Posted on 09/24/2009 6:08:52 AM PDT by xcamel
William Dembski, the “intelligent design” creationist who is a professor in philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, has some rather interesting requirements for students of his creationism courses — 20% of their final grade comes from having written 10 posts promoting ID on “hostile” websites: Academic Year 2009-2010.
Spring 2009
Intelligent Design (SOUTHERN EVANGELICAL SEMINARY #AP 410, 510, and 810; May 11 – 16, 2009)
NEW! THE DUE DATE FOR ALL WORK IN THIS COURSE IS AUGUST 14, 2009. Here’s what you will need to do to wrap things up:
AP410 — This is the undegrad [sic] course. You have three things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 40% of your grade); (2) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 40% of your grade); (3) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 2,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).
AP510 — This is the masters course. You have four things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 30% of your grade); (2) write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God — for instructions, see below (20% of your grade); (3) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 30% of your grade); (4) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 3,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).
FWIW it looks that way to me too, tacticalogic.
So now, WHAT???
How can science help us here? (Oh my, I so hope it can!)
"How" is methodology. This discussion started when I asked for a formal declaration of acceptable methodology. Are you submitting that's it - 'First you have to understand "why".'?
What are the metrics for proper understanding of "why"?
Did you not notice that there are groups of other scientists publicly disagreeing with the Global Warming theories, and submitting evidence to back up that assesment?
I AM NOT THE "MEASURE" OF TRUTH. And NEITHER ARE YOU.
GOD alone IS [among other things, the Measure].
How do you justify implicitly "definitive and objective" declarations that "science claims to be definitive and objective", when those public disagreements among scientists stands as evidence that it is not true?
You ask "How can science help us here? (Oh my, I so hope it can!)", and presented with evidence that they are providing help, stand ready to reject it.
Do you submit that the research that was done, and the conclusions drawn that produced the global warming theories were all done using strict adherance to the scientific method?
You seem to understand that methodology was compromised by political influence in the case of global warming. How do you hold that up as an example of the scientific method being flawed, while acknowleging that it wasn't followed?
Nevertheless, the point I was driving at back at 591 is that science presents itself as definitive and objective by reason of the scientific method, i.e. repeated experiments or observations yielding essentially the same results.
Confidence in the theory increases over time as the results accumulate. Additionally, a good scientific theory will have many ways to falsify it (Popper) and the theory must also accumulate success in ongoing attempts to disprove it.
But with the Global Warming issue, scientists on contradictory sides claim to have good cumulative results. Both cannot be right.
In this situation, I discount the science on the side of those advocating a political or ideological agenda.
In this case, I am indeed "filling in the blanks."
In this case, I am indeed "filling in the blanks."
That's understandable. I tend to do the same thing. That includes ideological agendas based on theology.
And that is why for years I have sought out betty boop's essay-posts - she always takes the forest view. Arguing about trees can be quite entertaining but I do not find it as productive.
Probably my remarks about Global Warming science. If we're speaking in terms of the scientific method, is Global Warming science "scientific?" What I mean by that is it depends on simulation — the construction of computer models that can run the mountains of climatological data and whatever other relevant data the designer of the model wants to put in it. The point is: How can we really tell whether such models are good proxies for the system behavior they seek to explicate? The disagreements in climate science seem to be largely the result of the models used, and evidently there are many.
How "objective" can such models be, when their construction is "subjective" — the modeler must decide what goes into the simulation model. The type of science that essentially relies on mimicry and human judgment seems not to be typical of the scientific method as we know it. Simulation does not rely on repeated experiments. It simply takes for granted its model has all the necessary ingredients by which accurate forecast of future climatological changes can be predicted.
Models can and most likely will be biased by the biases of their constructors. Which is where politics can sneak in....
Well, my two cents, for what it's worth, dearest sister in Christ!
Thank you ever so much for your kind words, dearest sister in Christ!
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
Any mathematical model is going to be inherently limited by our understanding of the objects and forces we're modeling. The model "is what it is". Objectivity is a human trait. I start questioning objectivity when the people who draw conclusions from the model refuse to acknowlege or consider the limitiations of the model, or the possibility that the assumptions it's based on may be wrong.
I'm not aware of any such models. Irreducible complexity is a concept, not a "model" per se; it's meaning is the opposite of reductionism. Reductionism says that the whole is the simple sum of its constituting parts; irreducible complexity says that the whole is MORE than the simple sum of the constituting parts. This would obviously be the situation applying to biological organisms.
And this should be obvious: You can't reduce a biological organism to its parts without destroying it, let alone be able to "reconstitute it" again from its parts. This sort of procedure works with simple (mechanical) systems like, for example, a wristwatch. But biological (complex) systems cannot be "reduced" in this way. It is in this precise sense that we observe that biological organisms are, in fact, irreducibly complex.
Whether you can properly call it a “model” or not, the argument is made that it’s “mathematically proven that evolution is impossible”, based on probabilities of molecules arranging themselves in certain ways without some externally directed force being applied with specific intent.
[[the argument is made that it’s “mathematically proven that evolution is impossible”, based on probabilities of molecules arranging themselves in certain ways without some externally directed force being applied with specific intent.]]
Minor point here- it’s not some ‘outside force’ guiding hte system- it’s intenral infromation guiding the binding- if the info isn’t correct in the two parts that coem into contact, they will not bind- there needs to be a system of ifnromation already present, and a higher system of metainformation to ‘conduct’ the whole process in a way that keeps everythign functioning correctly for the species to remain fit- it’s not like it all happens by a force pounding square pegs into round holes
That sounds like a "model".
[[You can’t reduce a biological organism to its parts without destroying it,]]
Some parts of whole systems of IC can be reduced, but the parts that are IC can’t be reduced- however, those makign hte argument that IC isn’t IC because soem parts can be reduced- taken away, are being disingenious. Miller was forced to inteligently design a process that defied nature in order to come up with his ‘reducible compelxity’ blood clotting system, and hten claimed that higher complexity blood clottign was therefore not IC- but his argument fell flat on it’s face and just proved that intelligent design was absolutely needed behind the IC of higher complexity systems like blood clotting in mammals. Miller had to intellgiently design several processes that do NOT occure in nature, had to carefully protect ‘emerging processes’ and had to develop pathways that are non existent in order to develop his hypothesis- but only ended up showing hte need for ID behind IC which really did end up beign IC
[[That sounds like a “model”.]]
I don’t htink it woudl be a model, simply because the IC is more than the parts- Nature can’t create the necessary info or IC- too tired to noodle this over today- will have to htink this through more tonight- but basically an ID was needed to do what nature coudl not model naturally. If life was nothign more than naturally occuring info building and building, connecting and connecting, then I guiess it woudl be a model, but IC in species is above and beyond thsoe simplistic ‘law following’ connections- God does use laws, but He also went above and beyond creating what nature was incapable of creating (mainly info and metainfo, but also IC systems that defy natural means)
Again- too tired right now
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.