make HUB your homepage!

Please Log In






YOUR VIEWS: Why real scientists scoff at William Dembski
By Daniel Dickson-LaPrade  
Posted 9:18 p.m., Sept. 17, 2007 E-Mail Article • Print Article • Post Comment

Why real scientists scoff at William Dembski

I first heard of Philip Gingerich while looking up “Whale Evolution” on Wikipedia. Gingerich is a professor at the University of Michigan, and he directs its Museum of Paleontology.

Anti-evolutionists like William Dembski contend that there are few if any “transitional fossils” which show evolution in action.

Thanks in part to Gingerich’s work, whale evolution provides one excellent refutation of this claim.

There are, in fact, over half a dozen species of extinct whale ancestors — many with their own Wikipedia entries — showing a clear development from prehistoric land-dwelling carnivores to today’s whales and dolphins. Two of these were co-discovered by Gingerich.

 Don’t take my word for it, of course. Just look up “Whale Evolution” yourself, but don’t bother looking up “Philip Gingerich.”

You see, unlike the extinct animals which he discovered, Gingerich does not have his own Wikipedia entry.

William Dembski, on the other hand, does.

Do you know why real scientists scoff at intelligent design advocates like Dembski? He and his cronies want the scientific prestige, the awards and the Wikipedia entries without doing the necessary hard work.

For example, add up all the articles supporting intelligent design that have ever been published in peer-reviewed science journals.

Even according to the most bloated and unlikely estimates of this total, Philip Gingerich alone has published more peer-reviewed journal articles within the same time period.

While Dembski was still in college, Philip Gingerich was digging fossils out of the ground in Pakistan.

While Dembski was helping Ann Coulter write a book arguing there are no transitional fossils, Gingerich was painstakingly measuring those fossils bone-by-bone.

The theory of evolution is complicated and superficially taught in public schools.

Doubts are reasonable.

Before running to slackers like William Dembski for an alternative, however, look at the evidence of evolution for yourself, either online at Web sites like talkorigins.org or in person at our excellent natural history museum.

Given the toil that went into amassing this evidence, the least we can do is examine it impartially.

Daniel Dickson-LaPrade, English instructor

 


Comments

Anonymous - 09/17/07 10:27pm

Yeah. William Demski definitely need to experience the things real scientists experience; he needs to study LOTS and LOTS more about science before coming up with unproveable theories about proven theories, such as evolution and talk about bacteria flagellum..little did he know that the evolutionary mechanisms for bacteria flagellum has been discovered adn the photo he used is out of date..a good thing Dr. Klebba spoke up about that..that should teach him a lesson NOT to argue with real scientists.

Anonymous - 09/17/07 11:05pm

Despite all of your false claims and bad science, you need to re-define "real scientist". Surely you would consider Newton, the father of modern physics a real scientist, and he would have been in huge support of Dembski, who you say for bad reasons, is a psuedo-scientist.

Chad - 09/17/07 11:45pm

For an "English instructor," you sure placed a lot of emphasis on a laymen created and edited website like Wikipedia.

alumna - 09/18/07 10:12am

Chad, agreed. I think Michael Scott said it best in this past season of The Office (ep. 19): "Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information." Clearly, Mr. Dickson-LaPrade is in steady acquiescense with one of television's most notoriously terrible bosses. Respectable!

Megan - 09/18/07 11:59am

I would suggest doing more research yourself before making accusations about someone. Also, to address a previous comment, evolution is not proven. Scientists call it a theory for a reason. Also, I would venture to guess that Dembski is doing what he is doing out of the love and fear of the Lord rather than "fame". I don't think many people choose to be written about on Wikipedia due to it's unreliability and availability for the entire world to change. Things are written on there according to what interests people. Wikipedia is not a source that I would rely on. I will go ahead and suggest the Bible as a reliable source for future quotations. "Glory in His holy name;Let the heart of those who seek the LORD be glad." I Chronicles 16:10 In Love, Megan

D S - 09/18/07 12:34pm

Yeah, since when did "Wikipedia entries" become on par with "scientific prestige."

Anonymous - 09/18/07 2:02pm

Wikipedia doesn't matter. You're right, what matters is scientific prestige, but more specifically, scientific integrity. This is where Mr. Dembski is truly lacking. Using the word "intelligence" as a catchall provides no valid theory for testing, but a great fable, just like the Bible. Kudos.

Daniel Dickson-LaPrade - 09/18/07 8:22pm

My goodness! Do you mean to tell me that Wikipedia is not what scientists themselves use when studying evolutionary biology? Thank God you told me! Luckily, I found out about this thing called PubMed, which is available from LORA off the libraries homepage. It's a search engine for peer-reviewed science journals, and when you put in "whale evolution" or "Philip Gingerich," you get lots and lots of stuff which scientists actually DO use in doing their research. It's how I found out that Gingerich at times has to measure fossils "bone by bone," as I mention in my letter. Oh, and Isaac Newton would never have supported ID. Though he was definitely a very religious man, I'm sure he had enough science education to know an argument from ignorance or an argument from incredulity when he saw one.

Chad - 09/18/07 10:50pm

As usual, every comment LaPrade makes is riddled with pretentious and unwarranted, vitriolic condescension. Maybe if you wouldn't write such intellectually gimped letters, people wouldn't poke fun of your uninteresting and lackluster opinions. But you should go ahead and continue to believe that you have something intelligent to say, it gives readers a good chuckle for the day.

Kyle - 09/18/07 11:42pm

"Also, to address a previous comment, evolution is not proven. Scientists call it a theory for a reason." You are correct Megan. Scientific theories are always tentative. But when I hear people speak of evolution as an "unproven theory" I get the sense they don't understand what a scientific theory is. What does the word "theory" mean to you in a scientific context?

Anonymous - 09/19/07 11:45am

Oh, man -- Megan raises a good point. I sure hope those scientists get off their lazy bums and hurry up and prove the "theory of gravitation" soon -- I sure don't want to go floating off the planet just because some scientist was too lazy to prove a theory!

Daniel Dickson-LaPrade - 09/19/07 1:07pm

Chad says "As usual, every comment LaPrade makes is riddled with pretentious and unwarranted, vitriolic condescension." Chad, that was my first comment on the Hub. What other comments of mine are you referring to? Also, the point of my letter is quite plain: (1) real scientists publish in peer-reviewed science journals and do hard work, while ID proponents typically do not; (2) we should use resources like Wikipedia, talkorigins.org, and so on to familiarize ourselves with the enormous evidence for evolution. When readers so blatantly miss the point of my letter that they go off on tangents about how bad Wikipedia is for academic research, condesenscion is a reasonable response. Disagree with me all you like, attempt to refute my arguments, and we'll have a civil discussion. Ignore the points which I'm making and start kicking around a Wikipedia straw man and I'll correct you. If you don't like being corrected in an embarassing way, read more carefully and respond to what I've actually written. Without this goodwill and careful reading on both sides, intelligent conversation becomes impossible.

A Scientist and A Christian - 09/19/07 1:59pm

Mr. Dickson-LaPrade, You obviously hold a good deal of anger towards Dembski and his fellow ID supporters. You have mocked him publicly both through this newspaper and at his public lecture, and enlisted others to do the same. Maybe, as one who studied evolutionary psychology, you feel like you must hold the burden of fighting off any attacks to evolutionary theory. Or maybe you are just someone looking for a fight. Whatever your reasons, I hope you will understand that the primary purpose of Dembski's talk at OU was not just to dissuade people from following evolution and bring them to the ID side, it was to force people to evaluate their own views of the origin of life and their relationship with God. I met you on Sunday when you attended Trinity Baptist Church to hear Dembski speak. Maybe you were there to find another way to criticize him. Or maybe you were looking for answers to your own philosophical questions. Whatever brought you there and into these debates, I hope that you have had a chance to reflect on the nature of God; I hope the warm greetings you received at Trinity made you wonder what was different about that place; I hope Dembski's message, not on ID but on the nature of the cross, opened your mind and your heart to what God has to offer, if you'd only accept him. There are many people attacking and criticizing you now, but also know that there are many who are praying for you as well.

Chad - 09/19/07 6:03pm

What you call correcting me, I call ironic humor.


Post Comment

Rate Article

Please login to rate this article.