ID the Future Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Science Podcast
Topic

William Dembski

Type
post
Author
Casey Luskin
Date
January 27, 2021
Tagged
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Casey Luskin Returns, Teases a New Book, Celebrates ID 3.0

Casey Luskin
January 27, 2021

On today’s ID the Future, Rob Crowther continues his conversation with Casey Luskin, the intelligent design proponent who previously worked for Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture and has now returned. As Luskin explains, he left to pursue a PhD in geology at the University of Johannesburg in South Africa. The two discuss the wild conspiracy theories circulated by opponents of intelligent design when Luskin stepped away from Discovery Institute five years ago. Luskin also tells about an upcoming book he’s been working on with William Dembski, another intelligent design proponent who stepped away from day-to-day ID work and is now putting a foot back in the ID waters. Also on tap in today’s conversation, Luskin and Dembski’s upcoming appearance at the 2021 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith, and advances in the ID 3.0 research initiative, including some recent peer-reviewed papers.

intelligent-evolution-flannery-996x1600-1
Type
post
Author
Michael Flannery
Date
October 14, 2020
Tagged
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Michael Flannery on the Origin of Darwin’s Worldview

Michael Flannery
October 14, 2020

On this episode of ID the Future, science historian and host Michael Keas talks with fellow science historian Michael Flannery about the newly updated book Intelligent Evolution: How Alfred Russell Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwin. Flannery tells of Darwin’s involvement in the Plinian Society, a “freethinkers” group at Edinburgh University where he studied medicine as a teenager. It was there that he first encountered radical philosophical materialism, the worldview that laid the philosophical foundation for his work in evolution. Flannery also speaks of Alfred Russel Wallace’s “intelligent evolution” and how it differs from Darwinism and from today’s theistic evolution — what Flannery prefers to call “Darwinian theism.”

swimmingfishpixabay
Type
post
Author
Robert Crowther
Date
August 31, 2020
Tagged
, , , , , , , ,

Dembski’s ID Filter — the Sea His Critics Swim In

Robert Crowther
August 31, 2020

On this episode of ID the Future, Robert Crowther interviews Eric Holloway, Associate Fellow at the Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence, about Holloway’s recent article answering a common criticism of intelligent design theory. The criticism centers on William Dembski’s explanatory filter for detecting design, especially Dembski’s crucial innovation, which was to include specification as the filter’s final step. Critics say specification is an ad hoc addition, conjured up by ID theorists for no good reason except to prop up ID theory. No one else uses it, they say. They’re wrong, says Holloway. Dembski accurately formalized a filter we use so often that we’re like fish in the sea. We are unaware of it because it’s ubiquitous. To prove his point, Holloway comes armed with powerful examples from information theory, communication theory, and cryptography.

air-filter-in-hand-background-light-stockpack-adobe-stock.jpg
air filter in hand background light
Type
post
Author
Daniel Reeves
Date
June 8, 2020
Tagged
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Information, Specified Complexity and the Explanatory Filter

Daniel Reeves
June 8, 2020

On this episode of ID the Future, we hear the third and final portion of a talk given at the 2020 Dallas Science and Faith conference. Daniel Reeves, education outreach coordinator at Discovery Institute, rounds out his extended explanation of intelligent design theory. Far from being “Gee whiz that’s complicated; it must be designed!,” the theory relies on well-defined concepts such as specified complexity and an explanatory filter that allows one to distinguish designed events from either chance, necessity, or a combination of the two. The key in the molecular biological realm: detecting functional information.

jay-richards-gale-pooley-interview
Jay Richards Interviewing Gale Pooley at COSM 2019
Type
post
Author
Jay Richards
Date
October 29, 2019
Tagged
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jay Richards at COSM Talks Kurzweil and Strong AI

Jay Richards
October 29, 2019

On this episode of ID the Future, Andrew McDiarmid catches up with philosopher Jay Richards at the recent COSM conference in greater Seattle. The two discuss the history of George Gilder’s Telecosm conferences and how the first one gave birth to a book Richards edited and contributed to 18 years ago, Are We Spiritual Machines? Ray Kurzweil vs. the Critics of Strong A.I. Is the “singularity” coming, as Kurzweil argues there and elsewhere, when machines equal and then quickly surpass human intelligence? Does “machine learning” really mean learning? Will “Skynet” wake up? Jay describes Kurzweil’s sunny version of strong AI and the dystopian version. Then he argues the other side, namely that human beings possess something beyond the purely material, something even the most powerful computers will never possess.

Photo by Chris Leipelt
Type
post
Author
Brian Miller
Date
August 21, 2019
Tagged
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dr. Brian Miller On Complex Systems and ‘Intellectual Captivity’

Brian Miller
August 21, 2019

On this episode of ID the Future, physicist Dr. Brian Miller explains several challenges to the origin of life, from thermodynamic challenges to the need for complex systems to create complex systems: information processing, energy production, manufacturing, auto-assembly, control systems, and feedback loops are all required from the start.

Read More ›
robot
Type
post
Author
William A. Dembski
Date
August 29, 2018
Tagged
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Bill Dembski on the AI Boogeyman, and the Real AI Danger

William A. Dembski
August 29, 2018

On this episode of ID the Future, Andrew McDiarmid reads an excerpt from a speech prepared by philosopher, mathematician, and trailblazing design theorist William Dembski for the launch of the Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence. Dr. Dembski asks whether we need worry about an AI takeover, and says no, there’s no evidence that artificial intelligence (AI) could reach that level, or achieve consciousness, and there’s mounting evidence from both philosophy and the field of artificial intelligence technology that it cannot and will not. “The real worry,” Dembski says, “isn’t that we’ll raise machines to our level, but that we’ll lower humanity to the level of machines.”

IDTF-thumbnail
IDTF-thumbnail
Type
post
Author
Winston Ewert
Date
June 7, 2017
Tagged
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Why Digital Cambrian Explosions Fizzle … Or Fake It

Winston Ewert
June 7, 2017

This episode of ID the Future features a follow-up interview with Winston Ewert, co-author of An Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics.

Read More ›
IDTF-thumbnail
IDTF-thumbnail
Type
post
Author
William A. Dembski
Date
June 3, 2015
Tagged
,

William Dembski on the Gilmore & Glahn Show, pt. 4

William A. Dembski
June 3, 2015

On this episode of ID the Future, hear the final segment of Bill Dembski’s appearance on the Gilmore & Glahn radio show. Dembski & Gilmore continue their discussion of advances being made behind the scenes in the overall scientific debate, and the inevitable demise of Darwinian evolution as the predominant theory in life sciences.

Read More ›
IDTF-thumbnail
IDTF-thumbnail
Type
post
Author
William A. Dembski
Date
May 30, 2015
Tagged
,

William Dembski on the Gilmore & Glahn Show, pt. 3

William A. Dembski
May 30, 2015

On this episode of ID the Future, listen to part 3 of Dr. William Dembski’s interview on the Gilmore & Glahn radio show. Their conversation covers a wide range of topics, including the current state of the intelligent design movement and where the science is headed over the next decade, as well as the slowly growing number of prominent scientists and scholars who don’t accept intelligent design, but also are challenging Darwinian evolution as a failed theory.

Read More ›
Discovery Institute