The Unsolved Murder

_{March 11, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

In a private forum a question was recently posed:

At what point the police should stop investigating an unsolved murder and close the case, declaring that God must have simply wanted the victim dead? It is the same point at which it is appropriate to tell scientists to stop looking for explanations and simply conclude “God did it”.

My reply

Dear XXXX,

Well, in practice they stop investigating when the evidence goes cold (the trail of evidence stops in an inconclusive state).

In the investigation into the origin and diversification of life the trail of evidence hasn’t gone cold. The trail begins with ancient scientist/philosophers looking at macroscopic features of life like the camera eye and saying it looks like it was designed. Opposing this was the assertion that the appearance of design is an illusion. Bringing us up to the current day the illusion of design hasn’t gone away. No matter how much further detail (evidence) we get the illusion of design persists. At the molecular level the illusion of design is even stronger than at the macroscopic level. Darwin’s simple blobs of protoplasm was emphatically wrong. What we see in the finest level of detail is even more complex machinery than a camera eye, increasingly more difficult to explain as an accident of law and chance.

A more salient question about murder investigations is when do the police, when they have a dead body with a knife in its back, throw up their hands and declare it an accident? The answer is they don’t. Unlike evolutionists, when police are confronted with an “illusion of design” that doesn’t go away in light of all the available evidence they continue calling it a murder (death by design) with an appended qualifier – unsolved murder. Too bad evolutionists aren’t more like police investigators and less like story tellers with delusions of grandeur.

Comments?

Addendum 3/13/08: Assistant Professor of Religion James McGrath feels that criticisms of my response are being censored. To put that mistaken notion to rest here is a link to his response and an invitation to participate directly here if he so desires so long as he follows our rules of decorum found on the side panel under moderation rules.

Comments

StephenB says, "One of the reasons there are so many who need help is because the culture has wounded them." Good God, Stephen! Culture doesn't sin, people do. It's people who need fixing, not culture. Fix the people and the culture will take care of itself. Try to fix the culture, without fixing the people, and you'll soon be right back where you started -- or worse, Luke 11:24-26.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

-----Gerry: "Alleviation of symptoms or full cure. Your choice. Either way the clinics eventually close and the bad court decisions become null and void. The difference is that with Plan A, all of the time and energy and money that is spent on the issue goes to benefit real people who need real help." The choice is not between alleviating symptoms or achieving a full cure. The choice is between fighting the disease or dying an early death. One of the reasons there are so many who need help is because the culture has wounded them. You want to manage the "effects" of a dying culture; I want to confront its "causes."StephenB_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

tribune7 - Alleviation of symptoms or full cure. Your choice. Either way the clinics eventually close and the bad court decisions become null and void. The difference is that with Plan A, all of the time and energy and money that is spent on the issue goes to benefit real people who need real help.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

Gerry--A. Take an individual girl who is thinking about getting an abortion under my wing and prevent that catastrophe by bringing her to term and providing, if necessary, for both her and her child until he reaches maturity; or B. Attempt, by political activism, to close abortion clinics and to overturn the court decision that made abortion legal in the U.S.,I pick Plan A. And if I’ve got any spare time, I’ll execute Plan A again, not B. That's a rather common cop-out and a judgemental one at that. You imply that the political activism by pro-lifers -- who have been spit on, mocked, publicly vilified by authoritative institutions, jailed, and spent millions of their not very deep pockets fighting frivolous and unjust lawsuits have nothing to do with real drop in abortions that have occurred in this country since the early '90s. Further you seem to believe that there is not a very real pro-abortion -- not "pro choice" -- element that is driving a lot of these laws and court decisions. They encourage laws and rulings giving minor females access to abortion without parental notification, much less consent, knowing full well that the benefits of such jurisprudence will be adult males. You seem to discount the idea that the hundreds of millions of tax dollars that go to abortionist matter in someway. I would say that those things matter a lot and that we all have an obligation to fight them on whatever front we can including the legal one.tribune7_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

StephenB: "The term ideological prejudice is a loaded term. Obviously, no one should allow prejudice to enter the domain of science." I wish it were obvious. If that were so, we wouldn't need to be having this discussion. It is not obvious because people tend to not see their own blind spots. I consider the term "ideological prejudice" to be an accurate description of what currently ails science (though the modern version is not the only form it has taken). I refer to any point at which scientists feel they don't need to objectively consider the evidence itself (especially not negative evidence against the ideology) because they already "know" what the right answer has to be on based upon ideological presumptions. Good Friday is approaching. Consider a person on trial who has done nothing wrong. Suppose that the witnesses for the prosecution cannot agree and they cannot build a prima facia case against the man, but the prosecutors "know" that he is obviously in the wrong. Eventually there comes some form of the declaration "What more need do we have for evidence? He has uttered blasphemy. You've heard it for yourself." Regardless of what ideology is involved, when we allow an allegiance to that ideology to enter into the evaluation as a premise, we end up with double standards and faulty scales. The wrong of favoritism or prejudice is like a false balance. I'm disappointed that Allen_MacNeill has so far not responded to my questions about treating the origin of life issue as though no supporting evidence means no evidence at all (a conclusion one might reach if they could "know" that it happened by undirected processes). Allen is knowledgeable and has high standards, but is also human and may have unquestioned blind spots. How could I call upon him for consistency with those high standards and for not treating the OOL hypothesis with favoritism and protection from the demands of evidence, if we allow some other ideology a favored position? It does not matter whether it is a Young Earth Creationist who goes easy on claims that reach their desired conclusion that the earth is young, or a materialist who goes easy on claims that undirected material processes can create life (despite all empirical evidence about actual chemical behavior to the contrary). All such double standards are false balances. "A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is his delight." Proverbs 11:1ericB_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

Some may be thinking, "What on earth does all this have to do with intelligent design?" Everything. It goes right to the heart of the matter. The Intelligent Design movement -- founded and funded primarily by Christians -- has taken the unfortunate and futile position, from the start, that reform of existing institutions is a viable alternative. I argue that it is not. I argue that we're wasting our time (1) trying to get the blind to see rainbows, (2) attempting reform of a school system that is not only dysfunctional beyond repair but rotten to its core, (3) worrying about the "approval of men" in the form of secular degrees and the dubious honor of being published in their unnecessarily esoteric journals, and, in many cases, (4) not being willing to put our jobs and our careers on the line for the sake of Truth (Dr. Dembski himself a laudable exception). It's time to us to "turn away from such" and concentrate on tangible and positive contributions that bring glory to God and good to our fellows. It's time to let the dead bury the dead.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus - Let me keep this short. Given the alternatives: A. Take an individual girl who is thinking about getting an abortion under my wing and prevent that catastrophe by bringing her to term and providing, if necessary, for both her and her child until he reaches maturity; or B. Attempt, by political activism, to close abortion clinics and to overturn the court decision that made abortion legal in the U.S., I pick Plan A. And if I've got any spare time, I'll execute Plan A again, not B. And all the while I'll be encouraging others, as I am at this very moment, to do the same. We've got no time for Plan B -- there's real good to be done, right now, Romans 12:21. And if enough Christians do their "love your neighbor as yourself" duty in accord with Plan A, the clinics will close for lack of customers, and said court decision won't have to be rescinded: it will be moot -- overturned, as it were, on case at a time.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Apollos says, "What potential exists for a seed with the shell removed? What potential exists for the dry seed? Here’s a hint: both answers are different." No, they're essentially the same -- the problem is that you're comparing "seed without shell and without the hope of getting one" with "seed without water but with the hope of getting some." Here's the "meaningless letter version: a + b + c -> d where a=seed, b=shell, c=water, d=tree. It's all or nothing and therefore irreducibly complex. And it's easy to describe and highly unlikely to happen by chance, and therefore an example of specified complexity. It's a system that has been designed.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

Real SETI researchers aren't even looking for prime number sequences like in Contact. They simply scan regions of the electromagnetic spectrum in search of signals that would be difficult to attribute to natural phenomena (no known Laws). Essentially, they're limiting themselves to Node 1 of the EF. But if a signal is found it's possible the full EF may be applicable. Also, I'd agree that false negatives are a problem. The major methods of ID are limited in usability for general purposes due to the propensity to produce false negatives. So why can’t there be an extension to ID theory that is acknowledged as not being 100% accurate but is more practical? After all, our brains do it all the time: we detect "apparent design" but it’s not 100% accurate (google Mary on toast). A revised method that is optimized for realtime calculations would be useful for AI and forensics programs. I realize that the ID community has a focus of combating Darwinism now but producing such general purpose applications of ID would help ID become more acceptable.Patrick_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Patrick (105), Thanks for another very informative message. Now I see where the filter comes in: 500 bits of a speciffied complexity corresponds to a 10^-150 chance of it being random, hence the 100 primes sequence (at 1100+ bits) falls below that (hence the filter identifies it as being designed). There is still something of a wrinkle, though, for other simpler SETI signals. What if the aliens had chosen the first 10 primes (as opposed to the first 100)? Then they could have used considerably fewer bits - less than 70. In that case, use of the explanatory filter would result in it being routed into the "Chance" category - at a level of 10^-150 it would not be able to identify the signal as being anything other than a chance occurrence. Use of the explanatory filter would therefore result in a false negative if the signal was for the first 10 primes rather than the first 100.Clarence_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

I’ll focus on the box giving me the most difficulty, which is the “Specified/Small Probability?” decision box - how do you decide how small the probability must be in order to decide whether to go through the “Yes” or “No” routes?
1 in 10^150, which corresponds to 500 informational bits. This Universal Probability Bound is calculated by multiplying the number of elementary particles in the known universe (10^80) by the maximum number of alterations in the quantum states of matter per second (10^45) by the number of seconds between the big bang and when the universe undergoes heat death or collapses back on itself (10^25). The universal probability bound thus equals 10^150, and represents all of the possible events that can ever occur in the history of the universe. If an event is less likely than 1 in 10^150 [or ~ 2^500], therefore, we are quite justified in saying it did not result from chance but from design. But the important part is the specification. For example, snowflakes are crystals. Crystals are just the same simple pattern repeated. Simple, repeated patterns are not complex. Repetitive structures, with all the info already in H2O, whose hexagonal structure/symmetry is determined by the directional forces - ie wind, gravity- are by no means complex. However, repetitive structures, such as crystals, do(read SC Meyers & Dembski) constitute specificity. Snowflakes, although specified, are also low in information, because their specification is in the laws, which of course means that node 1 in the Explanatory Filter (Does a law explain it?) would reject snowflakes as being designed. Contingency/laws can explain complexity but not specification. For instance, the exact time sequence of radioactive emissions from a chunk of uranium will be contingent, complex, but not specified. On the other hand, laws can explain specification but not complexity. The formation of a salt crystal follows well-defined laws, produces an independently known repetitive pattern, and is therefore specified; but like the snowflake that pattern will also be simple, not complex. The problem is to explain something like the genetic code, which is both complex and specified.
And in the specific case of the “Contact” signal, how was the probability calculated in order to make the decision?
1’s correspond to beats and 0’s to pauses in the radio signal. It takes one informational bit to represent this binary choice, so you just count the number of beats/pauses to get 1126. Whenever prior uncertainty of recipient can be expressed as a number of equiprobable alternatives N, the information content of a message which narrows those alternatives down to one is log2N (the power to which 2 must be raised in order to yield the number of alternatives N). This explanation of information theory may help: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Tutorials/Info-Theory/Patrick_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

DaveScot (89)
Daniel King Yes, it’s analogy. But it’s a stunning analogy if you know enough about both human designed machinery and the machinery found in living cells. There appears to be no end to how deep the analogy goes. There’s nothing else in the universe that’s analogous to the machinery in living cells except the machinery that humans design. I don’t know how you can constructively contribute here further if you don’t acknowledge the appearance of design. We don’t have enough common ground to go any further.
I take your point, and I don't want to be banned from this site. I was self-indulgently reflecting on my viewpoint, as triggered by things that had been said earlier in this thread. I fully appreciate that you and your colleagues here see things differently. So, for now, I'll put a sock in it.Daniel King_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

Patrick (82), Thank you, that was very helpful indeed. But I'm still unsure I know how to use it because I don't know how the gating works in the decision boxes. I'll focus on the box giving me the most difficulty, which is the "Specified/Small Probability?" decision box - how do you decide how small the probability must be in order to decide whether to go through the "Yes" or "No" routes? And in the specific case of the "Contact" signal, how was the probability calculated in order to make the decision?Clarence_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

Paul Giem (80)
Daniel, (73) Let me clarify something. You apparently agree that it is a good idea to trust appearances if a car is moving in your direction. That’s an emergency. But there are many non-emergency situations where we (and I think you) trust appearances as well. Most of us, when we walk up to a chair, don’t inspect it to make sure that it won’t collapse, then gingerly test it with more and more of our weight before finally sitting down. Most of us, when walking down a path, don’t kick into a large rock if we come to it, even though the appearance could be deceiving and it could be made out of styrofoam and kind of fun to kick. The one time we don’t trust appearances is when we have other reasons not to. On April 1 it just might be a good idea to carefully inspect the chair, then gingerly test it with more and more of one’s weight, before sitting down. The problem is that you have been told that it is April 1 for the appearance of design for so long that you no longer trust the appearances at all, and indeed have a hard time even seeing them. In which case you have misunderstood your mother; appearances can be deceiving, but usually aren’t. Prima facie evidence is evidence, even if it is not proof.
Much thanks for your efforts at clarification. I agree completely that my mother's skepticism or skepticism in general is not the issue, and I shouldn't have framed my original comment in that light. The issue I found interesting was my lifelong failure to perceive even the appearance of design in living things. For me, there has always been the domain of artifacts, the products of human design and fabrication, and non-artifacts, the products of nature. Surely I can't be a minority of one in having this kind of life experience.Daniel King_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT}

PS: Gerry, re 98. This is on a side issue not relevant to the direct focus of the blog in the main. Having noted that, though, it is sufficiently relevant to the issues that surround the power games -- public policy, strategic level intellectual and cultural leadership, and the politics of power are inextricably intertwined -- being played surrounding the evolutionary materialist agenda for radical secularisation and dechristianisation, that it requires at least a brief response:
1 --> First your stated criterion selectively [and unjustifiably] excludes a whole Testament. For, note; this was the Testament primarily in view in 2 Tim 3:14 - 17. Yes there are troubling points that we have to address in light of the overall pattern of history and principles of transfer from one era and covenant to the next, but we do not have justification to simply wholesale write off the foundational Testament of the Bible. [Even the Golden Rule of Jesus was explicitly a summarising citation from Moshe!] 2 --> Second, you need to address the direct implications of actions and statements of both Jesus and Paul as they engaged the cultural trends and forces of their day, including in legal contexts with major policy implications. 3 --> For instance, it has been seriously held that the decision by Gallio [elder bro to Seneca] in Ac 18 set the key precedent that allowed the Christian faith to be viewed as Religio Licitas in the crucial decade or so that followed to the Neronian persecution after that last of the Caesarean family got rid of Seneca. (Cf Tertullian's discussion, and also William Ramsay.] 4 --> Paul's appeal to Caesar's seat [a then little known right of Roman citizens] was a similar policy-tinged legal move. 5 --> And finally, when Jesus said we should render to Caesar what is his and to God what is his, it implies a principle that God appoints rulership and holds it to account, as Rom 13:1 - 7 amplifies.
So, while indeed there were no civil office holders among the circle of C1 founding leaders of the Christian Church, that is irrelevant to the basic point that the Judaeo- Christian frame speaks to the whole of culture and life under God. (Indeed, a reading of Eph 1: 9 - 10, 17 - 22 and 4:9 - 24 will underscore just how fully that is so.) Indeed, it is the multi-generational failure to redeem the times and show sound, God-fearing intellectual and cultural leadership that has in material part helped bring our civilisation to its current sad pass. Having said that, I underscore the point in Ac 17 again: Paul participated in the flow of intellectual thought in the culture at large, using the common-core language, cultural icons and themes as points of departure for his argument. In short, he did his homework and showed intellectual and cultural leadership, leadership that in the end won the day. [That is, there is a reason why Athens has put up a Bronze Plaque with his speech on it at the foot of Mars Hill, and why the street passing by that foot is called Dionysius Street.] In our day, scientifically literate Christians have a right and even a duty need to address the issues of science as this is the dominant intellectual paradigm in our culture. In so doing, we have a role to play in contributing to the general advance of science. We also have a duty to speak to the abuse of science to sustain a programme of trying to capture science to the servitude of evolutionary materialism and the associated radical secularisaiton and even re-paganisation of the culture. For, associated with that worldview and cultural agenda is the breakdown of basic principles of morality and sound thought, as evolutionary materialism has in it an acid that eats away at the credibility of morals and mind. If we fail to do so, we will all suffer -- even more than we already are suffering. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT}

I think “non-functional” is a better word. And that’s what a car without fuel is. As is your unplugged computer. And your unplanted seed. You can say “dormant”, if you want, but I think you’re just being colorful.
Let's revisit my final statement about the seed: "A seed without water is functionally different from a seed without its shell." What potential exists for a seed with the shell removed? What potential exists for the dry seed? Here's a hint: both answers are different.
Reduce the thing to meaningless letters like mathematicians do and you’ll see they’re the same.
What meaningless letters do you propose?Apollos_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT}

Apollos says, "The space shuttle needs a crew in order to operate, but I’m not sure you could say they were part of the shuttle’s irreducible complexity." Why not? It was designed with them in mind as essential componenets, and doesn't work right without them. Apollos says, "There would seem to be a difference between a bicycle without a rider, as opposed to a car without a carburator, where IC is concerned." There is -- the bicycle without a rider is missing one part (the rider); the car is missing two parts (the carburetor and the driver). Apollos asks, "If a car has no fuel, is it a broken system?" I think "non-functional" is a better word. And that's what a car without fuel is. As is your unplugged computer. And your unplanted seed. You can say "dormant", if you want, but I think you're just being colorful. Reduce the thing to meaningless letters like mathematicians do and you'll see they're the same. It appears, my friend, that you're thinking too "mechanically" here; you keep leaving out big parts of the systems in question. The systems in these examples are not bicycles, cars, computers, and seeds, but bicycles with riders, complete cars with fuel and drivers, computers with power sources and users, and self-replicating fruit bearing trees with seeds, dirt, water, sunlight, and bees. Bees! Who wudda thunk!Gerry Rzeppa_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT}

StephenB - PS. You forgot to show me a politically active apostle, deacon, elder, or saint in the New Testament. Or where Jesus took the slightest interest in the political affairs of His day -- in spite of the fact that his own countrymen were being publicly crucified for misdemeanors like petty theft! So I think I'm still on solid scriptural ground when I contend that political activism is foreign to New Testament.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT}

Gerry, Your seed/tree example could very well be considered an IC system, but I'll let someone more knowledgeable clarify. However for design detection specifically: I think the differences between macroscopic systems -- like the universe itself, and microscopic -- like E. coli bacteria and the flagellar motor, are the analogues to human engineering. Behe noted in Unlocking the Mysteries of Life that when he observed a diagram of a bacterial flagellum, he immediately recognized it as a motor; it had all the constituent and necessary parts. Additionally, the information storage and processing systems of cells also have direct and recognizable applications and comparisons to our own intelligently designed engineering. It might be more difficult to find a direct comparison to the solar system, and biological life on earth. It comes down to whether there is a qualitative difference between interrelated parts, and interrelated systems, where IC is concerned. The space shuttle needs a crew in order to operate, but I'm not sure you could say they were part of the shuttle's irreducible complexity. Likewise, an automobile needs both fuel and a distributor, but are those two items directly comparable? Instinctually, it would seem not. If a car has no fuel, is it a broken system? If a computer is unplugged, is it broken? Is a seed with no soil or water, a nonfunctional system or is it a dormant one? There would seem to be a difference between a bicycle without a rider, as opposed to a car without a carburator, where IC is concerned. A seed without water is functionally different from a seed without its shell.Apollos_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT}

H'mm: While I contemplate yet another "session" with my favourite tech on getting Vista to work right yet again [sigh!], I think a coent or two are in order: 1] Obviousness . . . Appearance and perception, as with all functions of cognition, can go wrong. But to reject such arbitrarily is selective hyperskepticism, as we cannot live and operate in the world without accepting the inference to design in many cases. For instance in my always linked, section A, I discuss the case of information -- we do not operate onteh assumption tha tunless shown otehrwise all is lucky noise. That has implications that extend straight into the heart of why some are prone to reject the credibility of the inference to design in cases that are astonishingly parallel to those of credibly known cases of digital communication by intelligent agents. 2] Analogies . . . First argument by analogy in which there is reason to believe that there are relevant parallels is a legitimate form of inductive reasoning. It is defeatable, of course, but so are all other forms of inductive reasoning; including that enterprise we call science. For, in the end, we must walk by faith and not by sight in this world. (If you doubt this, ask hard enough why one accets any given claim A, and trace back the chain through B, C , . . . One will come to either an infinite regress, or to a circle or to first plausibles accepted by in the end faith. Thus, at the core of any worldview or model or theory lie such first plausibles, accepted on the risk of trust.) So, to tag as "analogy" and recoil in horror is selective hyperskepticism. We must deal with the details and find out whether it is reasonable to think the parallels hold good. And, as has been pointed out above, the cell is replete with entities and operations that make several analogies from world of machines very relevant indeed. BTW, when it comes to the identification of DNA as a digital code-bearing storage unit with associated algorithm-implementing units, that is NOT an analogy, it is an identity. 3] EF The 500-bit threshold [1 in 10^150] is a very useful level of assessing the point where random walk based searches run out of probabilistic resources on the scope of our cosmos. So this gives a rationale to the intuitive notion of not likely by chance. I tend to extend the range to 1000 bits, to take in reasonable islands of functionality. Tha tis if a storage unit in a system has in it over 1,000 bits of information, even if we think in terns of very large islands of functionality up to 10^150 configs, we still are far too isolated to reasonably find the islands from an initial point that is arbitrary and doing a random walk. As WD's latest work shows, doing better than such random walks reliably, requires active information tracing to agents. [That is the work on active information is rooted in and extends the earlier work.] Also, observe my use of an analogy here. Is it reasonable to dismiss it simply because the idea of searching for isolated islands in a vast pacific ocean [thanks again GP for this one] is an analogy, or would one not need to find reasonable points where the analogy breaks down? 4] Side-points: Rom 13:1 - 10 embeds citizenship and rulership as being under God. Indeed, it even brings out that the principle of neighbour love by which one does no harm to neighbour is the premise of justice in the community. Similarly, Ac 17 makes it plain that nationhood is a creation of God, and that God so orders our times [kairous -- and yes that is the root of my handle] and places and ethnicity that we are brought to times of decision that force us to choose whether or not we will reach out to God in whom we live, move and have our being [Paul here cites the pagan thinker Cleanthes etc], however blindly. So, there is good precedent for seeing citizenship and even prophetically engaging rulership issues as a part of discipling the nations. In so doing, observe how Paul used generally accepted principles in the Athenian culture to speak to it in a way that it could at least initially hear with understanding and respect. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT}

StephenB says, "We are not to do our good works in isolation. On the contrary, it warns us about “hiding our light under a bushel.” The command is “to let our light shine” and give glory to God." I fully agree. And I'm afraid, again, that you're misunderstanding me. I'm not promoting isolation from the world, I'm saying that instead of trying to fix that which can't be fixed, we should offer the world working alternatives. For example, I detest what Microsoft and Intel have done to the computing industry. Here I am, for instance, at the dawn of the 21st century, editing text in a tiny, non-wysiwyg box more primitive than the Macintosh I owned in 1980. Now, should I try to change Microsoft and Intel? or should I admit they're beyond redemption and offer a working alternative?See www.osmosian.com and read our two-page, large-font, wide-margined manifesto and tell me if you feel like you're under a bushel basket. Then take the public school system as a second example. It might be improved, here and there -- but it can't be fixed because it is based on fundamental principles that are simply contrary to sound education: in short, it is rotten to the core. So rather than attempt the impossible, it is better to offer alternatives -- home and church schools, that are based on different principles, and that actually work. Having, then, "proved what is that good and acceptable will of God" with a real-life example, we invite outsiders to join in -- or go and do likewise. You say that "too many Christians shrink from battle and retire into a tranquil little subculture of true believers." Perhaps so. But not in my home church community. Spend a weekend with us -- I'll pay all the expenses for you and your family -- and I guarantee that you'll be personally "developed" and "tested" in ways you've never imagined. Click my name to contact me and we'll set something up. It'll be fun -- and edifying -- for all of us.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 14, 2008
March
03
Mar
14
14
2008
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT}

-----Gerry: "As for the “ragings of the heathen” and the “vain imaginations of the people”, they’re nothing but a distraction and are best ignored. We can deal with them later, Psalms 2 and 149. The kingdoms of this world belong to Satan and he gives them to whoever he wants, Luke 4:5-6. There’s not much we can do about that!" Gerry: I believe that the Bible tells us to do the will of God. That includes sharing the Gospel and, insofar as we are able, transforming the world. Our society is crumbling because good people are afraid to fight for what is right. Rather than accept their destiny and take their rightful place on the front lines of the culture war, too many Christians shrink from battle and retire into a tranquil little subculture of true believers. So, in exchange for little peace, they turn the culture over to politically correct barbarians. But that is not what the Bible says we should do. We are not to do our good works in isolation. On the contrary, it warns us about “hiding our light under a bushel.” The command is “to let our light shine” and give glory to God. Not only is it the moral thing to do, it is the strategic thing to do. The fact is, the barbarians will not let you rest anyway. Even if you give them what they want, the peace doesn’t last. The same ones who are persecuting ID scientists today, will be putting people in prison camps tomorrow. The same ones who are executing innocent life in the womb today will be coming back to euthanize you tomorrow. Our eternal destiny is inseparable from our temporal moral development. Like it or not, we are here to be tested. If we do not accept our responsibility as citizens of this world we can hardly expect to gain entry into the next one.StephenB_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PDT}

Apollos and DaveScot - Perhaps it's my ignorance of the details, but I really don't see a significant difference between the micro- and macroscopic examples of specified/irreducible complexity available to us. For example... Let's say System X is easy to describe, is highly unlikely to occur by chance, requires interlocking parts (a) thru (e) to function, and fails utterly if any of the parts is removed; X therefore exhibits both specified and irreducible complexity and is the result of design. Now let's fill in the variables. At the micro level (I'll need a little help from the specialists on this), X is a bacterial flagellum and parts (a) thru (e) are various proteins, etc. At the macro level (I can do this one on my own), X is a fruit-bearing tree and the parts are (a) a seed, (b) dirt, (c ) water, (d) sunlight, and (e) honey bees. (Freakin' honey bees! Who wudda thunk?) What am I missing?Gerry Rzeppa_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

Gerry Your point about design extending up is interesting. We don't have any examples of machinery of the kind found in life and human designs in the universe at large, at least not yet, but in an email I sent to Bill Dembski some months ago I mentioned that all the reading I've done on global warming is starting to unveil a machine-like climate control system working to keep global average temperature in the "goldilocks" zone for life to continue. In particular is that the earth has somehow avoided both a runaway greenhouse and runaway deep freeze for billions of years. The system of positive and negative feedbacks (not all of which are understood) that act as a thermostat with hysteresis is beginning to have the appearance of design. Not nearly as stark as the appearance of design in the machinery of life but it's becoming more pronounced nonetheless.DaveScot_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

Gerry wrote:
"It’s almost as if we were placed “in the middle” so we’d get a good view in both directions."
That follows, to some degree, the reasoning of the Privileged Planet hypothesis: that we're ideally positioned for scientific observation as well as for survival.
A century or two ago, men found the big examples more impressive; now the small ones are more in fashion. But the analogy remains the same.
I would say that the microscopic is the most accessible frontier at this point in history, hence it's favor.
The interlocking macroscopic systems found in the environment, the movement of the planets, etc, exhibit design in the same way as the microscopic systems to which you refer.
I disagree at least semantically, in that they both exhibit design but in entirely different ways. I'm not sure that IC or CSI apply macroscopically to the universe in ways that can be casually observed, but it is rather with prerequisite knowledge of physics that we can reason the UPB via the Anthropic Principle, and possibly IC as well. (Although the problem of first cause was logically deduced many centuries ago.)Apollos_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

DaveScot says, "There appears to be no end to how deep the analogy goes." Or how high. The analogy works from men down and from men up. The interlocking macroscopic systems found in the environment, the movement of the planets, etc, exhibit design in the same way as the microscopic systems to which you refer. A century or two ago, men found the big examples more impressive; now the small ones are more in fashion. But the analogy remains the same. It's almost as if we were placed "in the middle" so we'd get a good view in both directions.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

Daniel King Yes, it's analogy. But it's a stunning analogy if you know enough about both human designed machinery and the machinery found in living cells. There appears to be no end to how deep the analogy goes. There's nothing else in the universe that's analogous to the machinery in living cells except the machinery that humans design. I don't know how you can constructively contribute here further if you don't acknowledge the appearance of design. We don't have enough common ground to go any further. DaveScot_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

StephenB - Let me say that another way. You say we shouldn't "wait for the return of Jesus Christ to work for a well ordered society based on Christian principles." I agree. I say we can actually implement the God>Christ>Elders>Husbands>Wives>Children theocratic society right now, in parallel with whatever the unregenerate are doing. I've done it before (with a handful of families during the first five decades of my life) and I'm working on doing it again. As for the "ragings of the heathen" and the "vain imaginations of the people", they're nothing but a distraction and are best ignored. We can deal with them later, Psalms 2 and 149. The kingdoms of this world belong to Satan and he gives them to whoever he wants, Luke 4:5-6. There's not much we can do about that!Gerry Rzeppa_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

StephenB - If I read my New Testament correctly, it's not my job as a Christian to "work for the best possible government that can be formulated around sinful men." It is not my job to govern sinful men, but to preach the Gospel to them. See, for example, 1 Cor 5:12-13. He who has ears to hear, let him hear. And let the dead bury the dead. My job (as a home-church pastor) is "perfecting the saints", Eph 4:11-16, that the Church might prove -- manifest, illustrate, exemplify -- "what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God", Romans 12:2. To show the world how the theocratic God>Christ>Elders>Husband>Wife>Children hierarchy works, and works better than anything else, in actual practice. See John 17:23. If you want to change my mind, just show me a politically active Apostle in the New Testament; or show me where Jesus showed the slightest interest in the political affairs of His day.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

Duncan (55) Actually, my original dilemma (28) concerns detecting the ABSENCE of design – the ‘knife in the back’ problem OK, I went back and looked at 28 When you say "The design inference is based on the ABSENCE of any satisfactory evidence of a cause other than ID" I have to disagree. It isn't based on the "absence" of anything. It is based entirely on the application of criteria acquired from real-world observations -- and repeatable and testable ones -- to whatever subject you wish. Now, it is true that the absence of design is harder to detect than design i.e. the ID method can provide false negatives namley claiming something that was designed was not, but it does not provide false positives. In fact, if you can show a false positive using Dembski's EFs you will come close to falsifying his theory.tribune7_{March 13, 2008
March
03
Mar
13
13
2008
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply