Tag Archives: William Dembski

The basics of Intelligent Design

The ever-crumbling Darwinian evolution propaganda is so deliberately and aggressively politicized in education and the media and so venomous towards alternative theories that it is hard to have a reasoned discussion about Intelligent Design.  So few people understand the basic premise, which is simple, clear and elegant.  Via What is the case for intelligent design?

Intelligent design is a scientific theory that holds some aspects of life and the universe are best explained by reference to an intelligent cause. Why? Because they contain the type of complexity and information that in our experience comes only from intelligence.

As a result, intelligent-design theorists begin by studying how intelligent agents act when they design things. Intelligence is a process, or a mechanism, which we can observe at work in the world around us. Human designers make a great dataset for studying how intelligent agency works.

When we study the actions of humans, we learn that intelligent agents produce high levels of complex and specified information (CSI). Something is complex if it’s unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern. William Dembski and Stephen Meyer explain that in our experience, only intelligent agents produce this type of information . . .

People infer design all day, every day — especially in science.  Consider forensic science, archaeology and the search for extra-terrestrial life, where constant inferences to intelligent causes are foundational.

One way to get the average person to reconsider the concept of ID is to point out examples like that.  I was talking to a friend this week who is obviously uncomfortable with Darwinism but has never been taught to consider alternative views.  In the same conversation he referenced a TV show about some highly complex ancient ruins that were were so precisely made that they “must” have been made by aliens.  That was a good catalyst for me to compare those obviously designed (whether by aliens or humans) works to something like DNA, which is not only thousands of times more complex but also part of living beings.

If people are quick to assume alien origins for something complex, or even just realizing it would have required unusually advanced human intelligence, why do they drink the Darwinian Kool-Aid and assume that the origin of life, the complexities of DNA, etc. could have arisen without an Intelligent Designer?  They just need to know the real definition of ID and the well-documented fact that materialists cheat and assume that you can’t consider the supernatural when trying to explain something like the origins of life.

Hey, I won the Uncommon Descent contest!

Via Uncommon Descent Contest: What do we call people who refuse to read books they are attacking?  The idea was to come up with a pithy term for critics of Intelligent Design who slam books without reading them.  It isn’t just your random Amazon reviewer, either.  Even leading Darwnists do it, although to PZ Myers’ sort-of credit, he threatened to read one of the books — so take that!

The second award offer in the recent contest, a copy of Don Johnson’s Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability, asks “What do you call a guy who reviews/trashes a book without reading it?”

It goes to homerj1 at 3 for

The review is a noview and the reviewer is a noviewer.

This won because it can be used effortlessly in a sentence, as in:

Prof. Retro Darwin’s noview of biochemist Michael Behe’s latest  …

Rev. Darwin Santa, noviewer of Steve Meyer’s …

Recently, Dimbo Darwin, science writer, noviewed Bill Dembski’s latest …

Ease of use is important. And dropping the pretense of reading makes for more honest communication: He didn’t read it because he wouldn’t like it and wouldn’t learn anything from it, plus he can find an audience who wants to hear from him for precisely that reason. Don’t forget how many people out there know they are “for science” because they believe any nonsense talked in Darwin’s name.

While I’m glad to have won and to have a tiny part in ID slang history, I thought “re-skewer” or “hypocritic” would win.  But I’m keeping the book.

This is a two-way street, of course.  We shouldn’t give 5 stars on Amazon to pro-Christian books if we haven’t read them.

P.S. I suspect that most of those who gave 1 start to Ann Coulter’s new book are noviewers as well.