Design Debate Draws Crowd, Laughs To Catlett
Published: March 2, 2009
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.
Comments
absolutist 2 years, 11 months ago
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
NeilBJ 2 years, 11 months ago
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
Rhology 2 years, 11 months ago
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
Rob 2 years, 11 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 2 years, 11 months ago
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
Jack 2 years, 11 months ago
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
thurgood 2 years, 11 months ago
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
InvadersMustDie 2 years, 10 months ago
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID