Everyone who has taken part in the intelligent design debate will know of William Dembski. For those who aren’t familiar, Dembski is the primary architect with regard to the theoretical underpinnings of ID. Since his involvement with the movement, he has published extensively in books, papers, and blogs, and has vigorously championed his ideas in many public lectures and debates.(1)
Back in 2005, Dembski wrote a sarcastic blog post on Uncommon Descent, announcing his retirement from ID, due to the ‘rancour and daily vilification'(2) by many critics of his views. Fast forward to ten years later, and again, Dembski announces that he is retiring from intelligent design, only this time it’s no joke.
In November 2015, he refurbished his website and in his first post noted that ‘In the last few years, my focus has switched from ID to education, specifically to advancing freedom through education via technology.'(3) In a revealing interview with Christian apologist, Sean McDowell he also noted that:
With regard to my research, it has shifted quite a bit these days. I’m largely retired from intelligent design. My last serious writing effort on intelligent design was my 2014 book Being as Communion: A Metaphysics of Information. It encapsulates my two decades work on intelligent design, and I’m not sure I have a whole lot more to add.(4)
Finally, in a post in the following month, he clarified that:
I really am retired from ID. I no longer work in the area. Moreover, the camaraderie I once experienced with colleagues and friends in the movement has largely dwindled.(5)
Dembski has held many formal associations with ID organisations, including his Discovery Institute fellowship, but he notes further in the post that he has also resigned from these.
What to make of Demski’s decision? Soon after these remarks were made, inevitably there were several responses from hostile ID bloggers. In one post, the blogger at The Senuous Curmudgeon, not a particularly sensible ID commentator, attempted to speculate about the reason behind Dembski’s decision. The author ponders whether there had been a fallout with the Discovery Institute, financial problems, or he just realised that ID is a dead end. Some even more unsavoury speculations can be found in the comments section, should you wish to torture yourself. Of course, given the hatred directed at Dembski by many critics of this ilk, nobody is content to take him at his word and be happy with the fact that he might have just moved on because he wants to focus on other matters.
There’s no evidence to suggest a fall out or that Dembski thinks ID has had its day. In fact he has stated, ‘I’m not talking about any falling out. It’s simply that my life and interests have moved on. It’s as though ID was a season of my life and that season has passed.'(7) He reiterates that most of the action in ID is in a two-pronged approach, with the information-theoretic work at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab and the molecular biology research at the Biological Institute. As to the state of his work and the ID viewpoint as a whole, he still sees it as being in very good shape, at least in terms of its scientific validity:
I would say that we have by far the better argument. Indeed, the Conservation of Information results described in my book Being as Communion (cited in the last question) and developed at length by me and my colleagues at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab seem to me to show that Darwinism cannot succeed as a complete theory of evolution, and that it requires hidden sources of information that it must smuggle in and that are best conceived as the product of intelligence. So I would say we have shown (as in demonstrated and not merely gestured at) that naturalistic evolution is a failed intellectual and scientific enterprise.(8)
It is clear that Dembski’s ‘retirement’ from ID is fairly mundane. He simply wishes to move on. He gives no indication of repudiating his work or thinking that ID’s present and future prospects are negative. As he notes in some of the posts and the interview I have cited, he’s not completely done yet, and still has a few things yet to be published including second additions of The Design Inference and No Free Lunch, and a new book on evolutionary informatics with Winston Ewert, and Robert Marks. So, still something to look forward too.
Finally, in terms of my own reaction to hearing Dembski’s statements, I have to say that I was a little disappointed. Dembski was almost single handedly responsible for rigorously developing the theoretical foundations for design theory. I for one have enjoyed reading Dembski’s work for several years now. Whether or not you agree with his work, I don’t think it can be rationally denied that he’s produced some highly original, and thought provoking arguments in favour of design. Though he won’t be publishing much else on this topic, he has left behind a pretty substantial body of work that will continue to be argued over for years to come.
References
- Dembski’s primary works include his first book, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998), No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design (IVP,2004), The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems (Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 2008), and Being as Communion: A Metaphysics of Information (Routledge, 2014). Much of his other work can be found in various articles and papers, including his more technical work with The Evolutionary Informatics Lab
- William Dembski, My Retirement From Intelligent Design, Available at: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/my-retirement-from-intelligent-design/
- William Dembski, A New Day, Available at: https://billdembski.com/a-new-day/
- Sean McDowell, How is the Intelligent Design Movement Doing? Interview with William Dembski, Available at: http://seanmcdowell.org/blog/how-is-the-intelligent-design-movement-doing-interview-with-william-dembski
- William Dembski, Official Retirement From Intelligent Design, Available at: https://billdembski.com/
- The Senuous Curmudgeon, William Dembski is “Moving on”, Available at: https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/william-dembski-is-moving-on/#comment-96947
- Dembski, op cit
- McDowell, op cit
Design Disquisitions 
ID folks get shot at from all sides: hostile new atheists, progressive theistic evolutionists, and conservative young earth creationists. That would wear anybody down after awhile.
Yes, I’ve always thought it must be exhausting receiving criticism and sometimes outright contempt and personal insult from so many different groups. There’s not much insentive to join the ID, looking at it from that angle anyway.
I like Bill Dembski so much, and it still grieves me that he is no longer ID focussed. #sad
Just for the record, the Dembski interview was with me, not my father.
Demske has finally realized what creationists realized long time ago. This debate is not going to be won by argument and evidence. While the other side controls the minds of the next generation there is no beating them. It has and always will be a power struggle.
My apologies, Sean! I knew in my head it was you, but for some reason wrote your father’s name, even though I cited yours in the references. I’ve corrected it now. Thanks for the interview!
The truly great and noble champions are always besieged by the status quo; this is God’s design – it is the opportunity He affords us all for true greatness.
This post came up in a search, but I would like to comment.
Disclosure: I do not accept intelligent design, and I believe there is ample evidence that evolution explains the diversity of life on earth and the origin of human intelligence. I was raised and educated as a Catholic in the 1970s with the understanding that evolution did not contradict religious belief in any way, though obviously it contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis.
I am not a huge fan of Dembski, but I believe he started out sincere in the belief that he could use mathematics to demonstrate the impossibility of evolution to explain the diversity of life on earth. He failed to do so, as has been demonstrated by many (e.g. Jeffrey Shallit) who are capable of understanding and critiquing his supposed proofs.
My feeling (which I’ve had since before 2015) is that Dembski was ultimately a good enough mathematician to understand the futility of his arguments in proving what he wanted to prove. Essentially, he was going for a type of intractability proof on a large and robust class of algorithms. Note: evolution from a self-replicating cell with mutations is not a “random” process but a complex process with random and deterministic components. It is a type of generative algorithm that functions in nature. Intractability proofs are notoriously difficult. He did not have the tools to reach his conclusions, because nobody does. I also believe Dembski’s conclusions are incorrect and contradicted by available evidence, but that’s besides the point.
I respect Dembski’s right to express his faith, including through apologetics. His approach to mathematics, though, was largely hucksterism, and maybe he has had the sense to realize that.
Paul, Dembki is back. All 110% genius of him. I wonder if you could care to tell us how many of his books you have read cover to cover…?
Pingback: ID 3.0? The new Bradley Center at the DI – is Dembski returning from retirement? | The Skeptical Zone