Top College News

Intelligent design advocate blends faith, science

By Sarvesh Kaslay

Published: Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Updated: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 01:11

The two fields of science and faith are considered by many to be immiscible. One deals with a belief based on direct observation and measurable proof, while the other is based on a belief that is not explicitly supported by scientific proof — only by conviction.

The Texas A&M chapter of Ratio Christi aims to strengthen the faith of Christian students at secular institutions nationwide through the use of intellectual investigation and apologetics.

Ratio Christi — Latin for “the reason of Christ” — is a global movement that aims to give university students and faculty historical, philosophical and scientific reasons for believing the Christian faith.

As part of the Science and Faith Speaker Series, Ratio Christi is bringing Robert Marks to help shed light on the connection between God and mathematics with his speech titled, “God Ever Geometrizes.”

“Dr. Marks will provide mathematical proof about the existence of God,” said Jayson Pilosi, chapter director of Ratio Christi at Texas A&M. “He will try to put across the point that mathematics and God are not in competition, rather they are actually hand in glove.”

Marks is a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Baylor University and a staunch advocate of intelligent design. He has written more than 300 peer-reviewed, technical publications and given several presentations on the relationship between science and faith.

“The reason Ratio Christi chose Dr. Marks is because he is an incredibly gifted and talented individual,” Pilosi said. “He is very good at making valid references that will help the audience connect to his message. He is good at putting cookies on the bottom shelf so that everyone can reach them.”


Be the first to comment on this article! Log in to Comment

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now

Log In

Posting as Robert J. Marks II (Change)
  • Glenn Smith · Southern Evangelical Seminary
    The next speaker in this series will be Dr. Walter Bradley, who will speak at Rudder on Monday, Nov. 19, on "Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God." Dr. Bradley used to be a dean at A&M. This would be a good opportunity to hear a good presentation, and ask questions of an expert.
  • Wayne Hollyoak
    Although I was trained in biology, I think it's easier for folks outside that field to be objective about ID. Biologist seem to get hung up on adaptation as proof of darwinism and fail to grasp the magnitude of engineering that's right before them. Darwinism predicts long lineages of Ruge Goldberg-like life forms pressing the edge of extinction until natural selection can try to straighten out all the failed mutant oddities and freaks and perhaps yield a useful change. It's a statistical nightmare that's more obvious to mathematics buffs.
    • Randy Wanat · Top Commenter · Lowell, Massachusetts
      Wayne, what do you mean by "trained in biology?" What do you mean by "darwinism?" What is ID? How can people be objective about something that has no evidence, no research, and no predictive capacity? Actually, that was it. I just did it. How many mutations does the average person have in relation to their parents? What proportion of mutations are harmful? Neutral? Advantageous? Who, other than creationists, suggests that the incredibly complex systems we observe in biological organisms arose spontaneously? If you've been "trained in biology," you should recognize the flaws in everything you just said. Arguments from personal incredulity are nothing more than logical fallacies. By the way, would you consult a plumber for advice about a tumor? Why should anybody consult an engineer about biology?
      Reply · 1 · Like · November 9 at 7:57am
    • Wayne Hollyoak
      How much evidence do you want, let's see there are about 2 million or so species and each has a few hundred unique molecular machines at work in each of there millions of cells. Research? Look for yourself how cells work, did you ever study developmental biology- one of my favorite undergrad courses. ID would predict a code behind living creatures.
      Reply · Like · November 21 at 9:32am
    • Wayne Hollyoak
      Beside, Randy, engineers have a better grasp of physics than biologists. Engineers understand the process of creating functional complex things. Darwinists teach that all the information in all the genomes of every living thing was spontaneously generated via mutation. Do they not? I've never know a creationist who suggested anything living ever spontaneously arose and I've know quite a few in addition to myself. I'm standing on my logic which is reasonably sound.
      Reply · Like · November 21 at 6:32pm
  • Michael Allen · Toronto, Ontario
    Kirk Cameron cites the breath-taking banana as both beautiful and utilitarian, so I would counter by pointing to the Great White Shark: sleek, fast, and as Richard Dreyfus observed, an Eating Machine. Not only is the thing ideally "designed" to eat everything under the sea, sharks have an incredible immune system and aren't even susceptible to any type of cancer -- so successfully designed is the killing fish, that the only thing that's changed in millions of years is it's size, down from the 60' long gigantifish Megalodon, to a more modest 20 or so feet: http:// 11/ intelligent-vs-stupid-desig n.html.
  • James Beekman
    "Marks [author of this article] is a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Baylor University and a staunch advocate of intelligent design."

    Perhaps Professor Marks should consult with his fellow Professors in the BIOLOGY Department. The Biology Department "Statement on Evolution":

    "Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously." biology/index.php?id=77368

    And this acceptance on the SCIENCE of Evolution is from a private Baptist University. Part of the 'Mission Statement' for Baylor U:

    "Baylor is founded on the belief that God's nature is made known through both revealed and discovered truth. Thus, the University derives its understanding of God, humanity and nature from many sources: the person and work of Jesus Christ, the biblical record, and Christian history and tradition, as well as scholarly and artistic endeavors." about/index.php?id=88781
    • Glenn Smith · Southern Evangelical Seminary
      Perhaps one should hear his talk before one criticizes what he said.
      Reply · Like · November 10 at 9:37pm
    • James Summerton · Oregon State University
      As a general rule most would prefer to hear speakers who are speaking on subjects in their field of study. This is particularly important in the sciences because of the massive amount of information generated on a daily basis. There are entire journals dedicated to evolution, and many very prominent ones that reserve sections solely for the publishing of new evolutionary studies. People outside the field would quickly get buried by the massive amount of data. More to the point though, they often do not have the expertise to even analyze the historical data that has been generated.

      I would strongly recomend preferencing information given to you in the sciences by people that are heavily involved in the field they speak on.
      Reply · Like · November 13 at 12:28pm
    • Randy Wanat · Top Commenter · Lowell, Massachusetts
      If what he were to say had any merit, it would already be front-page news around the world. Remember when the entire field of biology was turned on its head and all biological research was irrelevant? Oh, that didn't happen? That's why we don't have to hear his talk before we criticize it. It's nothing more than a string of logical fallacies and lies. Guaranteed.
      Reply · Like · November 14 at 6:29am
  • Otto Krog · Top Commenter · Morsø Gymnasium
    I like the idea of mathematically prove the existence of God and the spirit.

    I have been a fan of Sir Roger Penrose for many years. He was the first scientist to say that consciousness should be found in the quantum field rather than in the brain. I am so much a fan, that I made my own theory out of the idea that consciousness might be explained through a better understanding of antimatter and parallel universes.

    My idea is that antimatter is the mirror of this universe, and that antimatter might be where memory is located.

    I think that the subconscious mind and consciousness are located in parallel universes in the form of antimatter. That makes the spirit and maybe even God all physical, so basically I could be said to be an atheist, even though I consider myself spiritual.

    If you would like to know more, then you can watch a full videopresentation of my theory on my blog:
    • Randy Wanat · Top Commenter · Lowell, Massachusetts
      Define "God." Define "spirit." I can mathematically prove any claim, but that doesn't make it so. I can mathematically prove that I'm the Burger King. So what? Meaningless. There's a reason theoretical physics must still surrender its claims to the scientific method. Science is about reality. If one seeks to prove the existence of something, it must first be defined, and then must be demonstrated via empirical evidence. Without that, it's nothing more than wishful thinking. So, all your "antimatter parallel universe subconscious mind" mumbo jumbo is just that: wishful thinking. Until you can demonstrate it empirically, you're just another kook jibbering nonsense into the internets. There's enough of those without you adding to the din, thanks.
      Reply · Like · November 9 at 8:01am
    • James Summerton · Oregon State University
      Memory is stored in the physical brain. It can be disrupted (and aided) by biological or physical processes. This has been exhibited in many studies both on memory in general and on Alzheimer patients.

      Consciousness is a human model of the self that is not very well defined, and thus it cannot be examined properly with either science or mathmatics. Once it is defined you could proceed forward using scientific methodology for that particular defintion, and your results would be valid only for people that accepted that particular defintion of consciousness.
      Reply · Like · November 13 at 12:23pm


Click Here to Share

Original text