Intelligent design was the hot topic on campus Friday night, when more than 900 people attended a debate held at the Paul F. Sharp Concert Hall in Catlett Music Center.
William Dembski, intelligent design proponent and professor of philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, argued whether or not intelligent design is a scientific theory with Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy at Florida State University and proponent of evolution.
The debate, which was moderated by philosophy professor Tom Boyd and sponsored by the OU Intelligent Design & Evolution Awareness Club, came together as a part of the Darwinian Revolution Presidential Dream Course, said Piers Hale, history of science professor.
Ruse and Dembski have met numerous times since 1992, and regularly debate the issue, which has stirred controversy for 200 years. The history between the two scholars interested students looking for variety in the debates.
“I know they debate regularly, so I was interested in seeing what might be different this time,” said Dan Jones, microbiology sophomore.
Dembski took the stage first and presented the scientific aspects of intelligent design. He argued that many elements of science are best explained by the idea that an intelligent force designed them.
Ruse didn’t take long to register his skepticism for Dembski’s argument.
“I love Bill [Dembski] to death,” he said as began to speak, “But I wish he didn’t believe in such daft things.”
During a presentation that had the audience laughing at his dry humor, Ruse argued that whether the theory of intelligent design is true or not, it cannot be considered science because of its reliance on a designer that can not be observed or tested in any way.
“Science does not allow for miracles,” he said.
He pointed out that many intelligent design theorists, including Dembski, are committed theists, and whether they acknowledge that intelligent design is religious or not, it relies on the idea of God and therefore isn’t science.
Though the men have different ideas of what defines science, they praised each other for their continuous work and dedication to researching and teaching the subject matter.
“Learning about the history of science, and especially the history of evolutionary biology, and the social, cultural and theological responses to it, can give us a more thoughtful understanding of why people hold the views they do,” Hale said.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
absolutist 3 years, 2 months ago
The miracle would be to see at least one Dembski quote in this article countering Ruse. Does Ruse only make the ad hominem joke calling Bill insane? You have two quotes from Ruse calling Design Theory insane (daft) and a miracle. No real argument against intelligent design theory, just name calling, is that really all that transpired there, all that Ruse could bring against ID? What were the main arguments from BOTH sides?
NeilBJ 3 years, 2 months ago
I will give credit to Michael Ruse for one thing. He acknowledges that intelligent design could be true. It's just that it can't be included under the rubric of science according to his definition. A definition is somewhat arbitrary, and as long as everyone agrees with the definition, ensuing debate, discussion, etc. can occur with a focus that would be missing if all the terms of debate were not clearly defined.
I do have a two problems with his rationale for his definition, however.
He says that intelligent design is not science because it relies on a designer that can't be tested or observed in any way. Is this not also true for evolution? It relies on a mechanism that can't be tested or observed in any way, if -- and this is a matter of definiton -- by testing and observation, we mean direct testing and observation. Neither the actions of an intelligent designer can be directly observed, nor can the mechanisms of evolution that are responsible for the major transitions observed in the fossil record can be directly observed. By this understanding, evolution is not science either.
By using a definition of science that excludes intelligent design, he, in effect, places intelligent design in a different category of knowledge. Science has been raised up as the final arbiter of what is true about the natural world. Can intelligent design, then, if in a different knowledge category, acheive the same epistomological status as the theory of evolution. I, as a layman, want to know what is true about the natural world, regardless of any quibbling about what is or is not science.
Rhology 3 years, 2 months ago
I was there and after Dembski's first presentation, I thought, "Man, no way Ruse's first speech is that bad." And then Ruse topped it. It was a very bad debate, and I've listened to alot of debates. But at least the conversations afterwards were interesting and fun with other audience members.
I'd love to see an ID guy like Dembski, when given a 20 minute presentation spend 1 minute greeting everyone, 3 minutes blowing thru an elementary definition of ID, then 15 refuting arguments that have been raised against ID, thereby advancing the conversation.
The Darwinian side would be in a bind since their refutations have been pretty feeble, so that would be a winning way.
Rob 3 years, 2 months ago
It is frustrating...
Susan Kruglinski at Discover Magazine made the same patronizing comment Ruse used as to why design 'may be true', but is not scientific.
“since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth”.
“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.” ( http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/intelligent-design/?searchterm=bacterial%20flagellum )
Those are astounding admissions. How can something true be unscientific, unless science is not true?
Scientific testing is done with the assumption that ‘cohering two or more entities into a systemic whole is a reliable scientific method’. Otherwise testing is pointless.
There is some real powerful sophistry going on here. What's this business about testing if the end is already determined, and the outcome is tightly controlled?
Empirical data must match our philosphical lens. They only allow the evidence to be interpreted one way. Coherence is the only objective revelation and authority. Objectivity does not give us the prerogative to smuggle in our own bias. Scientists cannot simply assert by ecclesiastical authority that empirical evidence is proof of anything without first having fully disclosed the philosophy by which they view it. And that philosphy cannot itself be ultimately and fully rooted in empirical evidnece. That's why were doing the testing...
More from Susan Kruglinski’s report: “This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as "methodological naturalism" and is sometimes known as the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.”
Naturalists cannot predetermine where science can lead. The objective authority of scientific revelation is found in the power of logical coherence between evidence and philosophy. The whole purpose of science is to lead us wherever logic will go without bias. If logic is valid, and science is logical, then methodological naturalism cannot be what true science is.
At least folks like Kruglinski and Ruse make it clear to those listening that it is not 'true science' they seek.
Jack 3 years, 2 months ago
absolutist writes: "No real argument against intelligent design theory...."
That's because there is no intelligent design theory. The ID movement is purely and simply stealth creationism, as clearly demonstrated at the Kitzmiller trial in Dover, Pennsylvania. Dembski is a failed mathematician who's attempts to provide a veneer of respectability to what is no more than Christian apologetics combined with arguments from incredulity are easily and repeatedly shredded by competent mathematicians.
Michael Ruse shouldn't be granting Dembski credibility that Dembski not only hasn't earned but has gone out of his way to demonstrate he doesn't deserve.
Jack 3 years, 2 months ago
Rhology writes: "I'd love to see an ID guy . . . refuting arguments that have been raised against ID...."
That would certainly be a nice change of pace from the usual nonsense and obfuscation thrown out by Dembski and the other ID perpetrators in lieu of real science and logical arguments.
ID is scientifically vacuous. There is no ID theory. The whole ID movement is just a scam to attempt to get around the First Amendment and teach religion in schools. Judge Jones saw through this in Dover (where Dembski ran away with his tail between his legs after talking about how he wanted to put real scientists in a "vise") and anyone with a minimal understanding of mathematics or biology can see through it just as easily.
thurgood 3 years, 2 months ago
Billy Boy Wonder is a spent force and can't even summon a harrumph after all he got the stuffing knocked out of whom in 2002 in Ohio. After that he made a feeble attempt to grandstand at Kitzmiller v. Dover. But when he found that Jeff Shallit would be the rebuttal witness and would grill him during deposition, BillyD scampered aways like a scared kitten. These days the pompous know-nothing spends his time at diploma mills and keeps clear of anything requiring an IQ>75. Michael Ruse is an indulgent old man so BillyD gets away with trotting out the same old nonsense. Pathetic!
InvadersMustDie 3 years, 2 months ago
"That's because there is no intelligent design theory. The ID movement is purely and simply stealth creationism, as clearly demonstrated at the Kitzmiller trial in Dover, Pennsylvania."
...Really?
http://www.discovery.org/a/2879
"Dembski is a failed mathematician who's attempts to provide a veneer of respectability to what is no more than Christian apologetics combined with arguments from incredulity are easily and repeatedly shredded by competent mathematicians."
State the conclusion with some premises please.