ID at Baylor

_{William Dembski

December 18, 2005

Education}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here’s an excerpt from Lisa Anderson’s piece today in the Chicago Tribune about ID at Baylor. Notice that Baylor’s main concern in shutting down my Polanyi Center (for the full story, go here) was not the truth of ID but that “it made Baylor look like it could be stereotyped and placed in a particular fundamentalist camp that Baylor didn’t want to be in.” That insightful quote comes from Baylor’s provost.

. . . The initial exposure to modern biology and neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory can be akin to “culture shock,” said Randall O’Brien, provost and vice president for academic affairs at Baylor University, a moderate Baptist General Convention of Texas school in Waco. . .

“If you ask me what do we teach here at Baylor, we’re really as much about interrogation of faith and learning as we are about integration of faith and learning,” O’Brien said. “At Baylor, we believe Jesus came to take away our sins, not our minds.”

Nonetheless, he said, faculty are aware that “sometimes the word evolution is very offensive to people who come from home-schooled situations.”

“My intent is to be honest and truthful and to engage all questions as a person of intellect and a person of faith and not feel that truth is some sabertooth tiger that might jump out of the woods and devour my little, anemic God,” he said. “If truth leads to God, what fear do we have going after it?”

Although intelligent design is not taught at Baylor, O’Brien said, the university had a controversial association with it. In 1999, the Michael Polanyi Center opened at Baylor’s Institute for Faith and Learning, headed by William Dembski, one of the foremost ID proponents and an early fellow of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank and leading advocate for ID. After creating a furor among Baylor faculty, the center was stripped of its name and Dembski was dismissed in October 2000.

“Our scientists felt it made Baylor look like it could be stereotyped and placed in a particular fundamentalist camp that Baylor didn’t want to be in,” O’Brien said. . .

[For the full article, go here.]

Comments

Jaredl, "the only solution to which is to postulate a relative beginning." So God's cousin set the whole thing in motion?pmob1_{December 22, 2005
December
12
Dec
22
22
2005
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

What I've shown, hopefully, is that an absolute beginning to creation is confronted with a paradox, the only solution to which is to postulate a relative beginning.jaredl_{December 21, 2005
December
12
Dec
21
21
2005
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

Is the post above this one closed? My post won't post. Oh well...dchammer_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

Testing one-two-threedchammer_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

Jared, I think you have presented an infinite chain of paradoxes. You are also, needless to say, proposing something which is infinitely more difficult to demonstrate than D's proof for the elimination of chance. D is examining one universe, ours, and setting bounds on the basis of known physical information.pmob1_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Jaredl, In other words, creation out of nothing would be a self-contradictory idea if there were no other possible way of conceiving God than the one you present. But there is another possible way. Therefore, the idea of creation out of nothing is not in itself absurd---at least not for the set of reasons you give, which all have to do with the supposition that the only way to conceive of God is as subject to the same basic limitations any other intelligence is. Cordially, Adrianadrian walker_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

Jaredl, Let me try this again: I'm not trying to convince you that creation out of nothing happened. All I'm saying is that you haven't shown that the idea of it is self-contradictory. The two arguments you use in 38 could do prove that point only if Christians were claiming that God creates inside of an already existing universe, rather than creating the universe in the first place. But thay aren't. It seems to me that a better way to construct your argument would be like this: (1) the Christian creator is supposed to be an intelligence not subject to the limitations that we are and that would make it absurd to claim that any of us created out of nothing; (2) this is not a logically contradictory claim, but is is false, because (3) there can be no intelligence who is not subject to the limitations that we are. (4) would then have to be an argument OTHER than the one you gave above based on induction---all intelligences we know act inside this already existing universe and are subject to its constraints, therefore all possible intelligences act inside this already existing universe and are subject to its constraints"---which looks more like a hasty leap than a well-founded generalization. I'm not saying that there aren't other arguments to use in step four, just that the one you do use is no good. So, once again, I am simply criticizing the quality of your argument, without saying anything pro or contra the conclusion of it. Cordially, Adrianadrian walker_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

But, this restricts God to a being inside the universe. Christianity claims that God is outside (and inside) the universe. And He became a man, subjected Himself to death, and rose again.jacktone_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

What is the first law of thermodynamics? First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another. Is that not good enough of an argument against creation ex nihilo, apart from the lack of information necessary to produce CSI in the creation we in fact do see?jaredl_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Jaredl, In other words: I am not postulating a being that does the contradictory. I am saying that you haven't yet given good arguments for your claim that that's what Christians are doing when they say God created out of nothing. Cordially, Adrianadrian walker_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Jaredl, I am not expecting you to believe in the God of traditional Christian theology. I am simply pointing out that the argument you're making---"the only intelligences we have encountered get the information they need from the outside, therefore all intelligences do," is not sufficient to support your assertion that the idea of creation out of nothing makes no sense. Do you see the point I am making? Cordially, Adrianadrian walker_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

Again, we can postulate beings who can simultaneously give us A and ~A, and by the existence of such a being we can prove whatsoever we wish. Is this a satisfying exercise? No. The whole point of such postulating is to protect the core idea from disconfirmation by inductive generalization, not to search for truth. That's why Darwinians do it in reference to Darwinian solutions to irreducible complexity; that's why orthodox Christians have been doing it from the fourth century onward against the simple faith of the primitive Christians; that's why you're doing it here. I love the trinity, by the way. 1. There exists exactly one God. 2. The Father is God. 3. The Son is God. 4. The Father is not the Son.jaredl_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

Jaredl, To clarify a bit more: the information God needs to create is neither external to God nor does it simply pop into his head someday out of nowhere, but is always, eternally there, within his always, eternally existing self-knowledge. Such is the conviction of classical Christian theology. Perhaps a mistaken conviction, but not one that is evidently absurd or self-contradictory. Cordially, Adrianadrian walker_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

Amen, Dave T. Of course, orthodox Christianity identifies God as Triune, hence, within Himself, having awareness of Himself and His own extra-temporal nature.jacktone_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

Dear Jaredl, Although David T. can certainly speak for himself, I thought I would take a shot at trying to explain what he was objecting to in your argument. You wrote above: "all intelligences use specifications in generating CSI because all intelligences that we are aware of in fact do use specifications in generating CSI." If I understand him, Dave T. was saying that you can't legitimately argue from "all intelligences that we are aware of" to "all intelligences." Why not? Well, because there might be some intelligences out there that aren't like the ones we have encountered so far. Another point: you claim that the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo is self-contradictory. The basis of this clam? The above argument from "all intelligences that we are aware of" to "all intelligences" period. But that argument doesn't work. So, at least insofar as it's based on this failed argument, your claim of self-contradiction in the Christian doctrine of ex nihilo creation is unfounded. According to the classical orthodox Christian understanding of God, God isn't like us. This not being like us also applies to how God was "alone" before the creation. God is not like us; so he is not like you or I would be if we suddenly found ourselves the only beings in existence. As Dave T. already put it so well, you may think there is insufficient evidence for such a God, but the IDEA of him is not self-contradictory. Nor would your "all intelligences we know---all intelligences period" argument, even if it were true, mean that the IDEA of such a God was self-contradictory. The most your argument could prove is that nothing like the classical Christian God is supposed to be actually exists, not that the IDEA of such a God simply makes no sense. Here is another point that might help with your problem. On the classical Christian view, the world comes into being out of nothing, BUT NOT God's idea of it. As Dave T. put it, on the classical Christian view, God doesn't need to know anything outside of himself to know himself (he is not like us). To which we can add this: in the act of knowing himself, he also knows all the possible ways of participating in or reflecting the fullness of being he is. The "information" you're talking about isn't outside of God, but inside of him, and it doesn't just suddenly appear, but is implicit in the self-knowledge God always has of himself, a self-knowledge that is not like ours, in that God does not have to know anything other than himself to have it. One final bit of the orthodox Christian view: the Trinity. God is alone prior to creation in the sense that there is no other being next to him. But within himself God is never solitary. The Word Jn 1:1 speaks about is an eternal template for all possible information that might then somehow get encoded into the physical creation. Cordially, Adrianadrian walker_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

Reply to the addendum: by axiom, to be aware requires an other to be aware of. So far as we can tell, this axiom is sound. To postulate a being that can violate this axiom is what I was inveighing against in post 12.jaredl_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

And I responded in posts 11 and 12. So, there's no further need to beat our nonproductive conversation into the ground.jaredl_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Addendum: I shouldn't have mentioned the God of traditional theology because it doesn't matter if this God has logical problems (like the problem of evil) unrelated to the topic at hand. To make your case, you need to show that an intelligence in which the subject/object distinction disappears is logically contradictory. (I assume you mean more than that we have no evidence for the existence of such a being. That much I might agree with. I think your argument is that such a being can't possibly exist.) Dave T.taciturnus_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Jared, Go back to my post 5. I have never said that intelligence does not use specification. Your argument hinges on the claim that the specification must be separate from the intelligence itself, and that "awareness" is only possible if there is a separation between subject and object. My argument is that this is true of human intelligence, but not necessarily all possible intelligences. There may be an intelligence that is directly aware of itself (the subject/object distinction disappears) and could use itself as the specification. This intelligence would use a specification (found in itself) and not some separate background information. In particular, I said that the God of traditional theology is alleged to be such a God, completely aware of itself through itself. I don't claim to have empirical proof of such a God. My only claim is that your logical claims against ID don't hold. It isn't necessary to assume that a designing intelligence must use a specification separate from itself. Dave T.taciturnus_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

pmob1 - If there was an absolute beginning, then there cannot be a satisfactory resolution to the paradox. The paradox is resolved when we realize that neither materialism nor classical theology is correct, and that we must have an infinite chain of creators/creations; both matter and intelligence are eternal.jaredl_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

Jared, I think I see what youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re driving at. I wonder if it ends up having to do with acts of creation per se. How does intelligent creativity bootstrap into existence when everything/nothing is background information? How can you generate a specification when there is only One thing and that thing is You? You have no reference. There are no detachable patterns, nor, it appears, can there be. However, doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t all intelligent creation suffer from that paradox? Let us say, Darwin-wise, that there was time when humans were not intelligent yet. There were no intelligent creations anywhere. No one could find a pocket-watch lying in the forest because there werenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t any yet. There were no artifacts that D or anyone else could prove to be of such small probability that they had to have been intelligently created. We were still knuckle-dragging around. I guess, from the inside, from the pre-ape perspective, it was inchoate. It was Ã¢â‚¬Å“all the same.Ã¢â‚¬Â It was unspecified. Okay. So how do you get from there to the first specification?pmob1_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Mr. T, you deny the validity of my inductive generalization. I am pointing out that the same type of logic undergirds ID, and if you reject my argument - all intelligences use specifications in generating CSI because all intelligences that we are aware of in fact do use specifications in generating CSI - then you must, for consistency's sake, reject ID on identical grounds - all CSI is generated by intelligence because all CSI that we can follow back to its source is generated by intelligence. I guess further explication would not be productive.jaredl_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Jared, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll try it another way. You wrote: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Why shouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t we expect a universe that makes no sense, such universes being much more highly likely than ones that do make sense?Ã¢â‚¬Â Your proposition contains a false inductive claim. How would you or I or anyone else know that one sort of universe is Ã¢â‚¬Å“more highly likelyÃ¢â‚¬Â than another? You do not have a data sample of universes with known properties of likelihood and unlikelihood. You are trying to claim what I would call a Hume Exemption. Until you show me your data sample, your exemption is denied. We must all remain agnostic on the Ã¢â‚¬Å“likelihoodÃ¢â‚¬Â of this universe relative to other universes. We have to work with the one we have. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s it. Given our universe we can, however, detect artifacts of intelligence and distinguish them from things that Ã¢â‚¬Å“make no sense.Ã¢â‚¬Â I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t recall D speculating about what God was up to before he fired up this universe, how God might have construed himself or anything of the kind. It is scientifically erroneous and spiritually presumptuous to pretend to know anything of the sort or to believe such knowledge is possible. Also, you wrote: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Moreover, why should we respect the claim that all that is, was created from absolute nothing, the very idea of which is contrary both to scripture and science?Ã¢â‚¬Â You make a false presumption here too. The bible says Creation was Ã¢â‚¬Å“without form,Ã¢â‚¬Â not that it didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exist. Furthermore, God said I am that I am. If you want some steady state, there it is, buddy.pmob1_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Jared, This whole conversation has me confused... I've written nothing about CSI or how it is generated by intelligence and I have no idea what you suppose I am dissenting from. I'm not going to ask you how you falsify "all possible intelligences must use background knowledge when acting" because I suspect you will tell me again that you know it inductively, which merely restates your belief that all possible intelligences must be like the ones you have experienced, and we are back in the old circle... Dave Ttaciturnus_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

I'm still curious, though: what motivates your dissent?jaredl_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

2 is certainly falsifiable, as is the claim that "Only intelligence generates CSI." I guess, then, that you reject CSI as a reliable indicator of design also?jaredl_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

Jared, I understand what you are saying... I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think this is a legitimate inductive argument: 1. All intelligences we have experience with only act with respect to background knowledge. 2. Therefore, all possible intelligences must use background knowledge when acting. Cheers, Dave T.taciturnus_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

Mr. T - I'm not sure how to say this other than this way: whenever I have observed intelligences acting, it is always with reference to background knowledge (specifications). It follows inductively that all intelligences act with reference to specifications (where confirmation is possible). I'm not sure why you would debate this point. Pmob1 - I'll have to search through all the books. Dembski notes that to produce information is to rule out possibilities, and I think that this is in NFL or Intelligent Design: TBBST.jaredl_{December 20, 2005
December
12
Dec
20
20
2005
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

Btw. in that particular link above- the author argues that Baylor fired Dembski because "ID isn't science" end of story. Tho, right before he says that he actually quotes the guy who says they fired Bill precisely for the reason Bill gives in his own post! If you're going to make a bogus case, I suggest you not directly contradict yourself in the previous paragraph with a quote from Baylor!Josh Bozeman_{December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

Too bad the author of the above site linked continues to claim that ID is the theory that life could not have arisen naturally. Of course, that is not what ID says, and if you can't even get a simple definition of something, I say don't attack it. On top of that ID says nothing of the designer- another concept the author can't seem to get right. It seems to me, from reading a number of sites, that nearly every site that attacks ID and proclaims it isn't science- they always define it wrong and attack the false definition. That's beyond lame. I'm also surprised at how many people think they have any right to proclaim what IS and what IS NOT "[real] science." I pointed out on this site, as I have on others, if ID isn't real science, and they often times attack creationism in the same breath (which means creationism isn't real science), then to follow that out, you have to conclude that most scientists through the history of science were not really scientists. Nearly all scientists before the 1840s were creationists. And they didn't get that from some gaps in thinking- they thought this because of the evidence they saw as pointing to design. Someone will reply saying that we didn't know about evolution then as we do know, but that's still pointless. Even if that's so, if you're going to attack ID supporters today as fools, you must do so of the scientists of old as well. They saw science itself as a pursuit of learning more about God's glory- science itself was born out of this Christian desire to find the order within nature as mentioned in the Bible.Josh Bozeman_{December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply