ID at Baylor

_{William Dembski
December 18, 2005

Education

2}_{Categories
Education}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

Jared, You wrote: "Dembski points out that when an intelligence acts, it does so by ruling out possibilities." Could you reference this for me? I thought Dembski: said when we detect intelligence we do so by ruling out possibilities. Thanks.pmob1_{December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

[...] Dembski of course is ever the spin master. Citing O’Brien’s words in this article, he claimed today on his blog: [...] [Follow this link if you want the spin from the other side. --WmAD]Ocellated » Christian Schools and their Students Deal with Teaching Evolution_{December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

.. over and over again. Merely labelling a generalization "inductive" doesn't justify it.taciturnus_{December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

"that intelligences use specifications in generating CSI is an inductive generalization. " Ok, you wore me down... I'm tired of asking how you justify this generalization other than repeating it...taciturnus_{December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

... Kind of like how postulating unlimited probabilistic resources is done solely to short circuit design. Protecting a theory or hypothesis or religion from falsification in principle is not very satisfying.jaredl_{December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Ah. Mr. T, you have taken two unrelated statements of mine and conflated them. That awareness requires something to be aware of is an axiom; that intelligences use specifications in generating CSI is an inductive generalization. And, additionally, the logical problems with the conception of God as offered by orthodox Christianity, are well known. ID exacerbates some of them. And of course induction doesn't work when one is postulating beings with properties for which there is no evidence whatsoever. It is precisely to short-circuit induction that one postulates such beings.jaredl_{December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Jared, You are going way too fast for me... you made this statement: "Such a being, being alone, cannot become aware because there is nothing for it to become aware of, there being nothing which is not God." And justified it with this inductive argument: "Additionallyl, in our experience, intelligences have used specifications to produce innovations. It follows inductively that all intelligences use specifications when generating CSI." My point was that this inductive argument does not work because it goes beyond our experience to make a universal claim about what all intelligence must be like. I cited Kant to this effect. Your response is to repeat your assertion that the "problem of awareness" is a logical contradiction, and add that it is "well-known." Is there a justification for your inductive claim other than it being well-known? Cheers, Dave T.taciturnus_{December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

You misunderstand, Mr. T. That there are logical contradictions in orthodox Christianity's conception of God is well known. The problem of evil, the problem of awareness (outlined above), and the problem that ID poses creation ex nihilo (outlined above) are logical problems, not evidentiary. And, if you follow Hume to destroy my argument, then you must also deny any knowledge beyond direct experience. Curiously, if you postulate intelligence as a "first cause," you necessarily exceed any empirical warrant, for such a cause is unknown. The evidentiary problem did not arise for the primitive Christian. The primitive Christian did not believe in creation ex nihilo (solving also the problem of awareness), and had a ready solution to the problem of evil. They also had an embodied God, and relied on direct experience for knowledge of things theological.jaredl_{December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

Nonetheless, he [Randall O'Brien] said, faculty are aware that Ã¢â‚¬Å“sometimes the word evolution is very offensive to people who come from home-schooled situations.Ã¢â‚¬Â This is VERY interesting! O'Brien is aware of the concerns of Home Schoolers and well he should be. Home schoolers are a growing population of potential students who have home schooled primarily because of the exclusive, heavy-handed dominance anti-theism in public schools. These students have proven to be no academic slouches and they are looking for universities. My opinion is the public universities may get a few of these students, but most will look for rigorous private schools, espeically schools like Baylor that have a heritage of faith. HOWEVER, Baylor is blasting itself in the foot; Baylor is going to lose out if it caves to "acceptability" which in reality, IT HAS ALREADY DONE!!! Many of the best and brightest will look elsewhere. (Why pay extra at a private school that's really no different than a public school?) Since ID is science, what is likely to happen as some of the best and brightest go to universities that take ID science seriously? Rigorouse education coupled with "intelligent" research followed by discovery followed by breakthroughs followed by accolades followed by funding. Baylor and a host of other schools who once had the future on their doorstep will find themselves--again--distant also-rans in the race to conquor nature.Red Reader_{December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

Jared, You jumped from "no evidentiary basis on which to postulate such a being" to "logical contradictions contained in first principles." One has nothing to do with the other. Even if Christians have no evidentiary basis on which to postulate God, it doesn't follow that their notion of God is logically contradictory. I have no evidence to postulate unicorns, but were I to start a religion of unicorns, my religion would be unsupported by evidence but not logically contradictory. You are quite right that the nature of God is not something that can be disconfirmed by evidence... this is nothing new, but has always been the position of orthodox theologians. God cannot be found (or disproved) in a laboratory experiment. "Additionallyl, in our experience, intelligences have used specifications to produce innovations. It follows inductively that all intelligences use specifications when generating CSI." Not if you listen to Hume or Kant. Our statements derived from experience go as far as experience. Our experience is with human intelligence, therefore our statements about what intelligence must be like are limited to human intelligence. What other intelligences might be like we just don't know. Cheers, Dave Ttaciturnus_{December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Mr. T - it does follow that we have no evidentiary basis upon which to postulate such a being. There is neither scriptural nor logical necessity, and it does seem, with what evidentiary base that we have, that that which is itself alone cannot be aware. Additionallyl, in our experience, intelligences have used specifications to produce innovations. It follows inductively that all intelligences use specifications when generating CSI. But this inductive chain meets its death in the God of orthodox Christianity, for there existed absolutely no specifications for this being. It originated CSI for free, from nothing. Is orthodox Christianity then immune to disconfirmation by evidence, and by the logical contradictions contained in its first principles?jaredl_{December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Jared, With respect to your comments about creation ex nihilo: "Such a being, being alone, cannot become aware because there is nothing for it to become aware of, there being nothing which is not God." Kant makes this point in the Critique of Pure Reason: Human consciousness may be such that it is not directly aware of itself and knows itself only indirectly as the ground of objective awareness, but that is a limitation of human consciousness. It doesn't follow that every consciousness must be so limited, and there may exist a consciousness that is directly aware of itself. God may very well be such a self-aware being and, in fact, the God of classical theology (I'm speaking of Aquinas here) is supposed to know itself through itself and not through others. The point of comparison God uses in creation is Himself: He who is the fullness of existence. Every created being necessarily exists in a limited way with respect to God, and the "ruling out possibilities" involved in creation is deciding what existential limitations any particular creature will have. Cheers, Dave T.taciturnus_{December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

I don't have time to develop this fully, and there's no discussion board here (hint hint), so this looks as likely a place as any to post this comment. Imagine an intelligence, call it God, uninstantiated by matter, being the sole existing thing. There can be no temporal sequencing of events, there being no time. There can be no reason to prefer one pattern of matter over another, since there exists no basis for comparison, neither matter to form patterns from. Such a being, being alone, cannot become aware because there is nothing for it to become aware of, there being nothing which is not God. It appears to me that the doctrine of creation ex nihilo makes the transcendent God of orthodox Christianity a self-contradictory being. How does this relate to ID? Dembski points out that when an intelligence acts, it does so by ruling out possibilities. Accepting at face value Dembski's theology, which is orthodox Christianity, with its attendant doctrine of creation ex nihilo, we ask ourselves, what would a pre-creative God have to base a pattern off of? From whence would such a being get its specifications from? Why should a universe created by a being with no point of comparison make sense? Why shouldn't we expect a universe that makes no sense, such universes being much more highly likely than ones that do make sense? 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? Is it not more likely that intelligence cannot be reduced to matter, and that matter cannot be reduced to intelligence, and that neither can come from absolute nothing, there being absolutely no evidentiary basis upon which to claim such a thing? Perhaps Baylor should have investigated the ontological and epistemic implications of ID for the orthodox faith rather than concentrating on the public relation implications of displeasing the materialist establishment. Perhaps also Dr. Dembski can show how his theology is implicated by ID.jaredl_{December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Darwinism again reveals itself as a "cultural camp," not a science. This is even more true in secondary education, where Darwinism is taught for the same reasons as other (wildly proliferating) "cultural agenda" courses. This is Darwinism's natural course. It was initially accepted in the latter 19th Century, not as empirical science but as a culture wave. Similarly, Darwinism will not be rejected by empirical disproof. There is, after all, no way to disprove any of Darwinism's "long, gradual sequences" since not one has ever been presented for peer review. Darwinism will be rejected for cultural reasons. Although I personally think it more interesting, scientifically valid and morally edifying than Darwinism, Design will probably also be accepted for cultural reasons.pmob1_{December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

I think it's obvious to even the casual observer that image trumps truth at Baylor. Even that wouldn't be so bad if they could make up their minds about the image they want.DaveScot_{December 19, 2005
December
12
Dec
19
19
2005
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

I thought the end of the article was interesting [quote]Meanwhile, Colling at Olivet Nazarene is determined to find a way to bridge the gap between science and faith. "When they recognize ID is a sinking ship, they'll want an option that keeps God in the picture," he said. He believes he may have that option in "random design," a concept he developed that gives science the freedom to pursue truth wherever it leads and people of faith the ability to see God in the very randomness of evolution. "Random design is not directionless design. Random design is equal opportunity. It speaks of a God who is so big that he can even harness the law of randomness to create," said Colling, who laid out his case for the concept in his 2004 book "Random Designer." "It makes a very clear statement to the student that religion and science can be fully compatible," he said. "We know it can happen because it's happening. You can be a Christian and fully embrace science."[/quote] His book is called "Random Designer", and I can't help (through word association) but to think of Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker". Now I haven't read his book, but Colling uses phrases very much like Dawkins as well: "harness the law of randomness to create" . . . that sort of thing. It makes me wonder who is right, Dawkins or Colling. Can't a universe without God also "harness the law of randomness to create"? What differentiates the God of Colling from the non-god of Dawkins? Just wondering. Though I admit it's not particularly fair to judge a book simply by its title.jazzraptor_{December 18, 2005
December
12
Dec
18
18
2005
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2