that a “breathtaking video” titled “The Inner Life of Cell” had just come out. The video was so good that I wanted to use it in some of my public presentations, but when I tried to purchase a DVD of it (I sent several emails to relevant parties), I was informed it wasn’t ready. Moreover, at the time, the video did not have a voiceover explaining the biology of what was being shown.

So some people who are invested in materialism and want to put off the question of whether materialist theories (the Enron of biology) can explain everything from the origin of the universe and life to the rise of consciousness - of course - want their that to be the issue instead.

Well, this certainly brings back memories! In the universe before the Internet, I was a permissions editor for a few years. The most important part of my job was helping to address the problem of what to do when we discovered that we did not actually have permission to use something that was already in print.

That can happen much more easily than people who are not in the publishing business suppose. Some rights holders are untraceable or do not answer their mail or have unintentionally behaved in such a way as to create the impression that they do not care if their work is public domain, or otherwise behave in a confusing way. I sometimes spent hours putting together a single file. And I was considered good at what I did.

Still, it wasn’t a big deal. The publishers whose rights we had infringed had probably infringed ours (all unintentionally), and everyone just wanted to smooth it over correctly.

However, the Internet is a new world because anybody can publish. Stuff can easily appear without attribution and disappear without notice. I am glad I don’t do that job today. Anyway, when the matter was brought to his attention today, Dembski said he would use another item.

As if keeping him from using a particular film clip is going to change the current massive direction of the evidence against random assembly and development of life!

Darwinism and academic culture: Nature moves into an alternative reality

A friend writes to say that a recent book review in Nature on the now-famous Dover case (a "teaching evolution" controversy) claims that the Discovery Institute lobbied the Dover school board to adopt the policy (when in fact Disco strongly opposed it).

Now, I know for a fact that Disco was in institutional catfits about the unbelievably stupid Dover policy ever since they first heard about it. There wasn't anything they could do to prevent the subsequent meltdown, though they did try. (Their own recommendations to school boards are much more carefully crafted.than Dover was.)

My friend wonders how the Nature aficionados can live in such a counterfactual world. Well, first, we can safely say that, insofar as the Naturalizers invited an American Darwin lobbyist like Kevin Padian to explain it all for us, that was because the aficionados want to hear their worldview (same as his) confirmed, and they did. So what if it is an alternative reality?

Those interested in Disco's actual position will find it in this Montana law review article, or they can listen to this podcast.

Padian also says,

Conspicuously absent from the trial was William Dembski, the other pillar of intelligent-design 'research', who holds advanced degrees in maths and theology but none in science, and believes that intelligent design is the Logos of the Gospel of John restated in the language of information theory. His notion of 'specified complexity', a probabilistic filter that allegedly allows one to tell whether an event is so impossible that it requires supernatural explanation, has never demonstrably received peer review, although its description in his popular books (such as No Free Lunch, Rowman & Littlefield, 2001) has come in for withering criticism from actual mathematicians. Plaintiffs' attorneys were eager to take him apart, but Dembski exited the proceedings in a suspicious eleventh-hour dispute about having his own lawyer represent him in deposition.

Dembski defends his impressive qualifications here.

Now, I didn't follow the Dover case much. I was busy writing The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (as co-author), so I couldn't have followed it even if I was interested. But as it happens, I wasn't interested. American school board fights bore me and historically, they change nothing.

Again, for those interested in what actually happened, there was nothing especially suspicious about Dembski withdrawing. Not only was he justifiably skeptical of the management of the case, but the manuscript for his own textbook, Design of Life was seized during the proceedings. It just wasn't a team he could be on.

I should add, in the interests of full disclosure, that I blog with Dembski (though I didn't back then). I helped Dembski collect a debt re Dover by making a noise about it. I also did some editorial work on Design of Life. But that was one of several jobs I had to quit, due to the demands of The Spiritual Brain. However, I have promised Dembski I'll write the index for Design, and will shortly do so. There, conspiracy freaks - that's plenty enough for you! Go to town on it!

In the end, neither Nature nor the U.S> Supreme Court can make Darwinism do what its proponents claim, though they can prevent productive discussions of the problem for as considerable time. Mike Behe's Edge of Evolution explains why. See my summary of his key arguments here. I have also been regularly updating my post on Stuart Pivar's struggles to get his non-Darwinian evolution theory heard.

Note: Prof. Peter Irons asks me to note that he published an article contra Disco in the same edition of the Montana Law Review. Noted!

Letters: The ID guys' inbox

If you ever wanted to read modern Darwiniana - the stuff Darwinists write to the ID guys, Bill Dembski posted some of it. I sort of knew about this stuff but didn't think it would ever see da light. You want to be a non-materialist? Get used to witchy e-mail. (Note: This is not recommended for the kind of people who ask ""Why can't we all just get along?)

Intelligent design and popular culture: Beckwith, Dembski maul Baylor Bears' football chances?

Just to show how crazy it was all getting, by the time Beckwith was finally granted tenure, sportswriter J. V. Holland at cougfan.com put in a slightly confused-sounding piece, "Baylor aiming for Intelligent design on field", implying that the ID controversy (in which Beckwith played a minor role) was costing Baylor its status in American college football. Noting that the Baylor Bears are playing the Washington State Cougars and that the Discovery Institute (ID central) is located in Washington States, he writes,

Once upon a time, the name Baylor conjured images of a giant slayer in the Southwest Conference. In the late 70s and early 80s, Bears All-American Mike Singletary, tenacious on the field and a scholar off it, was the exemplar of all that was good about college football.

Nowadays you mention Baylor and you're more likely to get a blank stare or a reference to Charles Darwin rolling over in his grave.

Indeed, on the gridiron, the Bears of the last decade could have used a heavy infusion of intelligent design. They’ve gone 10 straight seasons without a winning record. Last year’s 5-6 showing marked the first time in eight campaigns they won more than three games.

An infusion of intelligent design indeed. Some of us would think that Baylor had better not leave the development of its football team to evolution. But it shows how much the notion of ID has become embedded in popular culture that Dembski, Beckwith and such are supposed to be somehow linked to the Bears' recent woes. How many rpm's did you say Darwin was doing down there?

From nearby blog: Dembski evolves into a flagellum

As I might have mentioned, I'll be a bit light blogging in the next few weeks, as I tackle revisions to forthcoming The Spiritual Brain (Harper 2007).

Meanwhile, discover how Bill Dembski, an ID math guy, evolved into a flagellum, demonstrating that Darwinism is true.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Further thoughts on the Ruse vs. Dembski confrontation on Nightline on Monday night:

Regarding the confrontation on ABC's Nightline between Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse and ID apologist Bill Dembski:

One person on a private list commented as follows, picking up on Ruse's worry about being sent to a concentration camp, if ID appears plausible:

Frankly, I am concerned too. I have seen evangelicals lust for power over the past 15 years. Now we got it. I think this is polluting the gospel. I think it is a very serious and scholarly question, and I think only the best, most cautious, and humbly motivated theological perspective will enable us to balance political power and gospel influence. And even if we have that, greedy, sinful, rotten, power mongering men will ruin it. Separation of church and state protects the gospel.

How does this relate to ID? Simply put, power will corrupt it too. What are we doing to protect ourselves from the negative influences of power? Let us not think for a moment that we are above this. Since Ruse raised the question, we should ask if ID wins the day, what are we going to do to to protect it from the kind of abuses that Darwinism shows us? Are we going to simply trade places with the Darwinist abusers? What checks and balances do we have? Are we free from a political agenda to carry out research and follow the facts?

I replied to him,

I don't worry much about stuff like that, but then I live in Canada where the government has told one of my fellow parishioners that it cannot guarantee that religious freedom will be respected, if religious people continue to oppose gay marriage. Incidentally, the Canadian government was technically defeated last night in a free vote in the House of Commons, but ignores that and clings to power anyway. Most Canadians are so terrified of traditional Christians that they would vote for anyone and anything, and condone any wrongdoing by government - no matter how unjust or shameful - as an alternative. And the oddest part of all is that nothing has actually happened in Canada that explains this prejudice in rational terms. There is no rational explanation, so stop looking for one. (There are explanations, but they do not involve rational thought or behaviour.)

Okay, now, re the main action, Dembski vs. Ruse: I predicted a few weeks ago that the Darwinists would fundamentally change their strategy and go for the emotional appeal. That is essentially what Ruse was doing on ABC's Nightline.

One particularly clever ploy was to for Ruse to say that Dembski would himself be swept away by the rising tide of right-wing Christian hate.

This worked visually because Bill looks like a nice young fellow who has no idea which direction a Nazi swastika should face or whether one should pile into Ku Klux Klan robes from the top or the bottom.

I suspect that many people will buy Ruse's approach. "Bill may be okay, but look what comes after him," they will say.

The beauty of Ruse's approach is that it is truly content-free. Ruse does not need to offer any evidence that there is a rising tide of right-wing Christian hate or even that students who are allowed to know that some scientists question Darwinism will be changed in any way as a result. (It's been legal in Ontario for years and nothing much has happened, except a complete absence of Kansas-style controversy, which suits us Ontarians fine.)

All Ruse needs to do is create fear of the Rising Tide. Many people are chronically afraid of that kind of thing, and the less they know, the more afraid they are. So the fewer details Ruse gives, the more effective his strategy is. He just has to sound portentous and convincing. Neat.

Dembski correctly pointed out that the people who are out to get him include many Christians who think the Earth is only some thousands of years old, so Dembski is as big a heretic as Darwin (or more so as he claims to be a Christian)

By the way, the Rising Tide (or somebody) also tried to get rid of Dembski at Baylor, a Christian university. But those people were not promoting a six-thousand-year old earth. They just didn't like the idea that the universe and life forms show actual evidence of intelligent design. So it turns out that the Rising Tide runs in no one particular direction on this issue, but Dembski bobs like a cork.

So maybe there is something in ID after all? Must be.

To find out more about my book, go to By Design or by Chance?