Creationists Given Academic Credit for Trolling

Via LGF ^ | 8/10/09 | Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

[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).

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your sharing your insights and offering some leads for further inquiry! If you have a specific article in mind, please point me to it.

Wouldn’t information theory necessarily be3 ID (unless one tries to argue that nature somehow creates information/metainformation?

These are two different issues.

Shannon's model (information theory, successful communication) can be and is applied to molecular biology without having to first identify the origin of information (successful communication) in the cosmos. The mathematical model applies to each instance; it doesn't matter which message came first. There is as yet no known naturalistic origin for information in the cosmos.

Likewise, Einstein's theory of relativity is applied without having to first identify a naturalistic origin of space/time. A four dimensional space/time continuum is a postulate to special relativity. His theory is self-contained.

And likewise, even though there is no known naturalistic origin for inertia in the cosmos, Newton's theories apply to each instance of the phenomenum.

Unlike disciplines of science where physical causality and an arrow of time prevail and therefore raise the issue of origins, mathematical models often address organizations and systems as logically self-contained.

Rosen's model is like that, he entails final cause in a circular organization without addressing origins or time. Indeed, Rosen cites the Fibonacci series as one of the few exceptions where the future can be known in the present. And so his model closes the loop, entailing final cause instead and thereby, obviating the arrow of time.

My favorite example is Max Tegmark's level IV parallel universe wherein that which exists "in" space/time is a manifestation of mathematical structures which actually do exist outside of space and time. Origin of the mathematical structures are irrelevant to the model. It is self-contained. Indeed, it is the only closed cosmology known to me. And it is closed precisely because it is radical mathematical Platonism.

In all of these things, as a Christian I rejoice because I see them as God's copyright notice on the cosmos - the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics (Wigner, Vafa et al.)

But they are math, not theology. They don't need to address origins and they don't.

The second issue you raise, metainformation, is related not to the mathematics of successful communications (Shannon) but rather to the content of the message itself which is something completely irrelevant to Shannon's model!

This is why on previous threads I summarily rebuked Alex Williams' (et al) narrative. They rudely diss Shannon for not addressing the content of the message itself which is something a universal mathematical model must never do. If it did, it would not be portable among knowledge disciplines.

Message content goes to complex systems theory (or literature, video entertainment or whatever is being transmitted) - not communications (information) theory.

Or to put it another way, the very same computer can be used for child's play one minute, bookkeeping the next, serious writing the next, science research the next, etc. The very same computer can transmit Scripture and pornography. The content of the message being transmitted over its circuitry is irrelevant to the computer itself.

Metainformation speaks specifically to temporal displacement, that the biological entity does maintenance and repair before it has the awareness or intelligence to anticipate the need.

It is more appropriately addressed in the interdisciplinary investigation of complex systems theory.

Unlike the models previously addressed the theory involved is not self-contained. Again, complexity is measured either by least time or least description. Arguably, Rosen's model could fall under least description. But Williams' is obviously in the least time corner because in metainformation, physical causation is set on its head: effect>cause instead of cause>effect. That is what I mean by temporal displacement.

And again, as a Christian, I immediately rejoice over God's copyright notice on the cosmos.

Nevertheless, temporal displacement is not theology. Geometric physicists (Vafa, Wesson, et al) would point out that temporal displacement (including violations of Bell's inequalities at distance or quantum entanglement, superposition, etc.) could point to additional expanded temporal or time-like dimension(s.)

There are many questions I strongly believe science will never be able to answer to most people's satisfaction. Nevertheless, they are still "on the table" for future researchers, e.g.

1. The origin of space/time.
2. The origin of physical causality.
3. The origin of information (successful communications.)
4. The origin of inertia.
5. The origin of autonomy.
6. The origin of consciousness/awareness.
7. The origin of conscience.
8. The origin of life.
9. The number and types of dimensions that exist.
Still, I find all the related investigations to be very informative and entertaining!

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. – Psalms 19:1-3

God's Name is I AM!

[betty boop]

The comment that was in reply to seemed to amount to an argument that because the methodology used to investigate something had to be intelligently designed it was evidence that what was being investigated must have also been intelligently designed.

My comment suggested that Natural Law theory is at the foundation of the entire scientific enterprise and always has been — at least until recent (i.e., post-modern) times.

Here's a "picture" of what Natural Law theory asserts:

Can I "prove it?"

NO.

But I can quite reasonably note that all the scientific progress that human beings have ever made in the course of history was either explicitly or implicitly based on this particular philosophical model.

That being the case, I'm not quite ready to "throw" Natural Law theory "under the bus" of SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS. (Which absent this foundation, I'd be loathe to describe as any kind of "progress" at all.)

[Alamo-Girl]

My "original question" was, essentially, "If the methodology of the scientific method (methodoligal naturalism) is not acceptable, what exactly does it need to be changed to or replaced with to rectify that situation?"

I already gave my reply at 512 (copied below) - so I'll back off for now and come back to the thread later tonight and try not to stir up more side issues.

How about simply approaching science the way mathematicians approach problems? Which is to say, declare upfront whatever axioms apply to the particular investigation and otherwise keep an open mind.

[tacticalogic]

How about simply approaching science the way mathematicians approach problems? Which is to say, declare upfront whatever axioms apply to the particular investigation and otherwise keep an open mind.

It's also submitted that science shouldn't limit an investigation to only considering a limited set of possibilities. Declaring those axioms does exaclty that.

[tacticalogic]

But the point is, why should you think that "all we humans are" are material objects, and nothing else?

That looks like an exercise in "filling in the blanks". Admitting that our sensory perception is necessarily limited by the properties of the material of our physical bodies does not require denying a spiritual existence. I don't see why it is necessary to assume that it does.

[tacticalogic]

Or might the noun "perception" itself encompass a wider field than that which can be experienced by sense perception, direct or as technologically aided?

It might, but if objectivity is of any consequence in the investigation that leaves a question of how to establish any measure of objectivity without an underlying reliance on empirical evidence, and what seems to be a inherent connection between empirical measure and sensory perception.

[CottShop]

wow- gonna have to read more thoroughly when I get hte chance- lotsa stuff to ponder-

[CottShop]

to start though- first question- is Shannon theory ‘information theory’? or is it theory about communication of informaiton? As you said, it doesn’t quess where info comes from, or what it consists of, but rather describes how it is communicated? Or am I misunderstanding it a bit?

[tacticalogic]

That being the case, I'm not quite ready to "throw" Natural Law theory "under the bus" of SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS.

What exactly does "throwning it under the bus" mean, and who's asking you to do it?

[Alamo-Girl]

That's how I tend to think of irreducible complexity: an inference from general observation that is directly opposed to the idea of reductionism (which itself is a general idea). I don't think of it as a "model" per se, and even wonder if it is model-able. But if it were, it would be like you say: "backward looking." Thus any idea of "inversely causal meta-information" [final cause], as Alex Williams termed it, for example, is ruled out in advance.

Indeed!

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ, and thank you for your encouragements!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the summary of the history of the atom, dearest sister in Christ!

Question: If intelligence and design are indispensable to science, maybe that might tell us something about the structure of the world in which science operates?

Excellent point!

[Alamo-Girl]

That, in effect, humans and all of biology "reduce to" — that is, are ultimately explainable by — physics and chemistry, and nothing else? Leading theorists for decades now have been telling us that biological information — which is neither physical nor chemical — is indispensable for biological organization.

Precisely so!

A man and a rock are made of the same quantum fields and particles, but there is no point in developing an H1N1 vaccine for a rock.

Since the discovery of DNA, biologists ignore information theory to their own loss.

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ, and thank you for that wonderful graphic!

[Alamo-Girl]

I'd rather scientists not restrict their investigations beyond what is necessary to the investigation at hand.

And frankly, science has become so large and specialized that many if not most of the investigators work on extremely narrowly-defined projects. That is how it should be.

But other scientists investigate much broader subjects - e.g. cosmology, geometric physics, evolution. Unnecessary restrictions in these efforts can be counter-productive or misleading.

[Alamo-Girl]

Information (Shannon, successful communications) is defined as the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in the receiver (or molecular machine) as it goes from a before state to an after state.

It is the action of successful communication, not the message itself. The message could be Shakespeare's Hamlet, an invoice, DNA, etc. It makes no difference to the model.

[CottShop]

[[It is the action of successful communication, not the message itself.]]

Which is what I thought- Information theory is soemthign different than Shannon theory I beleive? so back to the original point I brought up

“Wouldn’t information theory necessarily be ID (unless one tries to argue that nature somehow creates information/metainformation?”

Lower info can arise I guess by pure happenstance- accidently (although certainly not as efficiently and complexly as Macroevolution would have demanded), but metainformation certainly can’t arise naturally, and would need an intelligent designer to design it per species in such a way as to keep species fit and thriving (I think informaiton theory entails both lower info and metainfo If I’m not mistaken?)

I suppose one coudl study metainformation without having to infer a Designer, but the need for one woudl still be there- I can’t see any way around it really- Information theory has to start at the beginning- origins

[[it doesn’t matter which message came first.]]

Not when discussing the communication of the message, no. But when discussing the origin of the message, it needs to either be examined in a stepwise fashion, or from the initiation point- since we know metainformation must exist first to keep all lower info in concert in species, it begs the question, who or what was the designer

[[mathematical models often address organizations and systems as logically self-contained. ]]

This is interesting, and brings up the ‘closed loop’ hypothesis of Rosen again This organization, and self containment again beg the question- how did they get that way- who or what designed it to be self contained- Mathematics studies what is contained, but info theory studies, or should study how the closed, self-contained systems, became so organized- Was it information that existed on the outside that created and designed the info on the inside of the closed system? Was there a need for an intelligent designer? Or was nature capable of doign htis in a stepwise fashion?

I’m not real familair with Rosen’s work, but I don’t see how he can skip over first cause and go right to final cause

[[My favorite example is Max Tegmark’s level IV parallel universe wherein that which exists “in” space/time is a manifestation of mathematical structures which actually do exist outside of space and time.]]

On a new Ghost hunting show, they have a hypothesis that the ‘spirits’ that peopel encounter are from another dimension (gettign tired- I’ll see if I can explain htis right)- one of their theories is that if they, the Ghost hnters, recreates the tiem period when these supposed spirits lived, that it will incite activity as though the present day hunters are in the past- uggh- not explainign htis well- There’s a theory called ‘risidual’ spirit activity, where the spirit doesn’t know they’ve passed on, and keep ‘goign through the motions’ like walkign htrough doors that are now walls, going up stairs that have since been moved- etc- it’s liek they are living in another dimension, and we in this dimension are gettign glimpses of theirs in the past- it’s liek a parallell universe thing

Wow- gonna have to re-explain this better tomorrow- I don’;t beleive in Ghosts (I do beleive in evil spirits and angels though), but this show the other night got me thinking about the whole parralel universe thing (It was clearer to me the other night lol) & the theory of the Ghost hunters kinda touched on tat a bit which I thought was interesting- kinda liek hte future interactign with hte present and past & how there may be a paralell universe where we’re al lthe same, but living slightly behind our present time here, or slightly ahead- Anyhow- I’ve strayed a bit

[[The second issue you raise, metainformation, is related not to the mathematics of successful communications (Shannon) but rather to the content of the message itself which is something completely irrelevant to Shannon’s model!]]

Yes I agree- but you had said ‘informaiton theory’ not Shannon theory which is what I responded to- will have to read rest of your post tomorrow

[CottShop]

[[If intelligence and design are indispensable to science,]]

Miller proved that when he intelligently designed a ‘natural’ (biological law violating) process of complex blood clotting lol

[CottShop]

just fr the record- I don’t beleive in parellel universes, but the concept is cool to noodle over lol Deja vu

[tacticalogic]

But other scientists investigate much broader subjects - e.g. cosmology, geometric physics, evolution. Unnecessary restrictions in these efforts can be counter-productive or misleading.

All well and good, until it's time to start looking at what restrictions are "necessary" and which are "unnecessary".

The scientific method restricts submissible evidence to being what is independently verifiable. This is done in pursuit of trying to insure that the research is done objectively. Submitting that some disciplines or subjects should not be subject to that restriction means they will not be held to that standard of objectivity.

What's the criteria for deciding which disciplines and subjects need to conform to that standard, and which don't? Is molecular biology a "broad" subject, or a "narrow" subject?

[betty boop]

What exactly does "throwning it under the bus" mean, and who's asking you to do it?

I rather thought you were, when you wrote this:

The comment that was in reply to seemed to amount to an argument that because the methodology used to investigate something had to be intelligently designed it was evidence that what was being investigated must have also been intelligently designed.

So I gathered you were not terribly impressed by the import of the little graphic in my last!

Natural Law theory ["NLT"] holds that the natural world is intelligibly ordered, and can be addressed to and by a commensurately intelligibly ordered self or mind. In other words, there is a direct correspondence between the two orders that can be expressed in terms of mathematics and logic. Some would argue that it is the mathematics itself that gives the natural world and all its contents (including selves) its order.

Here we see a "bleed-over" from mathematics into the realm of philosophy, into epistemology and ontology respectively. Which is what NLT axiomatically states and unifies. This axiom, like all axioms, cannot be further analyzed into more basic logical "parts," or statements. It is, as they say, a "self-evident truth."

Either it's that, or nothing at all. [E.g., it's been "thrown under the bus."]

Many people have many reasons to object to NLT today, as too constraining to their own theoretical projects. But here's a spectacular example of the nihilistic insanity (IMHO) that can happen when Natural Law theory is deliberately abandoned — "Blobjectivism and Indirect Correspondence," by the analytic philosophers Terry Horgan and Matjaz Potrc.

Have fun dipping into that one, dear tacticalogic!

Possibly you would say that none of this "stuff" has anything to do with science. But I would say epistemology and ontology are implicit in the conduct of science and always have been.