Misplaced Pages

William A. Dembski

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guettarda (talk | contribs) at 16:41, 19 June 2005 (rv continued POV insertions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:41, 19 June 2005 by Guettarda (talk | contribs) (rv continued POV insertions)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
File:Wm Dembski.jpg
William Dembski

Dr William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18 1960) is a controversial American mathematician, philosopher and theologian known for advocating the idea of intelligent design in opposition to the theory of evolution through natural selection. Dembski believes that the scientific study of nature reveals evidence of design and opposes what he regards as mainstream science's commitment to "atheistic" materialism or naturalism, which rules out design a priori.

Dembski's main proposal is that specified complexity, a type of information, is the hallmark of an intelligent designer. His work is controversial; his ideas are not accepted as valid by the mainstream scientific community, with leading scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences describing intelligent design as pseudoscience.

Biography

Dembski was born in Chicago, Illinois. He was brought up as a Catholic, the only child of a college biology professor (who accepted evolution). He was educated at an all-male Catholic preparatory school in Chicago and graduated from high school a year early, but struggled at college level. He dropped out at the age of seventeen to work in his mother's art dealership business. He says that he did not initially relate to the precepts of Christianity, but during his "difficult period" he turned to the Bible and creationist literature in an effort to understand the world around him. He did not accept the doctrines of literal creationists, though their criticisms of evolutionary theory did strike a chord in him, as he says:

"Nonetheless, it was their literature that first got me thinking about how improbable it is to generate biological complexity and how this problem might be approached scientifically. A.E. Wilder-Smith was particularly important to me in this regard. Making rigorous his intuitive ideas about information has been the impetus for much of my research."

He returned to school at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), where he studied psychology (in which he received a B.A. in 1981) and statistics (receiving an M.S. in 1983). He was awarded an S.M. in mathematics in 1985, and a Ph.D., also in mathematics, in 1988, both from the University of Chicago, after which he held a postdoctoral fellowship in mathematics at the National Science Foundation from 1988 until 1991, and another in the history and philosophy of science at Northwestern University from 1992–1993. He was awarded an M.A. in philosophy in 1993, and a Ph.D. in the same subject in 1996, both from UIC, and an M.Div in theology from Princeton Theological Seminary, also in 1996.

Dembski's knowledge of statistics, coupled with his general scepticism concerning evolutionary theory, prompted him to regard it as statistically improbable that natural selection could produce the extraordinary diversity of life. His views crystallized at a conference on randomness at Ohio State University in 1988, where statistician Persi Diaconis concluded the event by saying, "We know what randomness isn't. We don't know what it is." Dembski cites this event as a catalyst for his subsequent work on design. He concluded that randomness is a derivative notion, which can only be understood in terms of design, a more fundamental concept. He presented these thoughts in his 1991 paper "Randomness by Design", which appeared in the journal Noûs. These ideas led to his notion of specified complexity, which he developed in The Design Inference, a revision of his Ph.D. dissertation in philosophy.

In 1991, lawyer Phillip E. Johnson coined the phrase "intelligent design" to refer to the idea that there is scientific evidence that life was created through unspecified processes by an intelligent but unidentified designer. Biochemist Michael Behe devised the argument of "irreducible complexity" (IC) to which Dembski added his doctrine of "specified complexity" (SC) as a supporting element. IC is, however, by far the most frequently cited of the two hypotheses, perhaps because the underlying concept – the old argument from design – is more readily explained than Dembski's relatively technical arguments.

In 1996, the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank, established a center to promote intelligent design called the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, later renamed the Center for Science and Culture. Dembski was made a senior fellow.

In 1998, Dembski published his first book, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, which became a Cambridge University Press bestselling philosophical monograph. Another book, Mere Creation, echoed the book Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. Dembski has published several popular books, but has published no papers on intelligent design within the peer-reviewed scientific literature since The Design Inference.

Baylor University controversy

In 1999, Dembski was invited by Robert Sloan, President of Baylor University, to establish the Michael Polanyi Center at the university. Named after the Hungarian theologian and scientist Michael Polanyi (1891–1976), Dembski described it as "the first intelligent design think tank at a research university". Dembski had known Sloan for about three years, having taught Sloan's daughter at a Christian study summer camp not far from Waco, Texas. Sloan was the first Baptist minister to serve as Baylor's president in over 30 years, had read some of Dembski's work and liked it; according to Dembski, Sloan "made it clear that he wanted to get me on the faculty in some way."

The Polanyi Center was established without much publicity in October 1999, initially consisting of two people — Dembski and a like-minded colleague, Bruce Gordon, who were hired directly by Sloan without going through the usual channels of a search committee and departmental consultation. The vast majority of Baylor staff did not know of the center's existence until its website went online, and the center stood outside of the existing religion, science, and philosophy departments.

The center's mission, and the lack of consultation with the Baylor faculty, became the immediate subject of controversy. The faculty feared for the university's reputation – it has historically been well-regarded for its contributions to mainstream science – and scientists outside the university questioned whether Baylor had "gone fundamentalist". Faculty members pointed out that the university's existing interdisciplinary Institute for Faith and Learning was already addressing questions about the relationship between science and religion, making the existence of the Polanyi Center somewhat redundant. In April 2000, Dembski hosted a conference on "naturalism in science" sponsored by the broadly theistic Templeton Foundation and the pro-ID Discovery Institute, seeking to address the question "Is there anything beyond nature?". Most of the Baylor faculty boycotted the conference.

A few days later, the Baylor faculty senate voted by a margin of 27–2 to ask the administration to dissolve the center and merge it with the Institute for Faith and Learning. President Sloan refused, citing issues of censorship and academic integrity, but agreed to convene an outside committee to review the center. The committee recommended setting up a faculty advisory panel to oversee the science and religion components of the program, dropping the name "Michael Polanyi" and reconstituting the center as part of the Institute for Faith and Learning. These recommendations were accepted in full by the university administration. The committee also considered the legitimacy of research into intelligent design and gave it a lukewarm endorsement: "research on the logical structure of mathematical arguments for intelligent design have a legitimate claim to a place in the current discussions of the relations of religion and science."

In a subsequent press release, Dembski asserted that the committee had given an "unqualified affirmation of my own work on intelligent design", that its report "marks the triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic inquiry" and that "dogmatic opponents of design who demanded that the Center be shut down have met their Waterloo. Baylor University is to be commended for remaining strong in the face of intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression."

Dembski's remarks were criticized by other members of the Baylor faculty, who protested that they were both an unjustified attack on his critics at Baylor and a false assertion that the university endorsed Dembski's controversial views on intelligent design. Charles Weaver, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor and one of the most vocal critics of the Polanyi Center, commented: "In academic arguments we don't seek utter destruction and defeat of our opponents. We don't talk about Waterloos."

President Sloan asked Dembski to withdraw his press release, but Dembski refused, accusing the university of "intellectual McCarthyism" (borrowing a phrase that Sloan himself had used when they first tried to dissolve the center). He declared that the university's action had been taken "in the utmost of bad faith ... thereby providing the fig leaf of justification for my removal." Professor Michael Beaty, director of the Institute for Faith and Learning, said that Dembski's remarks violated the spirit of cooperation that the committee had advocated and stated that "Dr. Dembski's actions after the release of the report compromised his ability to serve as director." Dembski was removed as the center's director, although he remained an associate research professor until May 2005. He was not asked to teach any courses in that time and instead worked from home, writing books and speaking around the country.

Recent developments

In December 2001, Dembski launched the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), of which he is Executive Director. Dembski is also the editor-in-chief of ISCID's journal, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID).

In 2002, Dembski published his book No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Another fellow of the Discovery Institute reacted by describing Dembski as “the Isaac Newton of information theory”. Dembski's work, however, was strongly criticized within the scientific community, who argued that there were a number of major logical inconsistencies and evidential gaps in Dembski's hypothesis.

Dembski became the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky in June 2005, and also plans to establish a new Center for Science and Theology. According to Russell Moore, dean of the seminary's School of Theology, Dembski will help train ministers to counter the idea that "human beings are accidents of nature" with no spiritual character and no purpose other than to seek sex and power. The seminary teaches creationism but its professors vary on the details, with most adhering to the Young Earth creationist viewpoint of a relatively recent creation which occurred literally as described in Genesis. Dembski noted in a statement when he was hired that "this is really an opportunity to mobilize a new generation of scholars and pastors not just to equip the saints but also to engage the culture and reclaim it for Christ."

Dembski frequently gives public talks, principally to religious and pro-ID groups, and has several more books in preparation. He is also a member of American Scientific Affiliation, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, and the American Mathematical Society, and is a senior fellow of the Wilberforce Forum.

Views and statements

Dembski's views on evolution have been a source of considerable controversy within both the mainstream scientific and creationist communities. His mainstream scientific critics have accused him of dishonesty in his representation of scientific facts and writing , and he has also been criticised by some in the traditional creationist community for not supporting the "Young Earth" creationist position, though he is also defended on other grounds by the same creationist community.

For his part, Dembski has attacked the refusal of mainstream scientists to debate ID proponents in public forums which his critics regard as undeservedly presenting ID and evolution as equally worthwhile hypotheses. He has called for a "vise strategy" (illustrated with a picture of a plush Darwin doll with its head in a vise) in which supporters of evolution would be subpoenad to appear before such forums:

"I'm waiting for the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas in which evolutionists are deposed at length on their views. On that happy day, I can assure you they won't come off looking well." William Dembski (May 7 2005)

Like many other intelligent design advocates, Dembski regards evolution as being an undesirable ideology being promoted by an atheistic liberal elite, rather than it being a factually based scientific theory. He summarises his position (in an article in the Las Vegas City Life newspaper) thus:

"The elite in our culture are materialistic and atheistic. Intelligent design challenges their materialistic science and materialistic evolutionary theory. If you look at discipline after discipline, it's been evolutionized — medicine, business, religion, literature. If we are right, all these superstructures built on evolution need to be questioned.

"Intelligent design is the only view opposed to the reductionist materialism that prevails in the academy and in the scientific view the elites of the culture. Most of the unwashed masses, and I count myself among them, believe there's a sense of purpose. We're giving a voice to those people, saying: 'The science backs you up.'" ("Evolution Revolution", Las Vegas City Life, February 24 2005)

Dembski's position on intelligent design's relationship with Christianity has been somewhat inconsistent. He has suggested that the "intelligent designer" was not necessarily synonymous with God: "It could be space aliens. There are many possibilities." (San Francisco Chronicle, March 17, 2002) In other forums, however, he has been very specific about linking intelligent design with a Christian revival through which Christianity can be restored to its formerly pre-eminent place in society, supplanting "materialist" science. Indeed, one of his books is entitled Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology (Dembski, 1999), and in it he states that "The conceptual soundings of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ" (p. 210). He has expanded on this theme in a 2005 article for the pro-intelligent design designinference.com website:

"Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." (Dembski, "Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution", Designinference.com website, February 2005)

Dembski has also spoken of his motivation for supporting intelligent design in a series of Sunday lectures in the Fellowship Baptist Church in Waco, Texas, the last of which took place on Sunday, March 7, 2004. Answering a question, Dembski said:

"I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God’s glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God’s glory is getting robbed. And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done — and he’s not getting it." ("The design revolution?" TalkReason.org 2004)

Although intelligent design proponents (including Dembski) have made little apparent effort to publish peer-reviewed scientific research to support their hypotheses, in recent years they have made vigorous efforts to promote the teaching of intelligent design in schools. Dembski is a strong supporter of this drive as a means of making young people more receptive to intelligent design:

"My commitment is to see intelligent design flourish as a scientific research program. To do that, I need a new generation of scholars willing to consider this, because the older generation is largely hidebound. So I would like to see textbooks, certainly at the college level and even at the high school level, which reframe introductory biology within a design paradigm." (Houston Press, December 14 2000)

Dembski sees intelligent design as being a popular movement as well as a scientific hypothesis and claims that it is in the process of dislodging evolution from the public imagination. At the Fourth World Skeptics Conference, held on June 20–] 2002 in Burbank, California, he told the audience that "over the next twenty-five years ID will provide the greatest challenge to skepticism". He asserted that "ID is threatening to be mainstream", and that polls show 90 percent support for the hypothesis, indicating that it has "already becom mainstream within the public themselves". "The usual skeptical retorts are not going to work against ID" and ID "turns the tables on skepticism". Evolution, in his view, "is the ultimate status quo" and "squelches dissent". Young people, who "love rebellion". see that and are attracted to ID as a result. "The public supports intelligent design. The public is tired of being bullied by an intellectual elite". He contends that skeptics resort to rhetoric and "artificially define ID out of science," allowing in only material matters. ID "paints the more appealing world picture", whereas skepticism works by being negative, which "doesn't set well with the public... To most people evolution doesn't provide a compelling view". (Skeptical Inquirer, September 1 2002)

Like most other ID advocates, Dembski has so far failed to have any of his pro-ID articles published in the peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals. While this is often claimed to be due to a pro-evolution conspiracy (see Stephen Meyer controversy and Richard Sternberg controversy), Dembski himself has said that he prefers to disseminate his ideas in non-peer-reviewed media: "I've just gotten kind of blase about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print. And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more." (The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 21 2001)


As intellectual and legal setbacks for the intelligent design movement mount, Dembski has become increasingly hostile toward his scientific critics, and has called for them to be forcibly subpoenaed to court hearings:

He has also posted images on his blog of a plush Darwin doll with his head being squished in a vice.

Bibliography

  • The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. ISBN 0521623871
  • The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design. Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004. ISBN 0830823751
  • Mere Creation (1998, InterVarsity Press) ISBN 0830815155
  • Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology. Downer's Grove, Ill. InterVarsity Press, 1999. ISBN 083082314X
  • Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute, vol. 9 (coauthored with Michael J. Behe and Stephen C. Meyer). San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000. ISBN 0898708095
  • Unapologetic Apologetics: Meeting the Challenge of Theological Studies (InterVarsity Press, 2001) with Jay Richards
  • No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.
  • Testimony of William Dembski before Texas State Board of Education, September 10 2003 (Adobe PDF)
  • The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems (biology textbook co-authored with Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Percival Davis, and Dean Kenyon). Dallas.: Foundation for Thought and Ethics, expected 2005.
  • Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists ISBN 0830826661
  • What Darwin Didn't Know (2004) ISBN 0736913130
  • Are We Spiritual Machines?: Ray Kurzweil vs. the Critics of Strong A.I. by Jay W. Richards, George F. Gilder, Ray Kurzweil, Thomas Ray, John Searle, William Dembski, Michael Denton. Discovery Institute. ISBN 0963865439
  • Unapologetic Apologetics: Meeting the Challenges of Theological Studies (2001) William A. Dembski, Jay Wesley Richards. ISBN 0830815635
  • Debating Design : From Darwin to DNA William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse (eds) ISBN 0521829496
  • Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design 2001. William A. Dembski, James M. Kushiner ISBN 1587430045
  • "In God's Country", Houston Press (Texas), December 14 2000
  • "Nature's diversity beyond evolution", San Francisco Chronicle, March 17 2002
  • "Fourth World Skeptics Conference in Burbank a lively foment of ideas: Scams, intelligent design, urban legends, fringe psychotherapies get critical attention", Skeptical Inquirer, September 1 2002
  • "Seminary site to explore cosmic designer concept; Scholar contends Darwin was wrong", The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY) February 20 2005

See also

External links

Sites endorsing intelligent design

Sites critical of intelligent design

Audio and video

Categories: