Dr. Dembski, you are a hero of the intelligent design community, and I'm so glad I just found you here on Substack! I really enjoyed this post, because it points out in this case, as it seems in almost every case, that ID is misrepresented when reported on in the media. It is not too much to say that your work and the work of your colleagues has virtually saved my Christianity. Thank you so much for your work on ID, it has deeply impacted my intellectual and spiritual life.
To my (simple-minded?) way of thinking, it all boils down to premise versus conclusion. Their premise is that there cannot possibly be any ID in nature, and coincidentally that is also their conclusion! But as a premise, it is really nothing more than philosophical dogma. Yes, of course you first try to find naturalistic causes without resorting to ID, but if you can't find them, you don't just double down on your premise and insist on making it your conclusion. That is not how science is supposed to work.
The other trick they play is to claim that ID cannot be scientific until the identity of the designer is proven. But that is like saying that we cannot conclude that a crime has occurred until we can identify the culprit (or at least a suspect). But if we find a ransacked house or a body with multiple gunshot wounds to the back, we can conclude that a crime took place before we have any clue who did it. And even if we never find out who did it, we still know that a crime was committed.
I’m curious about Howell’s mathematical ability. Many people are clueless about math, having no feel for it whatsoever. How would such people cope with Bill’s ID work with its math content?
Having just read and reviewed this book for the worldview bulletin I was very happy to see Bill‘s review of it since he is the ultimate insider on this matter. Thanks much.
As a long term advocate of ID, I believe the biggest mistake ID has made is trying to prove it is scientific. It is logic applied to evidence. And much of the evidence is science but some important parts are not.
Its focus has been on life. Where did life originate and how did it develop? Is this science? No, not in the same way that physics and chemistry are science which are the result of the basic laws of the universe and the material and energy it contained. You will never arrive at the laws of life and its dependence on information by applying the techniques of science to matter, origin of life, and its changes over time, evolution.
Just dealing with the origin of proteins is enough to show life does not follow the laws of physics and thus not science. So maybe the way should be showing life is not science rather than to show ID is science.
Hi, Jerry. On what basis do you contend: "You will never arrive at the laws of life and its dependence on information by applying the techniques of science to matter, origin of life, and its changes over time, evolution"?
The use of "never" suggests some way to prove it is impossible by some means. What is that means?
"On what basis do you contend: "You will never arrive at the laws of life and its dependence on information by applying the techniques of science to matter, origin of life, and its changes over time, evolution"?"
The answer is in my comment: "Just dealing with the origin of proteins is enough to show life does not follow the laws of physics and thus not science."
The origin of proteins remains a mystery, and it is mathematically improbable. As a believer in God, I find the evidence for a creator to be overwhelming. God is all-powerful and could create a world where proteins form naturally. However, the current conditions of our universe do not support this possibility. While the initial conditions of the universe might have led to the formation of proteins, the present circumstances do not allow for their emergence.
Some researchers with an atheistic perspective have acknowledged this issue and propose that proteins can arise from non-coding DNA. However, they have yet to demonstrate how this addresses the fundamentally impossible mathematical challenges involved.
There exists a research program that could determine whether proteins originated naturally. Interestingly, no one has pursued it. The fact that neither side has taken this research seriously is more intriguing than whether the claims are true or not.
In addition to the protein issue, there is also the challenge of combining the right proteins to create a functioning organism.
Thank you, Jerry. I think you and I use the terms differently. The phrase: " life does not follow the laws of physics" seems not correct to me. I'm unaware of any experiment one can run that would show that anything in the material universe does not follow the laws of physics, such as F=ma and E=IR, although the observation of quantum effects suggests additional laws or interactions at the atomic or subatomic levels that we're only now coming to know about even though they seem to contradict Newtonian and other early formulations of physics.
A key defect in materialism and in neo-Darwinism is the inability to grapple with immaterial realities, e.g., codes, software, consciousness, qualia, foresight, etc. The origins and integration of proteins and all the other chemical components do not come from "the laws of physics" -- they come from a mind. That might be what you mean (using my way of saying it).
I'm sure you and I agree that materialism and neo-Darwinian evolution are under-powered for what the mainstreamers claim they can do as unguided operations without design or foresight. I'm delighted that DI has built a huge volume of evidence and argumentation on these issues.
Dr. Dembski, you are a hero of the intelligent design community, and I'm so glad I just found you here on Substack! I really enjoyed this post, because it points out in this case, as it seems in almost every case, that ID is misrepresented when reported on in the media. It is not too much to say that your work and the work of your colleagues has virtually saved my Christianity. Thank you so much for your work on ID, it has deeply impacted my intellectual and spiritual life.
"I can thank Howell for reminding me that I posted this." Me too. Your prescience is prophetic.
To my (simple-minded?) way of thinking, it all boils down to premise versus conclusion. Their premise is that there cannot possibly be any ID in nature, and coincidentally that is also their conclusion! But as a premise, it is really nothing more than philosophical dogma. Yes, of course you first try to find naturalistic causes without resorting to ID, but if you can't find them, you don't just double down on your premise and insist on making it your conclusion. That is not how science is supposed to work.
The other trick they play is to claim that ID cannot be scientific until the identity of the designer is proven. But that is like saying that we cannot conclude that a crime has occurred until we can identify the culprit (or at least a suspect). But if we find a ransacked house or a body with multiple gunshot wounds to the back, we can conclude that a crime took place before we have any clue who did it. And even if we never find out who did it, we still know that a crime was committed.
I’m curious about Howell’s mathematical ability. Many people are clueless about math, having no feel for it whatsoever. How would such people cope with Bill’s ID work with its math content?
When they regurgitate the mantra about "billions and billions of years", you know they don't understand combinatorics.
Having just read and reviewed this book for the worldview bulletin I was very happy to see Bill‘s review of it since he is the ultimate insider on this matter. Thanks much.
Thanks Doug! You were the one to alert me to this book by C.W. Howell. Please provide a link to your review. All the best, Bill
As a long term advocate of ID, I believe the biggest mistake ID has made is trying to prove it is scientific. It is logic applied to evidence. And much of the evidence is science but some important parts are not.
Its focus has been on life. Where did life originate and how did it develop? Is this science? No, not in the same way that physics and chemistry are science which are the result of the basic laws of the universe and the material and energy it contained. You will never arrive at the laws of life and its dependence on information by applying the techniques of science to matter, origin of life, and its changes over time, evolution.
Just dealing with the origin of proteins is enough to show life does not follow the laws of physics and thus not science. So maybe the way should be showing life is not science rather than to show ID is science.
Hi, Jerry. On what basis do you contend: "You will never arrive at the laws of life and its dependence on information by applying the techniques of science to matter, origin of life, and its changes over time, evolution"?
The use of "never" suggests some way to prove it is impossible by some means. What is that means?
"On what basis do you contend: "You will never arrive at the laws of life and its dependence on information by applying the techniques of science to matter, origin of life, and its changes over time, evolution"?"
The answer is in my comment: "Just dealing with the origin of proteins is enough to show life does not follow the laws of physics and thus not science."
The origin of proteins remains a mystery, and it is mathematically improbable. As a believer in God, I find the evidence for a creator to be overwhelming. God is all-powerful and could create a world where proteins form naturally. However, the current conditions of our universe do not support this possibility. While the initial conditions of the universe might have led to the formation of proteins, the present circumstances do not allow for their emergence.
Some researchers with an atheistic perspective have acknowledged this issue and propose that proteins can arise from non-coding DNA. However, they have yet to demonstrate how this addresses the fundamentally impossible mathematical challenges involved.
There exists a research program that could determine whether proteins originated naturally. Interestingly, no one has pursued it. The fact that neither side has taken this research seriously is more intriguing than whether the claims are true or not.
In addition to the protein issue, there is also the challenge of combining the right proteins to create a functioning organism.
Thank you, Jerry. I think you and I use the terms differently. The phrase: " life does not follow the laws of physics" seems not correct to me. I'm unaware of any experiment one can run that would show that anything in the material universe does not follow the laws of physics, such as F=ma and E=IR, although the observation of quantum effects suggests additional laws or interactions at the atomic or subatomic levels that we're only now coming to know about even though they seem to contradict Newtonian and other early formulations of physics.
A key defect in materialism and in neo-Darwinism is the inability to grapple with immaterial realities, e.g., codes, software, consciousness, qualia, foresight, etc. The origins and integration of proteins and all the other chemical components do not come from "the laws of physics" -- they come from a mind. That might be what you mean (using my way of saying it).
I'm sure you and I agree that materialism and neo-Darwinian evolution are under-powered for what the mainstreamers claim they can do as unguided operations without design or foresight. I'm delighted that DI has built a huge volume of evidence and argumentation on these issues.
First, shot out to the title "Live After Dover!" All Maiden fans are in appreciation.
Second, I think we all, thank you for being an OG in this current ID movement. Those of us who are striving to progress it along are in awe.
Third, that judge was an activist judge who absolutely did not care about "the science."
Thanks Bill, this was interesting. The truth always comes out eventually.