As I've said before, I think each university should set up a department of mad science, and provide a few spots for mad scientists to putter and see if they can destroy the world before the regular scientists destroy the world.

The other thought I have on this topic is What kind of God would make it so difficult to detect His Handiwork?

Well, I have about seventy-eleven other thoughts. (No degree in mathematics for me.) As I've said, there is little if any relationship between intelligence and belief in religion or disbelief in religion. There are lots if intelligent believers. There are lots of intelligence atheists. The radical agnostics are kind of dumb, but at least they know they are dumb and will admit it.

For that matter, perhaps God is a mad scientist.

Of course, people around here think that if there's a tiny, tiny, tiny clue that Intelligent Design has some merit (just "if"--I don't believe it for a second, but it doesn't bother me if Dembski putters around with it), then it immediately proves that the Bible is inerrant, and Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead, etc., etc.)

I think that is known as the "Great Leap Forward" or something.

I predict that this thread should be good for 73 messages, each dumber than the one before, although this will still be the dumbest one of all.

Your mileage will show 0 on this trip.

Random - The other thought I have on this topic is What kind of God would make it so difficult to detect His Handiwork?

If God made Himself more obvious, that would effect the free will to choose Him. It would also make faith much easier or harder, depending on your definition of faith. I happen to think the balance of reasons for/against belief in God is set pretty fairly. I'm not sure what improvements you would make...

#2

I'm crazy, but I'm not so crazy as to be running for the position of God. I don't know how the universe could be made better.

Which is not to say it's the best of all possible universes, as someone once noted.

One of the fun things about being an evangelical Christian, I guess, is that whatever you encounter you say That's the way it has to be. It wouldn't work any other way. Proves how smart God is and Right He is.

Wasn't it Einstein who said, "God does not play dice with the universe"? Maybe He does, but it comes up 42 once in a while and everyone cries, "It's a miracle!"

From wikiwookiepedia:

Best of all possible worlds
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The phrase "the best of all possible worlds" (French: le meilleur des mondes possibles) was coined by the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz in his 1710 work Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal (Theodicy). It is the central argument in Leibniz's theodicy, or his attempt to solve the problem of evil.

Among his many philosophical interests and concerns, Leibniz took on this question of theodicy: how, if God is good, omnipotent and omniscient, do we account for the suffering and injustice that exists in the world? Historically, the question has been answered with all number of philosophical arguments, for example, by explaining away evil or reconciling evil with good.[1] For Leibniz, also of central concern is the matter of reconciling human freedom (indeed, God's own freedom) with the determinism inherent in his own theory of the universe.[2]

Leibniz' solution casts God as a kind of "optimizer" of the collection of all original possibilities: Since He is good and omnipotent, and since He chose this world out of all possibilities, this world must be good--in fact, this world is the best of all possible worlds.[3]

On the one hand, this view might help us rationalize some of what we experience: Imagine that all the world is made of good and evil. The best possible world would have the most good and the least evil. Courage is better than no courage. It might be observed, then, that without evil to challenge us, there can be no courage. Since evil brings out the best aspects of mankind evil is regarded as necessary. So in creating this world God made some evil to make the best of all possible worlds. On the other hand, the theory explains evil not by denying it or even rationalizing it--but simply by declaring it to be part of the optimum combination of elements that comprise the best possible Godly choice.

Voltaire famously satirized this notion in his novel Candide, in which Leibniz is represented by the eternally optimistic character Dr Pangloss,[4], and indeed the idea fell almost entirely from favour with philosophers after the 1755 Lisbon earthquake. It is, nevertheless, quite debatable whether Voltaire's characterization fairly represented Leibniz' philosophy.

#1 "The other thought I have on this topic is What kind of God would make it so difficult to detect His Handiwork?"

Interesting thought. Of course, if He did make everything, including us, then everything is either His handiwork directly or made/done by those who are His handiwork. And if there's nothing that doesn't have His "mark" on it, directly or indirectly, how would we know what His "mark" looks like when there's nothing that doesn't have it, to compare it to?

Not proof of anything, just a thought.

"One of the fun things about being an evangelical Christian, I guess, is that whatever you encounter you say That's the way it has to be. It wouldn't work any other way. Proves how smart God is and Right He is."

As another great philosopher once said "in this life there are nothing but possibilities." (Lucas, Empire Records).

While I can see why you might think otherwise, I definitely don't agree with that statement. I think God can do anything He wants, and there are many possibilities to how this thing called life 'might' look.

My working theory is that God restrains Himself to allow choice and faith. This has a lot of ramifications, and I don't claim to really understand the full scope, but it does make a certain amount of sense when you think about it. Anyway, that's another discussion.

I am fully aware that under some analyses, this seems a 'convenient' theory, but I think that 'convenience' does not imply 'non-validity'.
Here's where we come down to the inherent subjectivity of our own perceptions and the effectiveness of arguing about things that really can't be proven one way or another. What I argue is intelligent design is based on my premise that God exists, and can easily be argued 'convenient' based on the premise that He does not.

"To William Dembski, a friend of Marks and collaborator on his informatics research, the move recalled a previous ID spat at Baylor in 2000 when opponents of the theory succeeded in derailing Dembski's ID-advancing Michael Polanyi Center"

It is interesting to note that there is no scientific 'theory' of Intelligent Design. Just a public relations wedge movement to 'revitalize culture by demolishing materialism'.

But, what do you expect from world. theory, shmeory. it's all the same, just interpretations. pass the collection plate my postmodern brethren.

PS Jack, the leading talking heads in the ID movement equivocate about the necessity of gods in the ID formulation. At some points, they point out that the 'designer' need not even be supernatural (indeed, natural selection fits the definition of 'intelligence'), at other points they declare that ID is essentially 'logos, the gospel of John the baptist'. You tell me if that is honest or consistent.

Kelley agreed that Marks was free to resume work in the informatics lab on his own time and repost his website, provided a disclaimer accompany any ID-advancing research to make clear that the work does not represent the university's position.

To me this makes Baylor's goal -- "to become a top-tier research institution without compromising its distinctly Christian worldview " -- sound overly optimistic. If all Baylor professors believe in God's creation, whether by direct or evolutionary means, why is there so much distancing from ID?

The problem with the religious is they know so little about "science" they think "scientist" is a general-purpose term.

If someone who is an expert in math wants to teach biology, perhaps he should, oh, I don't know, STUDY biology first?

If someone who is an expert in, say, engineering and wants to teach physiology, perhaps he should, oh, I don't know, STUDY physiology first? Or would that make too much sense? Would that be too easy?

If they are SO distinguished in their own fields that they could teach others scientists about their fields, why haven't I ever heard of them before?

Sorry.

Jesus, protect our children from your followers.

Marvin, the 'distancing from ID' is likely because ID has not even attempted the basic scientific program, instead opting for a public relations movement outside of the scientific community. In the PR arena they claim that they are a legitimate form of scientific inquiry, but within their own ranks they can't even get enough articles to publish their OWN journal (not to mention the Templeton Foundation being willing to fund ID research but not receiving any proposals).

I would propose that faculty are wary of being involved with a movement that has attempted to sidestep science and is closely tied (funded, at least) to Howie Ahmanson and the Christian Reconstructionism movement. Just a thought, you tell me.

Good comment, Pauline, in #4. It is interesting how two completely divergent views emerge . . . Random says "What kind of God would make it so difficult to detect his handiwork?" One view.

And yet I have the completely opposite view. His handiwork, His presence (is there a difference?) is absolutely everywhere, sometimes almost annoyingly - or terrifyingly - so, racing to greet me every morning, shouting at me at noon, boxing my ears in the evening, and troubling or soothing my dreams at night.

I get the mental picture of a group of visitors standing before a magnificient painting in a museum. Some visitors earnestly look at the painting but see nothing but swirled bits of color and flaking paint, unevenly and imperfectly applied, interesting perhaps, but still originating in meaninglessness and eventually sinking back into meaninglessness. They make no connection to an Artist.

But some visitors look at the same painting and see a vision of design and intelligence and the grandeur of intent and beauty; they see soul and meaning and a destiny for all things beyond imagining. And they wonder upon the Artist that could have created such a painting.

Of course the majority of visitors don't look at the painting at all - they simply want to get out of the museum and get back home to watch the sitcom or the ballgame on TV. To THAT group, I say "Bleah".

Your mileage will show 0 on this trip. -- Random Name #1

Good point, but it might be fun just to sit in the car, fool with the knobs, look out the window, and listen to the radio . . .

distinguished professor
top-tier research institution
distinctly Christian worldview
evolutionary informatics lab
Darwinian
Darwinism
published research
scientific support for the theory of intelligent design
ID opponents. . . complained
pulled the plug on the lab
resume work in the informatics lab
institutional purge of intelligent design
willingness . . . to respect
academic freedom

Going out of my head over that tune.

BTW, atheistic evolution and theistic evolution aren't different kinds of science, as the Baylor provost seems to imply. They are different ways of spinning science.

drill, it seems your argument returns to the merits of the ID formulation (whilst dancing upon the fine line of po-mo relativism of all interpretations being equal).

i really think that conspiracy theories and evilutionist atheist materialist scientist fear(whore)mongering to explain why intelligent design has failed is putting the cart before the horse.

ID has failed on its own lack of merit, a failure to advance any sort of scientific program.

Scroop is correct, it is a difference in the methods of spinning science. Not an alternative method of doing science (as far as 'doing' science, I noted above that IDists can't even get enough submissions to print their own journal. Too busy making flash animations with fart noises, I suppose). see me for links.

erasmus: Not sure about the dancing on the fine line of post-modern relativism of all interpretations being equal.

In my view (drawn from my own experience), the mere beginning of the road is to see - to acknowledge - the grand pattern, the underlying threads of reality - stitched by a Hand. If that acknowledgement is an element of 'post-modernism', so be it.

However, the road ends - and ends only - at the Cross - and the empty tomb, which are our visuals of something both wonderful and terrible and complete that spans infinity and eternity. So, no, all interpretations in my view are NOT equal.

I suspect, though, we are back on our well-worn track - on that point you would probably agree with me.

Glad to see you still posting. I have been absent much.

Pauline,

Some skeptics of religion believe there is a hereditary component to religious belief. I suspect there is some truth to it, though it's part of a much more complicated schema.

In any case, I don't find the universe numinous at all. Neither does my wife. Neither does my daughter, though of course we "brainwashed" her to be an atheist, as qwerty would point out, only he talks about Christians brainwashing their children.

If it's genetic that I became a (very near) atheist, isn't that God's fault that I don't believe? I think this has something to do with Calvinism run amok, or running in reverse, but I'm not very good on theology.

random i think that it is, instead of genetic, the null state to be without gods. it's hard to understand how it could be heritable, unless you mean in a broad sense where environment is more important than genetic material.

drill i was responding to your analogy of the painting. i understand that presupposing gods may lead one to your metaposition. in the specific context of intelligent design, it seemed that you were suggesting it was simply 'another view'. that may be, but it is not a scientific view (not because of de facto limits on what science may explore, but because of the utter abject failure of IDists to even formulate a consistent consensus on what 'design' would entail).

good to see you back as well. will you be making the jump?

Erasmus: What do you mean by 'making the jump'?

#14
Random Name,
I'm not sure what a numinous universe would/does look like. I've had very few "religious experiences" myself, when the universe did look numinous - at least that's the word that came to mind at them time, because I had read what Rudolf Otto said about it - for a few minutes.

I suspect there is a sizable genetic component in being (or not being) skeptical about claims (religious or otherwise) that are not readily proved. I have a fair chunk of skepticism myself. But somehow I am also religious. A bit of a tightrope walk sometimes.

I think one of the mistakes many people (both religious and non-religious) make is thinking there is one way of being religious. I wrote a poem several years ago, which I won't share here (mostly because I can't find it - my writing folders got mislaid during one of our moves), about "God-shaped holes." There's a saying (attributed to Augustine, I think) that each of us has a God-shaped hole within us, that only God can fill. But God made us with quite a variety of different shapes on the "outside (not just physical appearance but also personality, abilities, interests), so why should our "God-shaped holes" all be the same shape? And God is infinite, and can fit quite a number of different shapes. I'm not saying that anything you think of as God is God, or that all religions lead to God. But some people's religion is largely emotional, some people's is largely intellectual. Some people's is largely about ideas, others it's largely about practices. I think they all have a place, and it's good to try to learn from other people's ways of experiencing/relating to/obeying God.

Again, I'm not saying "anything goes." But I have known Christians from a wide variety of backgrounds, from very emotional Pentecostals to very intellectual Presbyterians, very traditional Lutherans and Baptists who are anything but traditional. Unfortunately some of them think their way is the best way, if not the only way. And I often wonder how many people turn away from Christianity because the only "way" they have been exposed to is so foreign to their "way" of being.

FROM #11: theistic evolution

is a science like alchemy and astrology.

Let's assume God exists and is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfect goodness (although scientifically none of these have been proven and are simply assumed by believers). Although I personally wonder if any of those three are even possible.

Since God does not continually intercede in ways that mortals can measure and does not provide significant evidence for his existence(based on the number of non-christians in this world), then it can be reasoned that God wants each of us to develop faith. Faith is a central tenet of Christianity.

Why does God want billions of followers who will do as he asks with very little evidence? If God is perfectly good, there must be some greater good that is achieved by having people obey based on faith. How does developing faith result in greater goodness than increasing our understanding and knowledge? God could easily provide greater understanding and greater knowledge. Instead this universe seems to be a factory for us to develop greater faith.

Are there times when we want a child to obey us because we ask them to, knowing they cannot understand the reasons? Are there times it is better to help a child to understand the reasons, rather than force them to obey blindly?

The first requires trust from the child. The second requires mental capabilities.

"evolutionary informatics lab"

As defined in the article - "the study of whether Darwinian processes like random mutation and natural selection can generate new information" - "evolutionary informatics" is not even a scientific field. If by "information," they mean negative entropy (as in information theory), this question is moot - Darwinian evolution doesn't do this, since it operates in an open system with heavy energy flow. If by "information" they mean something else (rather like "phlogiston?"), we have yet to be told exactly what it is.

This guy may by "distinguished" in the area of engineering, but he's a dope wrt evolution/information theory, as is Dembski.

For your amusement: Intelligent Design Theory challenged by new "Stupid Design"

. . .provided a disclaimer accompany any ID-advancing research to make clear that the work does not represent the university's position.

So, Baylor's position is that man was not intelligently designed? What a dumb disclaimer for an institution that purportedly believes in God and Jesus.

. . .given its commitment to Christian truth

Why are Christian reporters so reluctant to use the phrase "biblical authority", instead of the watered-down "Christian truth"? Could it be because they think the Bible doesn't really say what it means or mean what it says? After all, what progressive Christian believes "day" still means a 24-hour period in Genesis 1, what with the mountains of evidence explained by the unverifiable just-so stories from fallible scientists who weren't there and don't know everything?

"Of course the majority of visitors don't look at the painting at all - they simply want to get out of the museum and get back home to watch the sitcom or the ballgame on TV. To THAT group, I say "Bleah"."

Ahhh, you too easily the art that abounds in a 3-6-3 double play, a two-out triple, or a nasty Johan Santana curveball for called 3rd strike.

What kind of God would make it so difficult to detect His Handiwork?

I conclude that the Lord must be content with the percentages of people who detect his handiwork, and the percentage of those who don't. Otherwise, he would have configured us differently, or chose to more openly reveal himself.

CCC do try to keep up. did you just awake from a nap?

'intelligent design' and 'Intelligent Design' are two different things, apparently. the former is a metaphor for creationism and is not denounced by Baylor. the latter is a PR scam that is premised upon the misunderstanding (as you amply point out) of the former, and is the formulation denounced by Baylor.

PS were you there when the constitution was signed? what then makes you think it was, all you have is just-so stories from fallible historians and purported witnesses. Go back to sleep now.

But Marks' story, so far, has a better ending than that of mathematician William Dembski, whose Michael Polyani Center at Baylor also studied Intelligent Design.

Interesting. I was not aware that there was any production whatever from that lab.

Could someone please provide a link to a paper? Even an abstract will do, as I can get access to the full paper if I know where to find the abstract.

Thanks in advance.

FROM #24: 'intelligent design' and 'Intelligent Design' are two different things, apparently.

Is that your way of saying ID presupposes id (not that you're predisposed to something so base as presupposing)?

CCC I'm sorry, I don't know what the heck you are talking about.

If you are asking 'is Intelligent Design' a form of creationism, then the answer is yes. Cloaked in secrecy, shrouded in ambivalence, masked by obfuscatory language and enshrined by acolytes. If you are not asking that then again I don't have a clue as to what you are asking.

PS Janiebelle, you should check out their most recent journal. http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php

#27 Thanks for the reference - I see that in Information as a Measure of Variation Dembski makes up a new definition of information as "the change in probability distribution associated with an ensemble of events" so that he can do his error-ridden probability calculations and continue his central thesis: "highly improbable = full of information = designed." How many variations on one sour tune can this man make?? What a crock!

"How many variations on one sour tune can this man make?? "

ahhh, but that is his genius.

Pete Rowan said that when he rode the tour bus with Bill Monroe, Monroe played the old standard fiddle tunes on his mandolin while they travelled down the highway. On the bus, he played them in ways he never performed them publicly, and never played them the same way twice. I suspect this is what Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Dembski is trying to do. Except it is a sour tune.

And Monroe was quite a pugilist and a healthy strapping lad. Dembski looks kinda frail. I bet my wife could whup him.

Anyone who says there is no evidence of God's handiwork has never had a child or never watched a sunset or never observed snow in the mountains or never gazed at the stars. If so, then they are willingly ignorant of the obvious.

Erasmus on an adjacent thread says he sees transitional forms outside of his window. He doesn't really, of course. What he actually sees is living things all perfectly complete. He observes not a single mutant life form, nothing partially formed, nothing that doesn't function perfectly, but all is symmetric complete and beautiful. He looks at all this and says, "Bah! It's all just a big chemical spill and closes his mind to the truth of his own observation. His eye whispers truth, but his mind plays games. He makes creation his creator, mutation and disease his maker, yet where are these mutants? Nowhere!

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Ps 19:1

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." Ps 14:1

Anyone who says there is no evidence of God's handiwork has never had a child or never watched a sunset or never observed snow in the mountains or never gazed at the stars. If so, then they are willingly ignorant of the obvious.

Anyone who says creation is evidence of God's handiwork has never seen death from genetic disease, hunger, birth defect, unjust physical abuse, war, etc., etc., If so, then they are willingly ignorant of the obvious.

Dembski is one of the liars of the Discovery Institute, which employs only fake scientists who have no moral values. The entire income of the Discovery Institute comes from gullible creationists who are happy to believe everything the Disco Institute says.

Dembski and the other Intelligent Design God Did It subhumans are in it only for the easy money. They know they are liars. They know they take quotes from real scientists out of context to distort their meaning. They know creationists are gullible. They know every scientist in the world knows they are liars, but they don't care. They got their paychecks. They know they earn their money dishonestly but it sure beats getting a real job.

Xion, go look up 'transitional form'. Nowhere will you find this defined as an incomplete organism.

Evidence of sunsets is evidence of sunsets. Some people think they are hideous, i'm sure. I'm sure you are intelligent enough to understand that this doesn't lead you to even a proof for god, much less the meddling jealous bumbling deity you postulate.

you should pick a god that didn't have to cheat to whup jacob in a rasslin' match.

In fact, neither evolutionists nor creationists believe in transitional species.

To an evolutionist every species is actually a transitional species. No organism exists independently without its pregenitors so it is one solid continuum. While scientists classify organisms to promote order, this is actually an artificial system.

To a creationist each species is independently created by God in that form.

Theo you seem to contradict yourself between sentence one and sentence two.

I don't know many creationists who still make the argument that species are immutable. Not many, and most of them are here. Instead most creationists have been forced to acknowledge that speciation is a real phenomenon, probably as a logical consequence of squeezing the square peg of Duh Flud into the round hole of biogeography paleontology and geology. All them'ar evil sciences.

Erasmus - What you would expect to find in a continuum of evolving species mutating from one form to another is a world full of mutants. It would be a Star Wars kind of world with all sorts of bizarre creatures with partially formed limbs, eyes that can't quite see, wings that can't quite fly, etc. You don't see any of those things when you look out your window. You have placed your faith in imagination, not observation.

Xion, perhaps that is what you would expect to find. Or perhaps that is what you expect someone to expect to find. But such an imaginary land is not what is predicted by evolutionary theory (RM+NS) just your caricature of it, which is not a scientific view but a religious one. your expectations are just sophist projections.

Xion, did you see the article I have posted here a few times, "A dead dog lives on (inside a new dog)"?

Google "scienceblogs dead dog lives on", it's the first hit. it appears that there are some weird things out there but of course they aren't your wishful thinking half a wing examples. i wish that you would get past your rhetorical analysis and come to terms with how intelligent design creationism 'predictions' (used loosely when discussing creationism) don't represent reality.