Intelligent Design

Seth Shostak, at the SETI Institute, has an interesting online article criticizing ID here. His main charge is that ID has no business looking to SETI for support. Why? Because whereas ID looks for complexity in biology to detect design, SETI in fact looks for very simple signals to detect design, namely, radio signals with narrow bandwidth transmissions (not long, complex sequences of prime numbers as in Carl Sagan’s novel Contact).

But in fact, my criterion for design detection applies to the very signals that Shostak’s SETI Institute is looking for. Yes, as narrow bandwidth transmissions, the signals are simple to describe. But they are difficult for purely material processes to reproduce by chance. So we have simplicity of description combined with complexity in the sense of improbability of the outcome. That’s specified complexity and that’s my criterion for detecting design. It’s the same reason we detect design in the 1×4×9 monolith in 2001, A Space Odyssey. The structure is easily described; yet it is hard for natural processes to produce such rectangular solids by purely undirected material forces. Read More ›

. . . But the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Ronald Numbers viewed the phenomenon as a growing global issue, saying intelligent design had made significant inroads in Australia, throughout Latin America, in Korea and most surprisingly, Russian and even China, which remains a communist state. . . . MORE

KU withdraws intelligent design course Thursday, December 1, 2005 . . . “It was not my intent when I wrote the e-mails, but I understand now that these words have offended many on this campus and beyond, and for that I take full responsibility. I made a mistake in not leading by example, in this student organization e-mail forum, the importance of discussing differing viewpoints in a civil and respectful manner.” . . . MORE

Watch this 11 minute PBS interview with Dr Stephen C. Meyer explaining Intelligent Design Theory: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=545 Watch this 2 minute BBC interview with Dr. Richard Dawkins explaining Darwin’s Theory: http://www.arn.org/docs/dawkins.mpg

Don’t Fear the Designer Competing philosophies and beliefs. By Tom Bethell December 01, 2005, 8:29 a.m. Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bethell200512010829.asp

Here’s a report from a colleague on Ken Miller’s talk yesterday evening at Sacred Heart University (“Intelligent Design and the Battle for America’s Schools: Why Darwin Still Matters” — go here for the press release):

Earlier tonight I attended a presentation by Ken Miller at Sacred Heart University. It appears he got a pretty good turnout. I could only attend for about 45 min and I didn’t take any notes. Here are a few quick thoughts about the style and substance of his talk.

As far as style goes, Miller gave a good and entertaining presentation. It was very professional, slick, and colorful; he makes very effective use of various technological and visual aides; at times he was even funny. Indeed, on several occasions he had the audience cracking up. The only annoying part of his talk, in terms of style (more on substance momentarily), was his continual bragging about his credentials, how many books he has written, his qualifications, etc. I’ve never seen so many pictures and slides of the presenter! Overall I’d have to say he put on a darn good show. Read More ›

Under God or Under Darwin? Intelligent Design could be a bridge between civilizations. By Mustafa Akyol December 01, 2005, 8:17 a.m. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/akyol200512010817.asp . . . In a furious New Republic cover story, “The Case Against Intelligent Design,” Jerry Coyne joins in this hype and implies that all non-Christians, including Muslims, should be alarmed by this supposedly Christian theory of beginnings that “might offend those of other faiths.” Little does he realize that if there is any view on the origin of life that might seriously offend other faiths — including mine, Islam — it is the materialist dogma: the assumptions that God, by definition, is a superstition, and that rationality is inherently atheistic. . . .

http://www.fields.utoronto.ca/audio/05-06/public_lectures/kadanoff

[Updated links 30nov05:
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/nation/13286369.htm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Creationism_Class.html]

[From a colleague:] The University of Kansas is flexing its anti-religion muscle again, this time by announcing the introduction of a new course in the Religion department: “Creationism, Intelligent Design and Other Religious Mythologies.”

To be taught by a professor of religion, no scientists allowed. God forbid that the students would hear both sides of a controversy presented in their strongest terms by experts.

When protestations arise from those who sense a somewhat disengenuous linking of ID (or creationism) with Mythology, the Provost self-righteously says, “The course title is not meant to offend any religion or belief, KU Provost David Shulenburger said Tuesday. He explained in a written statement that “myth” and “mythology” are common in the academic study of religion.” Read More ›

Not much new here except for some observations about my time at Baylor, observations I was finally in a position to share, not being on the Baylor faculty anymore. –WmAD

William Dembski: An Intelligent Voice in the Design Debate
An interview by Glenda Mathes
(appeared in the 28sep05 vol24, no2
issue of Christian Renewal)

Dr. William A. Dembski is one of the most articulate and productive proponents of intelligent design theory. With advanced degrees in mathematics, philosophy and theology, Dembski’s intellectual arguments are making inroads within the scientific community while a more general audience finds his writing understandable.

An astute debater and prolific author, Dembski has written, co-authored and edited several books including: The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems, Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing and Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design.

Dr. Dembski is the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, and the executive director of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design.

Christian Renewal recently had the opportunity to interview him via email.

CR: Dr. Dembski, you write in The Design Revolution: “Intelligent design is not creationism and it is not naturalism. Nor is it a compromise or synthesis of these positions. It simply follows the empirical evidence of design wherever it leads. Intelligent design is a third way” (pp. 26-27). Can you briefly explain for Christian Renewal readers how intelligent design differs from creationism and naturalism and what it offers as a “third way”? Read More ›

FAVORITE QUOTE: “Edwards says conservative evangelicals are responsible for the framing of the intelligent design debate. ‘Evangelicals thrive on being embattled­—their identity is tied up into being attacked and their defending principles,’ Edwards says. ‘Being attacked by science only validates their position.'”

Let me just add that being attacked by theologians like Edwards further validates my identity and position.

INTELLECTUAL CURRENTS: Intelligent Design Finds Few Sympathizers at HDS
Published On Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:16 AM
By SARAH E. F. MILOV
Crimson Staff Writer

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510153

When Harvard was founded in 1636, the University was charged with educating ministers in creationism and other central tenets of Christianity.

Three hundred and sixty-nine years later, in the midst of a national debate about God’s place in the classroom, even the University’s divinity faculty—the heirs to that theological mission—reject the latest argument for God’s role in creation: “intelligent design.” Read More ›

In September, Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show devoted several programs to the topic of evolution (“Evolution, Schmevolution — Who’s Right, Who’s Full of It”). What’s more, I appeared on one of those programs (go here and here). In those programs, Stewart & Co. had some lines that were not only funny but also memorable. The one that sticks out poked fun at ID: “We’re not saying that the designer is God, just someone with the same skill-set.” That line is now being reused on the debate circuit, with Eugenie Scott, for instance, deploying it this November at a debate at Boston University (go here). Although the line is funny, it is not accurate. God’s skill-set includes not just ordering matter Read More ›

Critics of ID often charge that unless we have explicit knowledge of the designer, we cannot infer design. Thomas Reid, in critiquing David Hume, showed that this charge is unfounded. To see this, go here.

Benjamin Franklin realized that software is eternal two centuries before Alan Turing came to that realization. As a young man in 1728, Franklin composed his own mock epitaph, which read: The Body of B. Franklin Printer; Like the Cover of an old Book, Its Contents torn out, And stript of its Lettering and Gilding, Lies here, Food for Worms. But the Work shall not be wholly lost: For it will, as he believ’d, appear once more, In a new & more perfect Edition, Corrected and Amended By the Author. He was born on January 6, 1706. Died 17__

The transcripts for the American Enterprise Institute’s October 21, 2005 shindig on ID (“Science Wars: Should Schools Teach Intelligent Design?”) are now available here: http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1169/transcript.asp.