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).
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.
Yes, it bothered me too that Alex Williams did that. I thought he was dissing Shannon for not doing something completely extraneous to what Shannon's main purpose was, a theory of successful communications per se — that is, something quite independent of any particular message content. It was to describe the "medium," not the "messages." And it has been amazingly successful in doing just that.
Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for this marvelous essay/post!
His model defined what information “is.” It is the action of successful communication, not the message itself.
Information (Shannon, successful communication) is the reduction of uncertainty in the receiver (or molecular machine) as it goes from a before state to an after state.
The receiver becomes “informed” as a result of a successful communication. That letter in your mailbox is not information. When you read it, then and only then, are you informed and “information” has occurred.
Williams’ metainformation is a horse of a different color. His is not a mathematical model of that class – it is an interdisciplinary complex systems theory focused on the rise of functional complexity in biological systems. It is not portable to another discipline, e.g. engineering.
His theory focuses on causation, cause>effect and therefore an arrow of time. For that reason, origins are within the domain of his investigation unless he were to specifically exclude them by postulate or axiom.
But even diehard atheists can and do benefit from these mathematical models.
And the only arrow of time he retains is essentially Shannon’s mathematical theory of communication in a continuous case, e.g. message, encoding, channel, decoding.
As long as the material system is closed to efficient cause, by his definition, it is alive. Again, his definition: "a material system is an organism if, and only if, it is closed to efficient causation."
He is speaking of material systems, not spiritual ones. And he is not saying the material system is closed to other causes.
On your musings about dimensions, Tegmark’s Level IV Parallel Universe and the ghost hunting program …
Dimensionality has a very specific meaning in mathematics and physics. It is geometry per se - one of my favorite subjects!
But in common parlance, the term is often used to mean not altogether “here” as in perceptible to the physical senses.
And I suspect that was the thrust of the ghost hunters’ conjecture, that the spirit of the departed is kind of here and there all at once.
By my discernment, this is not incompatible with Scripture. Jesus appeared in the midst of a closed room, the temple, ark, Holy mountain and Eden/paradise are seen in both heaven and earth. And we are advised to be cautious, that we may be entertaining angels unawares,
Jewish mystics have described the firmament as not being a matter of geometry, physical here and spiritual there, earthy here, heavenly there - but rather a boundary between the material and spiritual. Some have conjectured it might have something to do with the speed of light (the speed limit of the universe) – or the vibration of strings in string theory.
Others speculate that it is indeed related to the geometry - the mathematical and physical dimensionality of "all that there is."
It is my testimony that I am truly dead and alive with Christ in God. Or to put it another way, I am more aware of being alive in Him than I am of being alive in the flesh. Until this physical body plays out, my spirit is anchored to it. But one day I will weigh anchor and be free of it.
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. - Galatians 2:20
Or to put it another way, one can have a glimpse of the magnitude of the cosmos, the wonder of quantum field theory or the faithfulness of the physical laws and reason that there had to be a beginning of space, time and causality itself. But if he does not perceive the information, that living things are a message (DNA) being communicated, then he might deduce that whereas there was a Creator that man is an insignificant part of the creation and certainly not worth a second thought to God.
But we who have “ears to hear” discern Jesus, Logos, the Word of God, speaking to us. We perceive not only that we are a message being communicated, but that there is also a spiritual message which we can and do receive which enlivens us. The new person we are is a new spiritual message being communicated. Therefore we understand it is not about the flesh, that His words truly are spirit and life.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. - Matthew 4:4
Within the field of molecular biology, an investigation might be very narrowly defined, e.g. designing an antigen to provoke an antibody to study it - or it may be broadly defined, e.g. rise of syntactical autonomy (Rocha, Pattee et al.)
I would imagine that the more narrowly defined investigations would have established protocols which entail many of the usual restrictions.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
It's about the investigation much more so than the discipline.
Okay. What's the criteria for deciding which investigation need to conform to that standard, and which don't? We've got examples of investigations that are being done wrong because they're not objective, and others that seem perfectly acceptable even though it's admitted that they are quite subjective.
[[His model defined what information “is.”]]
ah- didn’t know that- I thought it was about the communication of info- This owuld then make it information theory
[[Williams’ metainformation is a horse of a different color. His is not a mathematical model of that class – it is an interdisciplinary complex systems theory focused on the rise of functional complexity in biological systems.]]
Yeah that makes sense- quite different than desribing how informaiton is communicated- more a case of describing the heirarchy of information and the need for a designer- top down annalysis- He I think more hsows the final result, and shows that nature isn’t capable of creating the heirarchy needed for fitness and complexity
[[As a Christian, I immediately see this unreasonable effectiveness of the math (Wigner) as God’s copyright notice on the cosmos.]]
Math isl ike Latin to me- My eyes glaze over when confronted by it lol
[[He doesn’t skip over first cause. He entails first and final cause in the circular model.
And the only arrow of time he retains is essentially Shannon’s mathematical theory of communication in a continuous case, e.g. message, encoding, channel, decoding.
As long as the material system is closed to efficient cause, by his definition, it is alive. Again, his definition: “a material system is an organism if, and only if, it is closed to efficient causation.”
He is speaking of material systems, not spiritual ones. And he is not saying the material system is closed to other causes.]]
I’m gonna have to take soem time when I’m rested to see the connections or disconnections- too tired right now to link everything
[[But in common parlance, the term is often used to mean not altogether “here” as in perceptible to the physical senses.]]
Yeah- that’s what the Gost hunters were kinda saying- the dimension of ‘past times’ is here- we just don’t perceive it well (well somethign to that effect)
[[And I suspect that was the thrust of the ghost hunters’ conjecture, that the spirit of the departed is kind of here and there all at once.]]
Yep- it’s soemthing they call ‘Residual haunting’- the ghosts just carry on as though they haven’t passed away, and do the same routines over and over again, like goign to the kitchen for dinner, goign to bed, or playing in a band etc (one of hteir tests was to recreate the era band music to try to stir up more ‘ghost activity’, hoping hte ghosts would feel in their element hearing the music they were familiar with
[[By my discernment, this is not incompatible with Scripture. Jesus appeared in the midst of a closed room, the temple, ark, Holy mountain and Eden/paradise are seen in both heaven and earth. And we are advised to be cautious, that we may be entertaining angels unawares, ]]
Yeah- I beleive in angels appearing and evil spirits manifesting, but not in people’s souls hanging around between heaven and hell- to be absent of hte body is to be present with hte Lord (or to be sent hte other way depending on whether someoen accepted Salvation or not)
[[Jewish mystics have described the firmament as not being a matter of geometry, physical here and spiritual there, earthy here, heavenly there - but rather a boundary between the material and spiritual. Some have conjectured it might have something to do with the speed of light (the speed limit of the universe) – or the vibration of strings in string theory.]]
Yeah- the string hteory is somethign I’ve always wanted to explore further- but never got aroudn to- sounds quite interesting.
[[It is my testimony that I am truly dead and alive with Christ in God. Or to put it another way, I am more aware of being alive in Him than I am of being alive in the flesh.]]
That is somethign I can’t quite get a grasp on myself- I know how I should feel about it accordign to God’s word, but the physical just overwhelms the fleshly experiential for me I’m afraid
[[Information (Shannon, successful communication) by the way is what I believe Einstein and Newton missed. Both of them reasoned that there was a Creator but both of them died before the insight of information theory, and I suspect they would have reasoned differently had they known.]]
Sure3 owuld have liekd to have seen hteir reasoning on the subject
[[But we who have “ears to hear” discern Jesus, Logos, the Word of God, speaking to us. We perceive not only that we are a message being communicated, but that there is also a spiritual message which we can and do receive which enlivens us. The new person we are is a new spiritual message being communicated. Therefore we understand it is not about the flesh, that His words truly are spirit and life.]]
It’s certainly a very humbling experience to know that the Omniscient God chose to create to convey his Omniscience in such a powerful manner- He did so not for His own self-congratulations, but rather for our wide-eyed amazement upon discovery
[[Yes, it bothered me too that Alex Williams did that.]]
Yep- it bothered me too- it;’s almost like he got a bit hot under the collar about hte issue- not sure why- Williams and Shannon address two different issues, but related- it woudl seem there woudl be agreement, but Williams kinda reacted funny about hte whole thing
To this day, nobody has been able to explain to me why it is innapropriate for experts on all sides of the biological information debate to relegate Shannon information to the more or less trivial end of the information research spectrum. It’s not just Alex Williams that takes this position, Dr. Gitt (a creationist information theorist) basically says the same thing in his book “In the Beginning was Information,” as does Dr. Meyer (an IDer) in his book “Signature in the Cell,” as do a multitude of materialist information theorists.
Here is what Dr. Gitt has to say about Shannon information (quite extensive):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/itbwi/statistical-view-of-information
Here is what Dr. Meyer’s book has to say regarding the same:
The claim that methodological naturalism yields an objective result is subjective per se. And it's irrelevant in my proposal.
Again many if not most of the routine investigations are managed by protocols which establish the axioms such as they are for a particular class of investigation.
The ground breaking investigations are the ones that would be affected by my proposal.
For instance, if you want to theorize about the rise of autonomy in biological life then state your applicable presuppositions first. What constitutes autonomous biological life? Do you take an RNA world as a "given?" Do you limit the investigation to physicochemical causation? Do you presume an arrow of time, four dimensional space/time? Do you exclude information theory? And so on.
What do you think would have happened to Einstein's theory of special relativity if he treated Newton that way?
The great thinkers whether scientists or philosophers know that they stand on the shoulders of giants. The ones who "tug at superman's cape" are quickly forgotten. It doesn't matter a whit whether they had a good idea. They discredit themselves by their impudence.
Even though I liked William's speculations on metainformation, I cannot endorse his theory because of his impudent remarks about Shannon which showed he clearly doesn't understand the theory. Neither he nor Gitt evidence that they know what information "is."
Rosen, on the other hand, did not give Shannon the credit he should have - but he didn't diss him and he clearly showed that he understands Shannon's theory.
you:That is somethign I can’t quite get a grasp on myself- I know how I should feel about it accordign to God’s word, but the physical just overwhelms the fleshly experiential for me I’m afraid
When you look in a mirror, think about what you are seeing. It's just an image of your body. It's not you.
hosepipe uses the metaphor of a donkey and its rider to illustrate the distinction. You are the rider, the physical body is the often obstinate and needful donkey. But for now, he's how you get around.
C.S. Lewis put it this way: "You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."
[[C.S. Lewis put it this way: “You don’t have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.”]]
I’ve readsoemthign similar to that in the book ‘Your God is too small’ by J.B Phillips- Will have to find that part again, but it was a pretty common beleif back then, and soemthign that was taught more than it is today- which is probably why I have trouble wrapping my mind aroudn it
[[When you look in a mirror, think about what you are seeing. It’s just an image of your body. It’s not you.]]
I’m afraid of rationalizing myself into insanity (or out of insanity, whichever the case may be)
So you rebuke Williams, Gitt, Meyers, etc, for pointing out that the statistical aspects of information (i.e. Shannon information) is inadequate to evaluate that which makes information meaningful?
Really.. interesting attitude..
On the otherhand; what do you know for sure?,
and how sure are you that you know it?...
For, science fiction Must be very logical.... but..
Reality need not be logical at all.. you know... to a human brain..
I Cor 2;9 has a secret and wonderful meme and promise..
I'd tell you what it is but then I 'd be stealing the surprise..
They all make the same mistake - which no big league mathematician would make – they criticize Shannon’s theory for not addressing the meaning of the message and then deign to bring Shannon up-to-date.
Shannon’s theory, the mathematical theory of communications doesn’t care whether the message being transmitted is “The Greatest Story Ever Told” or “Debbie does Dallas” or DNA. It doesn’t matter if the message is Einstein’s theory of General Relativity (very complex by any measure) – or a single binary digit.
Moreover, the meaning of a very simple message could be earth-shattering. What if that single binary digit was the command from Obama's nuclear football to launch a thermonuclear attack on China?
Meaning goes to either or both complex systems theory and philosophy.
If Shannon’s theory included the meaning of the message, it would not be a transportable mathematical model. It would only be applicable to whatever class of message fit the complex systems theory or philosophy he embraced.
Remember there are two types of complex systems theories – least description and least time. How complexity is measured depends on what you are looking for, e.g. functional complexity, algorithmic complexity, Kolmogorov complexity, irreducible complexity.
The measure of complexity in DNA does not ipso facto apply to the measure of complexity in literature, algorithms, images, music and so on.
It is the strength of Shannon’s theory, not the weakness, that he didn’t include the meaning of the message. Criticizing Shannon on that point shows an extreme lack of good judgment and understanding of math theory.
In my view, it is as if these intelligent design or creationism theorists are doing the same thing we criticize Dawkins, Pinker, Lewontin and Singer of doing – pedaling atheism under the color of science. In their case, they are pedaling a complex systems theory under the color of information theory.
My disappointment with Myers and Williams is profound because their complex systems theories have merit on their own right – with Myers the geometry of biological information content and Williams the temporal displacement of metainformation in biological life.
They should have been presented them for what they are. They should have stood on their own two feet.
As it is, I doubt any of the big league mathematicians - who are notoriously open to new theories (e.g. they accepted in peer review for publication in 1994 Statistical Science the equidistant lettering sequence theory, aka Bible Codes) – would give their ideas a second look. If you want to play in their ballpark, you have to know the rules of the game.
So many answers and even questions to be answered in your book code named ... “Timothy”...
What if you don't want to theorize about that? I't submitted that Darwin is to be held accountable for the misperceptions that TToE addresses the origins of life because he didn't explicitly state that it doesn't, and thereby gave everyone license to "fill in the blanks" however they choose.
Again many if not most of the routine investigations are managed by protocols which establish the axioms such as they are for a particular class of investigation.
At the same time, you seem to be saying that there's no reason to be bound by established protocols, or that you have to be constrained by existing axioms. You can declare whatever axioms you want. "Established protocols" are all based on methodological naturalism.
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.