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).
[[On the otherhand; what do you know for sure?,]]
Had a spell way back when when I was into drugs where I didn’t know (Before then, Id gotten Saved, got real sick, came very close to dying [NDE- high fever- peritinitis- convulsions], and when on drugs, thought I’d actually died and this ‘life’ was actually that I’d slipped into hell, and I was just deluding myself into thinking I was still alive- long ugly story)
[[and how sure are you that you know it?...]]
I’ve been saved at a fairly young age- have doubted my sincerity, reconfirmed, but do still really struggle- the Evil One really knows how to sift, and just where to hit- and God’s silence in the whole matter really compounds the whole issue too (God has been silent for many many years now, and life is throwing me some real curve balls health-wise- Salt i nthe wound and all that) How sure? Beleive me, I don’t know- I measn, I know at young age I was a sinner in need of Christ’s forgiveness, and asked Him for Salvation- but through hte years, things like McCarther’s ‘total surrender salvation’ theology really caused me to doubt, and God’s silence is very concenring to me (as is the fact that I seem to lack the compassion and understadning for others that other Christians have- My temper doesn’t seem to be a reflection of Christ, which just makes me doubt more at times)
[[Reality need not be logical at all.. you know... to a human brain..]]
Oh beleive me, I know this all too well- That’s why I don’t contemplate soem deeper things that challenge what we know to be real, too indepth- like tryign to conceptualize eternity, parallell universes, etc- when logic is challenged, the result is illogic- When illogic becoems the new logic, we might as well hang it up. There’s a fien line between sanity and insanity
[[1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.]]
This is what keeps me going- acceptign that hte glass through which we now look is dark, and knowing that one day it won’t be
From the show Millenium:
God doesn’t move us by telling us all the facts- God rather moves us along by pains and contradictions- He doesn’t give us all the answers, but rather a lack of understanding, that we may marvel
It seems that both informaiton AND communication have always existed in Eternal God. They are as eternal as God. Without informaiton, Cuminication has nothign to do- without comunicaiton, informaiton also has nothign to do (and as you point out, isn’t information until comunicated)
Shannon was right to exclude meaning, because as you point out, it’s not hte content, it’s the method that he addresses- Williams was wrong to insinuate that Shannon theory was ‘out of date’ because it didn’t address meaning of content. Communication is infact the only thing that makes information meaningful, and quite frankly, the whole complex biological system of comunicaiton in species cries out Design (especially when that communication is species specific)
Will have to htink on htis more
It is possible that "we" couldn't grasp "all the facts" even if we knew them, as humans.. Being satisfied with a few things that appear to be facts is maybe the test.. being satisfied with what we have, so to speak.. It is so easy to be "Not Grateful".. Gratitude is a rare commodity..
The man that had no shoes was wroth until he saw a happy man with no feet.. Same could be said "of sight".. What if you were blind.. Gratitude is a rare gift.. How grateful are you?.. Are you an American and not a Zimbabean, or Kenyan?... There is much to be grateful for..
In your proposal, is objectivity of any consequence while conducting an investingation?
[[and quite frankly, the whole complex biological system of comunicaiton in species cries out Design (especially when that communication is species specific)]]
Just quickly, the reason it screams design is that when trying to argue informaiton arose in a step-wise fashion, one owuld have to argue that trillions of ‘happy accidental’ occurances took place which enabled emerging cells to receive the correct information needed to keep the cells fit and thriving. If one is going to argue cells evolved, then they must either argue that nature was intelligent, and able to provide just the right information needed to sustain emerging cells, or that cells just popped up all over the place already happily enabled to receive the correct info from other cells. To suggest info evolved in a step-wise fashion is beyond being a reasonable argument concidering that the cells could not survive long enough until nature ‘got it just right’. the time needed for this to happen (being overly generous and allowing that it ‘could happen’ in the first place) for even one succesful construction, is just not a reasonable position to take.
Because he didn't say that, people do indeed "fill in the blanks."
[[Gratitude is a rare gift.. How grateful are you?..]]
That’s a sticky subject- While the man with no shoes may have been dissapoijted in his conditions until seeing the man with no feet- he still has the problems associated with not havign shoes- Am I dissappointed in how life has turned out for me? You betcha- Am I ungrateful to be alive? No- absolutely not- Am I thnakful thigns aren’t worse? Of course- but htis changes nothign about hte severity of the conditions I’ve had to endure- Would I change anything If I could? Sure, but that doesn’t mean I don’;t enjoy the opportunities illness has brought as well, and would probably miss them if htings were different after changing them if I could
[[Are you an American and not a Zimbabean, or Kenyan?... There is much to be grateful for..]]
Am I the King of Spain, or the world for that matrer? Nope-
I’m not complqining- but I’m also not goign to pretend thigns are grwat because ‘things could be worse’ either. I fully accept my particular situation, and accept that God is the potter, and no matter how bad thigns become, will trust in Him- but like Joni Erikson said, we can still love God while hating the terrible thigns in life that have happened to us because of original sin- it;’s not a sin to hate the effects of sin that have made our lives not so great- this isn’t how God wanted thigns to be- He wanted us all to be kigns of the world, not paupers and lame/blind/deaf/ crippled etc- we just weren’t smart enough to figure out what we were throwing away when we ate the apple
I'm an opto-pessimist.. I hope for the best expecting the worst..
For instance, if you plan to investigate the 2010 population of Emperor Penguin colonies it is of no consequence that you presuppose global warming as the cause for missing nesting grounds, i.e. an axiom/postulate.
If however in the conduct of that investigation you excluded selective colonies from the count on the presumption that those colonies will not be there due to global warming, then your investigation is worthless with reference to your stated objectives.
In this example, it would be objective to the stated investigation to footmark the colonies you expect to be lost due to the global warming presupposition.
The Scriptures illuminate the relevance of communication! God's word becomes active or actualized once communicated (emphasis mine:)
For he spake, and it was [done]; he commanded, and it stood fast. – Psalms 33:9
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
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27
So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. - Romans 10:17
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. - Genesis 1:20
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. - John 6:63
No mathematical axiom I am aware of states explicitly everything it does not address, nor have I ever seen any requirement of a mathematical proof that it demonstate proof, but also specify everything it does not prove.
Man claims he wants justice. But he does not want what's coming to him.
Man claims he wants equality. But he does not want a per capita share of health, skill, beauty, power, intelligence and property. What he really wants is the same break as the next guy.
The parable in Matthew 20 is instructive on this very point and ends with this bit of wisdom:
Whatever freedom of choice or movement or faculties or facilities we have is a gift of God. We ought to be grateful for it and not compare our circumstance to others'.
To God be the glory, not man, never man!
The example I gave should have been stated in the positive, i.e. this theory takes life as an axiom.
Why would it need to to that? The alternative would be that life does not exist, in which case neither the author nor the reader would exist.
I feel likewise, dearest sister in Christ! I was impressed by Williams' theory of inversely-causal metainformation, so was disappointed when he started ranting against Shannon's theories on the basis of a statistical argument (i.e., statistics doesn't give you "meaning").
Pace to GGG: "statistical aspects of information (i.e. Shannon information) is inadequate to evaluate that which makes information meaningful." True enough; but the meaning of informational messages was not Shannon's concern.
Shannon's information theory is not concerned with "meaning"; nor is it a theory of biological information per se. Rather, it's an "all-purpose" (i.e., universal) theory that applies to all forms of communications, biological, mechanical (digital, analog), verbal, literary, etc., etc. As far as I can tell, Shannon theory does not challenge any aspect of what Myers and Williams are doing in their own scientific activities; in no way could Shannon theory be considered as offering a "rival theory" to their own.
Why would these gentlemen criticize Shannon's theory if they truly understood what Shannon was doing? His mathematical theory of communications is the "beast of burden" of successful communication of any and all types of messages/signals; and, like a camel, is completely indifferent to the "burden" — i.e., the meaning of the message — it carries.
On the other hand, we need to remember that without successful communication, without the "reduction of uncertainty in the receiver," the question of meaning can never arise for that receiver. If one hasn't "read" the message, one has no opportunity to understand it (find meaning in it).
It seems to me that Williams failed to appreciate that his inversely-causal metainformation needs a medium of successful communication throughout the organism — it needs a "camel" to bear the metainformation, delivering it to the right place, at the right time. The "camel" itself is NOT the meaning of the message, just the "passive" or "neutral" carrier of it (so to speak)....
In short, it seems to me that Williams needs Shannon as much as Rosen does. Rosen doesn't make this need explicit in Life Itself. He's not dealing with that level of the problem (i.e., transport of messages) in this work; not only does he not criticize Shannon, he respectfully refers to him in his book, indicating that Shannon's problems were different from the ones immediately before him (causal structures in complex systems).
Another way to look at it: Shannon's information theory is rather like the post office — its job is only to "get a letter from a sender and mail it on to its intended recipient/receiver." Then — and only then — can the recipient "read it," discern its meaning, and execute it.
Well, that's sort of how I think about these issues, FWIW.
Thank you so very much, dearest sister in Christ, for your excellent essay/post!
Maybe we're getting stuck on semantics. You say they should approach it that way mathematicians do, but then use terms like axiom and postulate as if they are more or less interchangeable in the example.
In mathematics these have very different meanings, and are not interchangeable.
Postulates can be proven or disproven. The postulate is what is to be tested (it is not assumed to be either true or false when it is declared) and the methodology provides the framework for that test.
Axioms are assumed to be true, and provide the framework for the methodology.
Indeed. What would be the point in requiring that a biological investigation first begin by declaring that "life exists"?
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.