Design: All The Way Down

_{Gil Dodgen

September 30, 2007

Intelligent Design, Science}

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

It’s not turtles all the way down; it’s design all the way down: from the constants of physics, to the production of life-permitting chemical elements in supernovae that are coincidentally unstable and spew out these elements to produce rocky planets on which life can exist, to the characteristics of carbon formed in a very narrow window of opportunity in stars, to the characteristics of water and light, to the fact that metals can be refined and smelted in temperatures reachable in carbon-based fire which made technology possible, to the electrical properties of conductors and semiconductors that made electronics and computers possible, to the fact that habitable planets represent the best platforms for cosmological discovery, to the fact that living things contain the most remarkable computer program ever written, the profundities of which we have not even begun to understand.

I presume that the picture at this point should be obvious. Design screams from every corner of modern scientific discovery. The real question is, Why do so many (especially academic intellectuals) work so hard to deny the obvious?

I have an answer to that question, and it should be obvious as well.

Comments

Religious Prof" I well remember a vist to your website a few months ago, a time when you were singing the praises of Barbara Forrest and encouraging everyone to sign on to her perverse perspectives on ID. It was clear that her fantasty about this so-called religion-based methodology was also your fantasy. It is ironic, then, that you would claim that UD bloggers don't understand evolution, which they clearly do, while you claim to understand ID, which you clearly don't. Given this bizarre situation, I dare you to do two things: 1) Explain Dembski's explanatory filter in your own words--no googling. 2) Justify your fantasy that it a religion-based methodology. Obviously, that justification may not include your perception of the author's motives or any other attempt at psychoanalysis. Oh yes, and be concise.StephenB_{October 2, 2007
October
10
Oct
2
02
2007
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

Religion Professor, I just saw this quote by Richard Dawkins over at PZ's site that I thought you may be interested in. We who doubt that "theology" is a subject at all, or who compare it with the study of leprechauns, are eagerly hoping to be proved wrong. Of course, university departments of theology house many excellent scholars of history, linguistics, literature, ecclesiastical art and music, archaeology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, iconology, and other worthwhile and important subjects. These academics would be welcomed into appropriate departments elsewhere in the university. But as for theology itself, defined as "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God", a positive case now needs to be made that it has any real content at all, and that it has any place in today's universities. Now it is getting personal Professor ,,He's after your job too!!!bornagain77_{October 2, 2007
October
10
Oct
2
02
2007
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

I tend to post things on my blog because I just tried to post here and it didn’t go through and now I’ll have to type it all out again - if it lets me!
If a comment does not immediately go through it was likely caught by the spam filter and you will need to wait until a moderator comes online. This happens quite often. For some odd reason the filter seems to love kairosfocus, for example. It'll even catch my own comments sometimes. Whether there is a loss of comments I'm not sure. I have noticed there appears to be a corruption of the database. An example pulled from an old comment good thing it isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t expected because it ainÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t gonna Darwinian processes do not seem to like us much, for they are all deleterious.Patrick_{October 2, 2007
October
10
Oct
2
02
2007
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

“I’m dismayed by some of the examples of poor understanding of evolution” ReligionProf should back up this claim. It is one thing to say something vague and meaningless like the quote above and another to point out the deficiencies of our comments so we can clarify them or learn from the debate. Otherwise the above quote is nothing more than an ad hominem attack and unworthy of anyone who teaches religion.jerry_{October 2, 2007
October
10
Oct
2
02
2007
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

I tend to post things on my blog because I just tried to post here and it didn't go through and now I'll have to type it all out again - if it lets me! :)ReligionProf_{October 2, 2007
October
10
Oct
2
02
2007
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

“I’m dismayed by some of the examples of poor understanding of evolution” I’m beginning to think most ID critics are either broken records or parrots.shaner74_{October 2, 2007
October
10
Oct
2
02
2007
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

I forgot the other part of your comment "Dawkins says that people believe in God because they don’t have the courage think of themselves as not being a product of purpose" But stating you belong to a historical lineage in which there is a tournament for survival is a purpose. I could argue that Dawkins is doing the exact same thing by denying there is agod he can avoid an afterlife with consequences and act carelessly. His actions are simply what his genes lead him to do. By fabricating a purpose he like a religious person can avoid unpleasent truths, That's because he is religious! Again this man is a walking talking contradiction.Stone_{October 2, 2007
October
10
Oct
2
02
2007
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT}

"It’s liberating to think of being in a world without a design and designer. Ultimately, you are responsible for nothing and there is nothing to hold you back. There can be no guilt or shame." You can have the with a designer as well. If I believe in a God who pre-planned/designed everything even if you were to argue that I have "free will" I could state that there is no freedom so long as I am limited to a certain number of choices. Freedom is absolute, it's more like "loose will" Because of my belief that his will was what gave rise to my existence I could then state then anything and everything I do is his will. And "I" being only a small part in this creation, this ongoing play (full of ironies, tragedies) of his. I am simply following the path he has set for me. I am therefor not responsible for any of my actions as they are not my own and would happen regardless. Religion is not a leash it is an escape. And honestly Richard Dawkins should do the world a favor and stay FAR FAR away from theology. He is to theology what Rev. Pat Robertson is to diplomacy. (refference to his calling for the head of hugo chavez.)Stone_{October 2, 2007
October
10
Oct
2
02
2007
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT}

Well, ReligionProf is at it again. I am sorry he is dismayed by our poor understanding of evolution. For my part, I am really dismayed by his poor (and very creative) understanding of evolution, ID, and probably a bundle of other things. As he has never answered a single word to any of my many posts about his messages, I won't go on commenting them. But anyone who really wants to get a feeling of his true thoughts is strongly encouraged to read something from his personal blog, which you can find, in all its glory, at the link shamelessly given by the author himself in his last post. Believe me, it's something of an experience!gpuccio_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT}

I'm dismayed by some of the examples of poor understanding of evolution The evolution of what and how? Without these specifics, the phrase "understanding of evolution" is completely meaningless. Couldn't someone argue that if, as the Bible says, we were made from dust, then that gives us the right to act like dust? Of course not. "Made" implies designed with a purpose -- the antithesis of Darwinism, which implies not designed and with no purpose.GilDodgen_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT}

I'm in agreement with one major point made in (26): when some scientist claims that "science implies atheism and metaphysical materialism," I don't see why such arguments are even taken to be convincing. (Here, I'll even add the important stipulation: not even when 'science' is read as 'neo-Darwinian accounts of the history of life'.) The situation here parallels the association between "Darwinism" and Nazism; no doubt th Nazis claimed that "Darwinism" was an influence, but were they right? Dawkins claims that neo-Darwinism entails materialism/atheism, but is the argument actually any good? I fear that most people here are willing to accept these claims without examining the reasoning behind them. Or is that not so?Carl Sachs_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT}

All the way down to chemistry: http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/09/group-of-intellectuals-negating-godless.html I'm dismayed by some of the examples of poor understanding of evolution in some of the comments left here, as well as some of the logical fallacies. Couldn't someone argue that if, as the Bible says, we were made from dust, then that gives us the right to act like dust? And just because extremists on the other end of the spectrum say that science implies atheism and metaphysical materialism, why take such claims at face value, when so many scientists (a significant number of whom are religious believers) see no such necessary logical implication in the work of the sciences? As one of these much disparaged academic intellectuals, I honestly feel as though it is ID rather than mainstream science that is "working hard to deny the obvious".ReligionProf_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

"Why do so many (especially academic intellectuals) work so hard to deny the obvious?" Because they’re sheltered from the real world. They begin to believe they’re superior to us “common folk” and this leads to their very own god-complexes, which of course leads to denying any evidence that may point to an actual God. Of course, I’m generalizing. This doesn’t apply to all academic intellectuals (like duh). It’s just that you usually don’t hear football coaches talking about the materialist victory over religious belief, but you may hear a football coach giving advice that could change someones life for the better – something I doubt Dawkins and his ilk does much of.shaner74_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

I intended to add the following...
"Consider a second actor, the abyss-redeemer. Abyss-artists and -redeemers have a symbiotic relationship. In the language of pop psychology, redeemers are “enablers,” people who provide material or emotional support for other people’s vices, yet often keep themselves aloof from such behaviors." and... "Classic abyss-redeemers know the serious risks involved, so different from many latter-day liberals and civil libertarians, so certain of their theodicy that “the marketplace of ideas” will somehow take care of itself. Paul swoops into brief moments of heresy—Is God a liar? Should we sin so that grace may abound?— only to reemerge on the other end with a shudder at the thought he has just entertained. Let it not be, he exhorts."
I'm not sure I share your optimism Gil, though you're correct of where the evidence leads and even the trends in science publishing. The key is as the internet grows. There have already been attempts to regulate it. Certainly and unfortunately modern day governments and even those who say, "do no evil" like Google in China, do exactly the opposite by censoring their own search engine.Michaels7_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

But what caused the worldview and is that cause still operative today helping to sustain it. I believe it's a legacy of the 19th and early 20th centuries, when it was thought that materialist science would eventually be capable of explaining everything in purely materialistic terms. There was probably also a factor that involved rebellion against traditional religion, for various reasons. Otherwise the worldview would slowly wither away like all false worldviews. I believe that it eventually will wither away, like belief in alchemy and perpetual-motion machines did, once it was realized that fundamental laws are at work that will not permit what is hoped for. There is good reason to believe that this withering will take place. When a scientific theory is sound (like general relativity, for example), new discoveries will progressively confirm it, rather than present more and more problems. In the case of Darwinian mechanisms, new discoveries have not progressively confirmed their creative power, but have presented more and more problems. Cries of "overwhelming evidence" will not work forever in the face of mounting evidence that underlying Darwinian assumptions are wrong, and that there are fundamental laws at work that will not permit Darwinian mechanisms to accomplish that for which they have been given credit. On the other side of the coin, evidence continues to mount for design, on a cosmological scale, a microscopic scale, and everywhere in between. So, keep an eye on the trends to see whether or not a theory or worldview is likely to persist. Remember when it was thought (notably by Carl Sagan) that our galaxy must be teeming with life because you only had to get a few things right to produce a habitable planet? What has the trend been? Has the trend been toward new discoveries confirming this assumption or disconfirming it?GilDodgen_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

Gil, and maybe this relates to Jerry's question, besides just a fallen world. A worldview of evolution is connected to a social and cultural worldview. It cannot be disentangled. As is all information, the rejection of God causes information to cease in the eyes of those who reject him. They become blind. He essentially releases them to go their own way into oblivion. Admitting their worldview is wrong is disconcerting because to play the rebel is easier. To surrender ones will to a Creator is to depose the small god inside us all who says we know what is best for us (see George Soros; “I have always harbored an exaggerated view of my self-importance – to put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god.”) link... http://books.google.com/books?id=qxkiYul2wgoC&pg=RA2-PA372&lpg=RA2-PA372&dq=%22i+have+always+harbored+an+exaggerated+view+of+my+self+importance+to+put+it+bluntly+i+fancied+myself+as+some+kind+of+god%22&source=web&ots=0onM3EAqX1&sig=as-7CqQ3egLPfcpcm5_5Hte99Rg#PRA2-PA372,M1 scroll down page 372. The materialist, atheist, never truly wants to grow up, or they think as a result of their education "today" that they have all the answers the unwashed masses do not. Their desire is to be their own gods, and promote their own worldview so as to live any life they like, to hell with all the rest. Politics is their salvation. Science is their salvation. And any more numerous pathways. But the zealots are there on the left in evolution, scientism, or whatever populist cause of the day. This is why our nation is hamstrung by a miniscule minority over sexual pleasure. Their wish is to be legitimized. The only way they can do so is to put down a Creator that disowns their lust. Tolerance is only a word for those who agree with them. There is no such idea of tolerance for Christ, only scoffing and mocking. "Dumb" people believe in a Creator. But it travels far deeper as one rejects God and refuses to grow up. There is a good excerpt from Courting the Abyss; Free Speech and the Liberal Tradition by John Durham Peters. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/662748.html
"…rather seek Our own good from our selves, and from our own Live to our selves, though in this vast recess, Free, and to none accountable, preferring Hard liberty before the easie yoke Of servile pomp."(Paradise Lost, 2.253–57)
It shows the different thinking between liberals and conservatives, atheist and theist in large part. One believes they must get down in the gutter to experience all of life. This liberal worldview is expressed thru the air of talking media, movie, tv, radio. Much like a scene from one of James Dean's movies where he convinces a "friend" to try out "homosexual" behavior, yet never does himself. So too, our media today says "try it" you may like it and even if you do not, at least you experienced it and know better afterwards. But this is a lie and sends many people into a downward spiral of hell on earth. The liberal process does not inspect closely its own tennants to see the destruction left behind. The truth is one not need try everything under the sun, to know the difference between good and evil or what can mess up your life. A man or woman does not need to try out everyone first before getting married. Nor does one need to teach our kids today that "how can you know homosexuality is bad for you if you have not tried it." But it is being spread. And there exactly is the harm. Having a Creator who knows best what road not to walk down, elminates the liberal subversion. It eliminates this need to explore every dark corner of which some are so proud to do. Essentially, their worldview is chaos. Try everything once in random fashion, much like how we "were created" by evolution. The destructive behavior "try anything once, twice if you like it" is built into the very fabric of those who detest a Creator. Thus the need for random creation and random decisions in life. Evolution means not only did we come from a monkey, but we can act like them too. And we can make studies showing that it is precisely because of our chimp ancestors that we act so accordingly to random nature. If we're here as a random accident, then our choics in life are meaningless and damn those who think otherwise. The professors won't admit this, but they do so enjoy seeing the chaos at times that their teachings invoke. Sorry for the length, no time to cut it down. Thanks for opportunity to state the obvious.Michaels7_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

Gil, But what caused the worldview and is that cause still operative today helping to sustain it. Otherwise the worldview would slowly wither away like all false worldviews.jerry_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Berceuse pretty much has it: Because they don’t like the implications of "the obvious"? StuartHarris makes a good point: It’s liberating to think of being in a world without a design and designer. Ultimately, you are responsible for nothing and there is nothing to hold you back. As does shaner74: ...I think for many of them, their thought process has been infected by Darwinian logic -- that is, the persistent denial of reality. I don’t think many of them are even capable of objectively viewing the world any longer. In my opinion the bottom line is this: They don’t want the universe or life to be the product of design and purpose, because this would mean admitting that their essential worldview is wrong. Abandoning a lifelong commitment to an entire worldview is a very difficult and disconcerting thing to do, especially in the face of extreme peer pressure.GilDodgen_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

A poem for ID Once upon a time on this earth, in a land far, far away, A lone grain of wheat, amidst the grains of sand silently lay, Then came the thunderstorms, watering the parched land Soon afterwards a sprout from that grain of wheat was at hand. Not one plant grew from any single grain of sand Though multitudes amidst the soil would stand. The lone grain of wheat grew to yield many more grains, The multitudes of sand remained still in their numerous strains. And so it is with Truth surrounded in a world of lies The lone living Truth amidst falsehood multiplies.bornagain77_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Why do so many (especially academic intellectuals) work so hard to deny the obvious? I have an answer to that question, and it should be obvious as well. You have got my attention!!! For I am totally stumped that so many supposedly rational people could deny the obvious!! Please do tell!!bornagain77_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

It's liberating to think of being in a world without a design and designer. Ultimately, you are responsible for nothing and there is nothing to hold you back. There can be no guilt or shame. Dawkins says that people believe in God because they don't have the courage think of themselves as not being a product of purpose and that there is no prospect of an afterlife. Perhaps the Dawkinses of the world are materialists because they don't have the courage to think of themselves as having responsibilities and purpose in their life. This would limit their freedoms.StuartHarris_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

lotf, Carl Sachs: anyone who is not familiar with the problems of design inference should try to read with attention Dembski's works. Just to give an input, I try here an extreme summary of the main ideas: Design inference is the best explanation for information (CSI, complex specified information) with the following characteristics: a) the particular information observed has a very low probability of occurring spontaneously in a random way. In other words, the observed information must be one specific configuration (or set of configurations) in a very large space of configurations. Dembski defines the limit for CSI at 1:10^150, just to be sure, but he is probably very, very generous... b) the observed information is specified. The concept of specification is more subtle, and certainly subject to further analysis. A very simple summary could be that an information pattern is specified if it can be "recognized" in some precise ways: 1) Prespecification (the pattern has been defined before its occurence); 2) Compressibility (the information can be expressed in a much lower number of bits); 3) Function (the information can effect some specific function) c) There must be no known law or other circumstance which can explain the observed information as the result of non random processes.gpuccio_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

DaveScot, Fair enough, I suppose. But then again, neither are physical constants or the laws of nucleosynthesis. Part of my point in my glib posting above was that there's some ambiguity in what is supposed to be taken as designed. Is it just the basics of molecular biology, as (14) suggests? Or is it the entire universe? Or . . . well, what, exactly? The "faces in the clouds" was there just to say that not everything which seems designed really is. And that's a good reason for thinking that we need something like Dembski's explanatory filter. But then GilDodgen cannot be right to suggest, as I thought he was, that everything which screams out to us as design really is, and that only some conspiracy on the part of materialists prevents the public acknowledgment of this obvious fact.Carl Sachs_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Carl Sachs Faces in clouds are not machines with intricate interdependent parts and abstract codes working together to accomplish complex tasks. Neither are neoliths. Try again.DaveScot_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

@Patrick Forgive me ignorance as I'm new here can you point me to an example of the explantory filter being used? This is the sort of thing I was meaning when I said we need to get the information out there and for free.lotf_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

@shaner74 Yes I am quite new to all this but I would think that most scientists would love to overturn the current paradigm, isn't that what made Darwin famous in the first place?lotf_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

The problem with talk about design is that there are some things that clearly strike us designed, when we know that they are not — faces in clouds, for example. Or eoliths.
While, yes, there is a problem with informal design detection that is why Bill spent the time developing a foundation for formalized methods with the explanatory filter.Patrick_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

The have too much to loose! In the it's all about POPI, the persuite of personal interest.vpr_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

"ID has to start publishing results in tomes other than books, let’s get the message out and available for free." lotf, maybe you haven't been following the ID vs. blind faith in materialism controversy, but scientists who don't enjoy being persecuted by wounded atheists aren't exactly rushing to oppose saint darwin in the public arena. "I have an answer to that question, and it should be obvious as well." I used to think it was because they didn't want a God telling them what to do, but I think for many of them, their thought process has been infected by Darwinian logic - that is, the persistent denial of reality. I don't think many of them are even capable of objectively viewing the world any longer.shaner74_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

ID has to start publishing results in tomes other than books, let's get the message out and available for free. Could there be a section here for pieces of scientific work in support of ID?lotf_{October 1, 2007
October
10
Oct
1
01
2007
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply