Do It On Your Own Time
by MikeGeneFrom here:
But some members of the Baylor community took issue with Marks' conclusions, which place limits on the scope of Darwinism and offer scientific support for the theory of intelligent design. These ID opponents, who remain unidentified, complained to Dean Ben Kelley of the School of Engineering and Computer Science, who promptly pulled the plug on Marks' lab and took down the accompanying website.
[…]
Marks has no intention of following his friend's departure. And thanks to a two-hour meeting Aug. 9 with Dean Kelley and Baylor Provost Randall O'Brien, he also now has no need to leave. With attorneys for both sides present, Kelley agreed that Marks was free to resume work in the informatics lab on his own time and repost his website, provided a disclaimer accompany any ID-advancing research to make clear that the work does not represent the university's position.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:38 pm |
Baylor is supposedly a Christian school. I have argued for a long time the anti-Design crowd lurks in places one would not expect, and some of the nastier ones claim the name of Christ (recall what appened at Southern Methodist)?
Marks is a distinguished professor of Electrical Engineering which Baylor went out of its way to recruit. He has 300 published papers.
The work at the lab has great relevance to information science, and Marks is a world class engineer on evolutionary algorithms. This is a total outrage.
Baylor should consider itself lucky to have a scholar and scientist of Marks' caliber. If I were Marks I'd almost tell Baylor to take a hike. A PhD level engineer of his caliber and reputation should earn a quarter milliion dollars a year. He doesn't need this sort of garbage.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 28, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
August 28th, 2007 at 9:31 pm |
Why would any parent want to pay for their kids to go to a university like that, which such Luddite dolts at the helm? Good grief.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 28, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
August 28th, 2007 at 10:17 pm |
It's might be arguable that Robert Marks (like Guillermo Gonzalez) is the most qualified person in the entire university in his field, at least with respect to evolutionary informatics, if not practically Electrical Engineering! His only competitor in terms of distinction in Engineering would be Distinguished Professor Walter Bradely (Mechanical Engineering) who is also an ID proponent and was the subject of a Barbara Forrest-inspired which hunt reported here: Bradley and Beckwith on Baylor. Bradley, like Marks, was recruited by Baylor from a big name school to help boost Baylor's reputation.
The irony is some of Baylor's most distinguised scholars were ID proponents, and these days Baylor can't seem to abuse them fast enough. Why invite scholars to your university if you're going to treat them like dirt?
Well, the reason was that the brilliant leadership which recruited these scholars was ousted by the old guard at Baylor that resented the new scholars being invited. The Old Guard "successfully" drove back and drove out promising reforms.
I've tried to counsel Christian students that the label of Christianity is no guarantee a school will be ID-friendly, and Baylor is a classic example.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 28, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
August 28th, 2007 at 10:48 pm |
Why don't IDists test their theories? What are they afraid of? A little thing like their labs being shut down? Now we know why ID is not a science.
Comment by Bradford — August 28, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
August 28th, 2007 at 10:49 pm |
One more thing. Is this a good script for a Ben Stein movie?
Comment by Bradford — August 28, 2007 @ 10:49 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 2:41 am |
Wow Sal
with your connections you have got to know that witch hunt has a "t" in it after all it was good xtian folk who invented the term.
And please don't try and entertain ideas that Gonzalez's situation was in any way controversial. He didn't add to the department and actively pursued a contrary point of view without presenting any reasonable findings. Martyr he wasn't, he just failed to impress.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it so.
Comment by DaveC — August 29, 2007 @ 2:41 am
August 29th, 2007 at 8:36 am |
He didn't add to the department? Wrong, he certainly did. You can easily find the work he did.
Heaven forfend, someone subscribes to a "contrary point of view". It's this rigid, ignorant frame of mind that will really provide an obstacle to scientific advancement. You're not helping any cause, but you are hurting what you delude yourself into thinking you're actually helping.
and then,
It's funny, because it reads like your addressing it to yourself. But it's not funny, because you should be.
Brainiac concerning himself with the presence or absence of a 't' in witch - it's spelt Christian.
Also, it wasn't the good Christian folk who invented the concept of a 'witch hunt', sorcery was sought out and its practioners punished in early Egypt.
Wow, you were wrong about most of everything in your post. It's nice to know that the 'opposition' has folk like you - it makes this very easy.
Comment by Doug — August 29, 2007 @ 8:36 am
August 29th, 2007 at 12:17 pm |
Having a contrary point of view is a negative DaveC? You might be more comfortable living under a totalitarian regime.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 1:17 pm |
It seems pretty clear from the World Magazine article that Marks set up the lab and put up the website without prior approval from the university. Such a fundamental disrespect for administrative reporting relationships is generally a fireable offense in the private sector. That Baylor allows Marks to continue to do his evolutionary informatics works and allows him to continue to use university resources with only the minor imposition of a disclaimer on the website speaks volumes to the toleration exhibited by the Baylor Administration.
Comment by leo_s — August 29, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 3:14 pm |
Thanks Doug and Bradford
Having a contrary point of view is fine in fact it's how the world progresses and knowledge advances.
It's having a contrary point of view without having any reason do do so that I was criticising. I did make that stipulation in the same sentence that both of you just "mined" for your indignant responses.
Not really a Brainiac, I just noted it as I read the sentence and it didn't flow with the original spelling.
As for xtian no offense intended I was just using it as shorthand and I believe it has been used historically in this way for centuries. I know it is common to xmas too.
As for witch hunts it seems that a lot of major faith based cults have found ways to pick on those who are different from them or who scare them, and I'll stand corrected on "invented" and substitute "refined" or "raised to a new level" instead.
Sooo I guess it is easy for me to be wrong if you don't read the whole sentence and make assumptions about my intent.
Comment by DaveC — August 29, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 5:17 pm |
Hi DaveC
I did read your whole post, and I disagreed with the majority of it.
Let's get one thing clear. In situations where two or more people (or groups of people) disagree about some fundamental claim about reality of course there is going to be attempts on all sides to impress upon that opposition that their position is more correct/ closer to reality.
Sometimes the means of doing this is distasteful: torturing, beating, insulting, mocking, ridiculing - all for the sake of getting the opposition in-line with the 'correct' view.
But that isn't always the case. Sometimes one tries to impress their position onto others via harmless discussion. Pointing to what they believe to be the true/more complete view of reality.
I went from agnostic to Catholic. Throughout my years I have been vocal too - so disagreements were certain to follow me. I have a fundamental disagreement with many evangelicals and protestants about that reality - the intensity of those disagreements was never raised above the level of verbal dissension regarding beliefs. Fundamental beliefs - so it's certainly a discussion that would engender alot of emotion and passion. I never had been called an idiot, too stupid to even get it, moron, backwards rube, disingenuous, pseudo-intellectual, etc. And if you want to see a passionate argument - I would direct you to anyone between a Catholic and a Protestant or Evagelical.
I wish I could say the same about the disagreements that occur on this board, but I can't. I have a disagreement regarding reality with atheists/materialists - and if there were ever a time that I was belittled, for the sake that I held a contrary position, it would be from many that constitute that label.
You want to talk about raising this to a new level? Come on. Look at your own faith based group.
Comment by Doug — August 29, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 6:16 pm |
Salvador:
If Design is not a religious theory, why would you not expect the anti-Design crowd at a Christian school?
If you mean information theory, I'm afraid I disagree completely. What do you see of value in Marks's approach?
Comment by 2ndclass — August 29, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 6:34 pm |
A non-religious theory can still lead to favorable or unfavorble views of one particular philosophy or religion (case in point, thermodynamics and the Big Bang theory). Big Bang theory is unfavorable to Bhuddism (in the view of the Dalai Lama) and thus more favorable to Christianity (at least that's how I see it).
Success of Darwinism will generally will erode the Christian world view, demise of it will help Christianity.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 29, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 7:01 pm |
Ho-hum, another IDist is free to pursue his research and publish it for the world to see. Such persecution!
Comment by Aagcobb — August 29, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 7:46 pm |
I don't want to put words in Sal's mouth, but my view of Christian schools is that they uphold the teachings of scripture. Darwinism (blind natural selection) is demonstrably opposed to what scripture teaches. ID on the other hand, while not inherently religious, does not oppose those teachings.
Baylor has a track record of opposing ID theorists. Take for example Dembski's experience there with the Polyanyi(sp?) Center.
I suspect that Baylor's current leadership, rather than wishing to draw attention to themselves as an ID school, would rather hold onto the status quo in order to receive research grants and whatnot. It's a rather worldly and unchristian approach to education.
Comment by Randy — August 29, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 8:46 pm |
Read again. Shutting down a lab is about more than publication. When the lab results are finalized you can be concerned wth whether or not publication was treated differently. Such hypocrisy! If a lab was shut down because of skin color and reopened after a struggle no one would complain if the victim alleged that he was treated differently than is the norm. It must make critics feel like good Nazis to know that a mere complaint can energize the relevant authorites.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 9:05 pm |
Hi again Doug
great reply and coming from Scotland I can concur with the ferocity of catholic/protestant disagreements both from my reading of history and my love of soccer.
As for name calling I hope that I haven't called you any names in this discourse. On another thread though I did make the point that many of the faithful do like to label those with no faith in the unprovable and their terms are certainly not nice:apostate, barbarian, heretic, infidel etc
and certainly labels such as: chosen, rapture, the only way is through us
only serves to reinforce the faithless view that they are targeted. Then when you hear top politicians speaking about those who lack faith not being real patriots or not loving their country the talk becomes a little darker.
Mike asked us not to stereotype and it certainly is tough because when trying to treat a specific religion as a single entity individual believers can disown certain ideas held by others, "oh I don't believe in that even if so and so does." So stereotyping will lead to offense.
As for atheists, the only thing I know I have in common with other athiests is a lack of belief in the supernatural. There is no book, no pledge to obedience, no tithes etc. So stereotyping athiests is even more of an egregious error than lumping catholics and protestants into the same category. They really aren't a group, faith based or otherwise and I certainly will not assume responsibility for what anybody else says, I speak for me and that's about it.
Comment by DaveC — August 29, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 9:09 pm |
Sal:
??? Salvador, since when did/does Christianity rise or fall on the success of any provisional theoretic of science? That's a very odd position to take, and not just a little bit dangerous. To you as a professing believer, not to humanity in general or Christianity in particular.
It's foolish to pin your faith on scientific theories designed to be non-absolute. In fact, that would be a form of scientism.
Comment by Joy — August 29, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 9:12 pm |
My sentiments as well, Joy. If Christianity is true, then there is really nothing that science could do to erode it.
Comment by Randy — August 29, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 9:21 pm |
I agree with Joy and Randy but think that Salvador used the term Darwinism as having an add on materialist bias as opposed to evolution which is tied to evidence and, at least ideally, value neutral. Also Darwinism could be seen as an indicator although, not the cause, of Christianity's current standing. When Christianity is predominant there are few believing that matter and energy is all there is.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 10:23 pm |
When it matters to someone at a personal level. It matters to me. Whether it matters to anyone else, is their business, but we know historically the design argument meant a lot to various individuals.
It pops up frequently enough that we know it matters to large numbers of people. If it fails, well, what else does one have unless they've witnessed miracles directly or heard the voice of God? And curiously, how does one know it is the voice of God or a miracle if He speaks or acts without some specification of what one would expect of God? The Design argument appears again in another incarnation when we speak of miracles or answered prayers. The Design argument pops up in another incarnation when we investigate history and conclude that Christ rose from the dead. An improbable event happened that testifies of a power and intelligence greater than ourselves. Whether we formalize ID as science, the design argument has informal incarnations as well, as Bill Dembski pointed out in his book ID the Bridge Between Science and Theology.
Certainly we like watching a movie fully knowing it is fiction or when we were kids enjoying the act of playing "make believe". But religious faith ought to be rooted in something more than our whims but rather hard facts to be truly meaningful.
I really can't deny it. Whether for better or worse, that is me.
I've taken more flak from Christians for being this way. It may have surprised some why I'm so friendly to certain atheists, well, in regards to scientism, I'm probably more akin to the atheists than the typical Christian. That's probably why the atheist don't fare well in debate with me, I'm too much like them, and I think too much like them….They presume wrongly that I think like many of the faithful whom they have an easy time shredding in debate…
I honestly can't recall that I've ever been on an anti-atheism crusade. I've often respected their skepticism.
Although unlike some atheists, I have never despised the Christian faith, and even when I doubted, I always held out hope it was right. But wishing something true does not make it so.
The design argument made it possible to believe in Christianity when I doubted….
Part of my philosophy actually agrees with Dawkins. In the Dawkins vs Quinn debate. Quin said you need to find the answers in philosophy and religion. Dawkins responded something to the effect "if you can't find the answer in science you sure as hell can't find it in philosophy"
I found myself heartily agreeing with Dawkins. But Dawkins definition of science is different than mine. I'm willing to accept inferences as being close to factual, and miracles and design as part of physical reality and thus detectable by science.
If Christ is not a historic fact, I have no reason to believe. I can believe in miracles because I believe in design. And I can believe in the historic Jesus because the inference seems eminently reasonable and factual.
and paraphrasing Polkinghorne this is what I believe:
Finally regarding what I have to say:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 29, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 10:33 pm |
Randy:
Science can erode any absolutist faith placed in its provisional theories - that's what it's designed to do. Science and religion parted ways long before Charlie Darwin came along, as far as the baseline metaphysical assumptions are concerned. That never bothered religious scientists who believed they were seeking the "Mind of God," it's just that they understood the nature of what they'd chosen to do with their working lives.
Science is all about physical, material reality. Its job description is purposefully limited to that, because understanding physical, material reality is potentially useful to us for practical purposes of control over that reality: FAPP. For All Practical Purposes. As long as one can keep in mind the assumptive differences, there really isn't a situation of mutual exclusivity. I'm not worried. Faith will survive.
Comment by Joy — August 29, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 10:35 pm |
Bradford:
Perhaps you're right about Sal's concern. But I honestly see no serious chance that the multi-discredited and logically falsified materialist metaphysic is ever going to trump the empirical observations and subjective experience of that ~95% of humanity who believes there is 'More'. Because they've experienced 'More'.
A few months ago I pulled up short on faith when my little sister died for no apparently good reason. After she died we visited my mother-in-law in Oklahoma, and on our last night there she took us out to dinner with her gang of friends who all knew that I was grieving. Again.
I was asked a question about what happened by one of the women, and started to try and explain about my little sister, and how she wasn't supposed to die after surgery that was supposed to make her better. One of the ladies - who was widowed just last year - swallowed her bite of dinner and said to me with total honesty and little old lady sweetness…
"But doesn't he number all our days? Does he not know every hair on our heads, know every breath that we take, every beat of our hearts? How can anyone die who isn't supposed to die?"
I was floored. Immediately put in my place, as well I should have been because I knew she was absolutely right - it was like He was speaking right to me right then. Reminding me of something it's easy to forget when we get caught up in this crazy world with its struggles and sorrows.
Metaphysical materialism has nothing remotely approaching this to offer, to anyone. Ever. All it can ever do as an organized effort is applaud an individual's narcissism and encourage mass solipsism, while focusing the inherent sociopathic negativity of its worldview on "The Enemy" (people of faith) via projection. Terminally shallow.
And, in the end, pitiable more than scary. They can't kill God. They can only kill humans, and humans have been killing each other for tens of thousands of years. That's nothing new. Yet here we are still, despite science's best efforts at evolutionary suicide. That alone lets me know this is just another phase. One we might hope someday to grow out of, and that would be a good thing.
Comment by Joy — August 29, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 10:47 pm |
Bradford wrote:
Bradford,
Is the voluminous research output of the Biologic Institute treated differently? What about papers published in the journal of the ISCID?
Heh. And it's good to know that if the local authorities fail us, we can always deploy the black helicopters.
Comment by keiths — August 29, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 10:47 pm |
My condolences, Joy.
Thank you for sharing the words of your dinner partner. Although we all know them they always have the power to send chills when realized.
Comment by Pez — August 29, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 10:48 pm |
I had to go back and re-read what Sal stated. It appears to say that if Darwinism is successful, it will erode the Christian worldview. Well, Darwinism has been highly successful, and has not eroded the Christian worldview. The reason for this is history, not science. A man named Jesus existed in history, and the only reliable historical account of his life is found in the New Testament (and perhaps the writings of the fathers of the faith). Therefore Christianity does not rest on the defeat of Darwinism either. It will continue despite Darwinism's continued success. Such success is not a blow to my faith. In fact, it strengthens my faith, because the scriptures state that such things will happen. Counterfeit philosophies will arise that will oppose the message of the gospel.
Perhaps fewer people will be persuaded by Christianity than there would if Darwinism is defeated, but there will still be believers.
Comment by Randy — August 29, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 11:00 pm |
I prefer to separate the metaphysical assumptions from the science; and when I do that I find that people of faith are on an equal plane scientifically with people of no faith. It's not the science that even attempts to erode the Christian worldview, it is the metaphysical assumptions of materiealism. It has failed miserably.
Comment by Randy — August 29, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 11:08 pm |
At his web site, Salvador explains his reasons for supporting ID and opposing Darwinian evolution:
Comment by keiths — August 29, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 11:11 pm |
So why does Marks need a disclaimer on his web page?
Comment by MikeGene — August 29, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 11:15 pm |
This is the current status of the Informatics Lab as of today Baylor Evolutionary Informatics Lab
I have no further information.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 29, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 11:15 pm |
Salvador,
If science could answer every question philosophy deals with, there would be no philosophy at all. But science certainly informs philosophy, just like actual experience informs philosophy.
That said, I think the conflict between christianity and science is largely artificial. The one that always amazes me is the neuroscience v 'soul' debate, which comes up again and again. 'We found out that the neurons in this section of the brain are involved with this experience! One more strike against the soul!' But I have to wonder what kind of soul they're talking about; even the most generous, extreme substance dualist views saw an interaction, even dependence, between 'mind-stuff' and 'material-stuff' - after all, that's what made the view dualist to begin with. Map the whole brain, and the hard problem remains.
But even with that aside - what is a soul? I'm surprised that so many people seem to think that this question has been answered definitely, particularly in Christianity-at-large. Even within the Catholic tradition I come from, the discussion of the nature of this (and other) thing is long-standing and ongoing - if a material fact of neurology is presented, all it does is inform the dialogue underway. Swinburne and Plantinga didn't deny the discoveries of neuroscience, for example - in fact, they incorporated the discoveries into their own views.
I think 'Darwinism' has, in some ways, become a kind of artificial fight as well. It no more worries me that I as a human may have had some non- or sub-human physical precursor than the fact that I was a fetus once upon a time worries me. Now here, many may disagree - it may well conflict with their faith, and I respect that. The point I try to make is that precursors don't diminish my belief in God, the 'special-ness' of humans, or our duties and destiny a whit - nor must they necessarily. The problems show up when the theory is manipulated by people as a means to an end. In my own experience, hardcore materialists are very happy to discuss things if they think you deny all evidence of evolution, or an old universe, etc. The moment I've made it clear that I accept evolution, an old universe, but find no conflict with my faith (Or worse, mention that my faith is emboldened by a lot of what I see in science), then the knives come out.
And they do, for the same reason that they come out against teleology
and ID: Because it means science isn't doing the job they want it to
do. And really, if evolutionary biology is fangless against faith, what
else does (for example) Dawkins have? His love of science would drop
like a rock.
Comment by nullasalus — August 29, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 11:16 pm |
Beautifully stated, Joy. I have experienced similar troubles that have actually strengthened my faith. "We all have it comin', kid." It's comforting to know that our time is not the end. Yet I doubt that this is even one of the main reasons why we believe in the first place. It's just one of the benefits.
Comment by Randy — August 29, 2007 @ 11:16 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 11:28 pm |
Sal:
If those people need evolution not to be true - or design to be scientifically acceptable - then their faith is as shallow as scientism. Losses in those ranks aren't particularly devastating to anything but congregational coffers. That's not what faith is about.
It has been my understanding for most of my life that the commitment to faith is itself a miracle, a direct subjective experience of God. If it's not, it's just another social club. Humans have been communing with God for millennia - it's called the "Perennial Philosophy" [Huxley] and appears to be universal in eras and cultures. Even if they interpret and name different things from it. Science has recently demonstrated that some of this is 'hardwired' in our neuronic hardware. Why would anyone assume that hardwired brain regions enabling universal experiential qualia doesn't relate directly to actual perception?
I realize I am unusual in that I really have experienced and witnessed miracles. But that might also be a product of not ruling them out a priori, thus I had no reason to doubt my experience or observations. I also don't think it's that difficult to test the spirits. Because we (or most of us) DO have a grasp on what might be expected of a god.
Well, I haven't any of Dembski's books, so I can't speak to that. But Design in these terms is entirely evident to a majority of human beings for the reasons I've outlined above. All materialism can do is say it's just another illusion, that the hardwiring MEANS it's an illusion. Which is like saying red is an illusion. That love is an illusion. That everything empirically real is an illusion. Talk about self-defeating arguments!
Science doesn't have to confirm it for us. In fact, science can tell us it really *is* all illusion. Which makes scientific knowledge just as illusory, and certainly not worth the price we all pay for it. The farther they get from experiential reality the farther they get from their goals. Sad for them, irrelevant to faith. That's probably something so evident that it's why the 'New Atheists' have abandoned science for their purely sociopolitical agenda. That won't work either.
Yours is not? Come on, Sal. Even the NAM figureheads admit reality appears designed. The metaphysical divide on that is simply acceptance and resistance. Don't pin your faith on science. Pin it on God. He's got everything in hand, including this. We're just playing it out in slo-mo.
Comment by Joy — August 29, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 11:35 pm |
Joy
This was a better depiction of the relative merits of Christianity than I've heard as a result of listening to numerous sermons.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 11:39 pm |
Joy,
Absolutely. I've never experienced a miracle, or even much of a 'feeling of God' that I can be sure of. But I've seen others describe their feelings, only to be told that said feeling was 'entirely psychological' and only occuring in their brain, not reality. Which makes me want to have a conversation like this:
Skeptic (eating): Man, this is a really good hamburger.
Me: No, it's not.
Skeptic: What? Yes it is, I love it.
Me: No, you don't. Your brain is just telling you you're enjoying that hamburger. It's all an illusion.
Skeptic: No it isn't - look, I'm eating it now! I can taste how good it is!
Me: Nothing but neurons. You're being deceived. The burger does not taste good.
..Really, if a spiritual experience, a feeling of God or oneness, can be discounted because it's 'occuring in your brain', then the explanation works as well for anything else.
Comment by nullasalus — August 29, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 11:41 pm |
Keiths:
Rev up those engines. Matzke could use a ride on the way to the front in fighting on behalf of the 'Of Pandas and People' glossary conspiracy.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 11:50 pm |
And Keiths, don't forget the great Wedge conspiracy. Keep those black helicopters ready!
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 12:03 am |
Bertrand Russell was a supreme genius, and Richard Dawkins a pauper by comparison.
Russell's work led (most ironically) to the questions being explored by the informatics lab because Russell's work led to important mathematical breakthroughs which even he did not ancipate……
The notion of representation and the minimal description of a scientific hypothesis are tied to Godel's incompleteness which proceeded from Russell's Principia Mathematica.
Darwinian evolution in trying to account for the emergence of biological information is fatally flawed. It can be demonstrated through the No Free Lunch theorems of Marks. There are limits to how small a representation can be. This goes all the way back to the work of Turing, Godel, and (unwittingly) Russell. It was Chaitin who made these connections more obvious. See: Irreducible Complexity in Mathematics, Physics and Biology and Mathematics and OOL.
The limits to how compactly something can be represented ( i.e. zip files can only be compressed so far) is exactly the problem Darwinian materialism faces.
It tries to account for biological information with a few poorly stated ideas. This is like trying to describe the contents encyclopedia britanica in terms of natural selection. Trying to describe biology (which infinitely more complex than an encyclopedia) in terms of selection is even more doomed to failure.
To attempt to descrbe an encyclopedia in terms of natural selection would result in a description bigger than the thing one which it was trying to describe in the first place. Like a zip file that can't be squeezed any more, trying to explain biological complexity with a simplistic mechanism like Darwinism can't possibly succeed. Math and logic are incompatible with Darwinism. There is No Free Lunch.
Marks' work formalizes the difficulty as if it weren't painfully obvious to most in the information industry who have an open mind on the matter.
If Baylor doesn't like the result of Marks' research, too bad for them.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 30, 2007 @ 12:03 am
August 30th, 2007 at 12:12 am |
Bradford wrote:
You mean the book that Dembski described as follows?
Bradford:
Um, Bradford, it would be a lot easier to paint this as a conspiracy theory if the Wedge document didn't actually exist, and if the Discovery Institute hadn't acknowledged its authenticity.
The best you can do is to distance yourself from it — and I hope you will.
Comment by keiths — August 30, 2007 @ 12:12 am
August 30th, 2007 at 12:21 am |
Keiths: You mean the book that Dembski described as follows?
Wow! That sounds like a real conspiracy.
Bradford:
And Keiths, don't forget the great Wedge conspiracy. Keep those black helicopters ready!
And it would be a good deal easier to document a conspiracy if you could cite results that are traced to the document. Conspiracies are about actions. Intent or thought alone doesn't cut it. Never has so much been made about so little.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2007 @ 12:21 am
August 30th, 2007 at 1:05 am |
Salvador wrote:
Keep Salvador's assessment in mind as you read the following Russell quotes:
Comment by keiths — August 30, 2007 @ 1:05 am
August 30th, 2007 at 1:58 am |
Salvador wrote:
Salvador's argument seems to be:
1. There is a limit to data compression.
2. Natural selection is a process of data compression.
3. Encyclopedias are complicated.
4. Natural selection cannot account for them.
5. Biology is more complicated than an encyclopedia.
6. Therefore natural selection cannot account for biology.
His errors, if they're not immediately obvious:
1. NDE is not a data compression problem. New information is constantly being introduced from the environment via selection pressures and mutations.
2. A Darwinian process requires replication, heritable variation, selection, and time. Encyclopedias are not subject to these in the way that lifeforms are. We therefore do not expect NDE to be (directly) responsible for the existence of encyclopedias.
Relative complexity is not the determining factor.
Comment by keiths — August 30, 2007 @ 1:58 am
August 30th, 2007 at 2:54 am |
Joy wrote:
Joy,
What does metaphysical materialism have to do with "applauding an individual's narcissism", "encouraging mass solipsism", and regarding people of faith as "The Enemy"? Your mind must be a scary place to live, beset as you are by imaginary bogeymen.
If anything, metaphysical materialism discourages narcissism by mitigating mankind's tendency to see itself as special, central, and created in the image of God (talk about narcissism!). By stressing the existence of an objective reality, it is anything but solipsistic. And nothing about metaphysical materialism requires regarding the faithful as enemies. In fact, there are metaphysical materialists who believe that faith itself is a good thing and encourage it in others, even though they find it personally impossible to believe.
nullasalus echoes:
But we skeptics don't discount it simply because it's 'occurring in your brain'. If someone believes a hamburger tastes good, then it tastes good, taste being a subjective experience. If someone believes a six-foot-tall rabbit named Harvey is standing next to her, then even though she might be quite sincere in her belief, the truth of the matter can be independently investigated. We don't rely on her report.
Another Bertrand Russell quote comes to mind:
A person may sincerely believe that he has experienced God; the experience itself may have been vivid, moving, and even transforming; but none of this tells us whether God was actually involved.
Comment by keiths — August 30, 2007 @ 2:54 am
August 30th, 2007 at 3:34 am |
nullasalus wrote:
It's a strike against any kind of soul that independently carries out the function in question. Whether that should matter to a particular believer depends on whether he or she does believe in a soul which carries out said function apart from the body.
For example, many Catholics believe in purgatory as a place of purification for the immaterial souls of some believers. Augustine and Gregory refer to the pain of purgatory as being greater than anything a person can experience in life. This concept obviously depends on a soul which is conscious, able to experience pain apart from the body, and is presumably responsible for the sins which brought it to purgatory in the first place.
Another example: People who believe that out-of-body experiences are genuine think that the soul is capable of leaving the body, traveling (sometimes great distances), and continuing to think and perceive all the while.
(By the way, a question for you OBE-believers out there: if the soul is capable of perceiving the physical world directly, without the aid of our bodily senses, why do we need eyes, ears, etc.? Why don't our souls do the perceiving for us?)
Comment by keiths — August 30, 2007 @ 3:34 am
August 30th, 2007 at 7:22 am |
Sal says: This is the current status of the Informatics Lab as of today Baylor Evolutionary Informatics Lab
I have no further information.
Well, Sal, you might want to address your complaint to Dr. Marks himself. The World Magazine article was quite clear that Marks was free to continue his work and free to repost his website with only the addition of a disclaimer. Given that Marks is free to do so, why do you suppose he hasn't?
Idle speculation on my part, to be sure. But given the quiet way in which Marks set up the Lab without apparent approval from the university administration and his lackluster effort to repost his website when given official clearance to do so makes me wonder what was really going on with the lab.
Comment by leo_s — August 30, 2007 @ 7:22 am
August 30th, 2007 at 7:26 am |
Can someone explain why Marks needs a disclaimer on his web page?
Comment by MikeGene — August 30, 2007 @ 7:26 am
August 30th, 2007 at 7:48 am |
Sal wrote:
To which keiths responded with some Russell quotes that could easily be those of Dawkins, which I think was his point.
Sal is correct, and keiths is seriously under-representing Russell.
The quotes from Russell are his personal views. His intellectual challenge to Christianity was formidable, and not represented by the opinions keiths quoted. On the other hand, Dawkins's versions of those opinions represents his entire "contribution" to his cause, intellectually speaking. (It seems to me that Dawkins has made his biggest contribution toward intellectual atheism in the sartorial realm.)
Comparing Russell's editorializing to Dawkins's magnum opus is not fair. My only complaint with Sal's comparison of Russell and Dawkins is that he was too generous to Dawkins.
Comment by David Heddle — August 30, 2007 @ 7:48 am
August 30th, 2007 at 8:32 am |
Mike asks:
You'd have to ask the folks at Baylor, but I'm guessing the reasons are similar to the ones behind this.
Comment by keiths — August 30, 2007 @ 8:32 am
August 30th, 2007 at 9:31 am |
leo_s:
What is Baylor's policy toward labs? How does it relate to "approvals"? What makes you think Marks did anything outside their policy norms? What is Baylor's disclaimer policy? Is your speculation based on anything other than personal prejudice?
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2007 @ 9:31 am
August 30th, 2007 at 9:32 am |
Keiths:
In other words they do not like ID. Don't force feed the crap about ID being incompatible with evolution either.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2007 @ 9:32 am
August 30th, 2007 at 9:50 am |
Does anyone know any of the details of this lab? I have some speculative thoughts on the matter. Some of my puzzling may have already been addressed, sorry if I missed the FAQs.
1) The fact that it is so hard to find information does not bode well for the ID team. It should be easy to obtain information—but everything here seems to be shrouded in secrecy. This was called a lab. Well how big was it? Sometimes at universities if you put a couple of PCs in a small room you can then add a “such and such computer lab” sign on the door. Is there any information about how substantial this lab was/is?
2) Is there information about who funded the lab? If the lab was the direct result of a research grant, one that paid substantial overhead into the university’s coffers, I suspect that the university would grin and bear it. It is a rare university that will turn down overhead. But if this lab consists of little more than some computers paid for by private funds or donated, then it has no leverage whatsoever, nor should it.
Comment by David Heddle — August 30, 2007 @ 9:50 am
August 30th, 2007 at 9:56 am |
How absurd. Every school has its share of fringe voices, espousing Marxism, ultra-radical feminism, animal liberationism by force, deconstructionism, and so forth, and none of these schools seem to deem it necessary to require disclaimers in order to prevent people from thinking that these are the schools' official positions. Does anybody think that Princeton officially supports bestiality, or that Harvard endorses infanticide, just because Peter Singer and Steven Pinker don't provide disclaimers distancing their views from their schools? And yet a Christian university requires a disclaimer out of paranoia that somebody might (*gasp*) get the idea that they think life was designed? I must be missing something here.
Perhaps, to ruffle some feathers, Marks should end his papers with a disclaimer to the effect of, "The views expressed therein do not reflect the official position of Baylor University, which firmly denies that any aspect of life is not an unintended fluke."
Comment by Deuce — August 30, 2007 @ 9:56 am
August 30th, 2007 at 10:57 am |
Bradford: Is your speculation based on anything other than personal prejudice?
It seems you have made up your mind already concerning my position, but let me walk you through the politics of the situation. If the Baylor administration had previously approved the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, it is unlikely they would have engaged so quickly in an about-face regarding it's sanction. Further, even granting that perhaps it did happen that Baylor had approved the lab and then caved in to pressure, I find it inconceivable that neither Dr. Marks nor the World Magazine saw fit to mention such a stunning reversal, particularly in light of the history associated with the Polanyi Center. Simply put, if Baylor had initially given the Lab its approval, we would have known about it.
Comment by leo_s — August 30, 2007 @ 10:57 am
August 30th, 2007 at 11:33 am |
I don't know. Is it customary for universities to do this? Help anyone?
Did Ward Churhill need disclaimers?
Baylor apparently allows faculty and visitors to talk about Christ, but not about ID. I recall a similar issue when Francis Collins visited GMU. See: Francis Collins: “I greatly respect William Dembski…best wishes to Salvador Cordova and the IDEA club”
So apparently Christ and God are a permissible subect, but not ID.
Check the website again. There may not be any disclaimer if there is no website.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 30, 2007 @ 11:33 am
August 30th, 2007 at 11:41 am |
Because Baylor is being Baylor. The same school that:
1. dumped William Dembski
2. nearly fired Francis Beckwith were it not for a public outcry
3. reprimanded Distinguished faculty member Walter Bradley for giving a student a free copy of Unlocking the Myster of Life [and this is Christian college, it's not as if faculty can't encourage the kids to learn about Jesus]
….
Need I say more? That's why I suppose that web page isn't up.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 30, 2007 @ 11:41 am
August 30th, 2007 at 11:54 am |
David:
I don't see any need for physical facilities. All they've done is run MATLAB programs and write papers, both of which can be done in shared computer labs or on the participants' own machines.
The concept presented in the papers was fleshed out at least as far back as May of last year (see here and here). The "lab" has apparently added empirical data from MATLAB. I don't see any evidence that a huge amount of time has been invested in the project, so it could be unfunded.
Comment by 2ndclass — August 30, 2007 @ 11:54 am
August 30th, 2007 at 11:56 am |
Because Baylor is being Baylor……..
…….Need I say more?
Well, yes, you do. Dr. Marks and Baylor reached an agreement that he could restore the website. It is your contention that Baylor is not allowing him to do so, which means you believe that they have reneged on the agreement reached with Dr. Marks. If that is so, Dr. Marks should be screaming to the world (and rightfully so) that Baylor has not lived up to their end of the bargain.
Comment by leo_s — August 30, 2007 @ 11:56 am
August 30th, 2007 at 12:00 pm |
Oh no, not at all, Baylor is run by honest Darwinists, they would never do anything so underhanded. Nope, not possible.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 30, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 12:06 pm |
Salvador:
The difference, of course, is that ID is widely considered pseudoscience in academic circles, while Christianity is not.
Comment by 2ndclass — August 30, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pm |
Okay, I do look forward to the Discovery Institute's expose of Baylor's duplicity for almost immediately reneging on the agreement that Dr. Marks could resume his work and restore is website. As a contributor over at UD, do you have any insights regarding when we can expect the press release? Will Casey Luskin be the author?
Comment by leo_s — August 30, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 1:53 pm |
There is an option that is not much discussed. Baylor can respond to complaints by saying "This is not a big deal. Let Marks go on with the project. If he wants to use a website in conjunction with it, that's OK too. Since we do not require disclaimers for Marxists, radical feminists and holocaust deniers we will forego the disclaimer thing too. And guess what? The world will go on without skipping a beat even if Marks does that crazy ID thing."
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 2:09 pm |
2ndclass:
That's your explanation for disclaimers? So if academia considers endorsement of mass muderer an exercise in academic freedom then no disclaimers are necessary but if one claims life resulted from intelligent design rather than an unknown, unidentified chemical pathway then get those disclaimer forms ready- and put the authorities on notice if they are not displayed in a timely fashion.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 2:14 pm |
Baylor has Marxists, radical feminists and holocaust deniers on faculty? Wow! And I thought Berkeley was a den of liberal iniquity!
Comment by leo_s — August 30, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 2:23 pm |
There is a broader issue. I do not know much about Baylor but I do know you can find believers in those ideas when the country as a whole is taken into account. Such groups are not encumbered by disclaimers.
You ignored Baylor's other option. Why feel compelled to respond to anonymous ID critics? Is the anti-ID movement determined to provide Ben Stein with additional material?
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 2:38 pm |
You ignored Baylor's other option. Why feel compelled to respond to anonymous ID critics? Is the anti-ID movement determined to provide Ben Stein with additional material?
Well, let me start by pointing out that just because the critics are anonymous to us, does not mean they are anonymous to Baylor's administration. But, it is an interesting question nontheless. Why should Baylor respond to any critic, known or unknown? And that drives to the heart of my wild speculation that the lab was set up quietly without working through normal administrative channels and, thus, there may be more here than anyone is letting on. Of course, this does assume that there are normal administrative channels at Baylor that place some constraints on the latitude granted to faculty.
Comment by leo_s — August 30, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 3:26 pm |
Is it his?
Asked and answered.
Comment by JAllen — August 30, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 3:41 pm |
JAllen:
This does not answer an obvious spin-off question from Mike's disclaimer question. Why in this case and in the case of Gonzalez are disclaimers utilized exclusively with regard to proponents of intelligent design? If university disclaimers are necessary then why not for the many social science points of view that are as controversial or more controversial than ID? In addition, guest posts at TT are published by a TTer under his or her name and the policy is a blanket one; not restricted merely to one guest point of view.
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 3:46 pm |
If one looked at the informatics website it had scholarly papers on no free lunch and evolutionary algorithms. Exactly Dr. Marks' speciality.
Certainly nothing that should demand censure. The papers are related to ID, but thermodynamics is related to ID.
It's not like the papers were advocating something nefarious.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 30, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 3:51 pm |
Is Baylor U. the web host or are they footing the host bill? If so should Marks not make his own arrangements with regard to a website and avoid any university entanglement?
Comment by Bradford — August 30, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 4:19 pm |
Salvador:
Couple of notes:
1) Marks' papers at the Evolutionary Informatics site propose no theorems. What they offer is a new metric, with no indication as to why it's useful. It's just a number that increases as the effectiveness of a search increases. You can't use it to calculate anything meaningful, and its conservation across meta-searches offers no insight that isn't already apparent from the NFL theorems. Furthermore, Marks draws no non-tautological conclusions from his use of the new metric. For instance, Marks concludes: "If any search algorithm is to perform better than random search, active information must be resident in it." But "active information" is nothing more than a measure of how much better a search is than a random search, so his statement is circular.
2) Marks' active information is a probability measure, while algorithmic information measures a minimum program size. I don't understand what connection you're trying to draw between the two, nor do I see how either can be used to refute "Darwinism", much less infer ID. If a target is defined in terms of reproductive fitness, RM+NS certainly is more effective than blind search, and thus contains "active information". But neither Marks nor Dembski have shown that active information implies intelligence, and it's easy enough to see that it doesn't. (Think of a stream finding a local minimum using a hill-descending algorithm. That's a better-than-random search; where's the intelligence?) And algorithmic information seems completely irrelevant, since it obviously isn't conserved in non-deterministic processes.
If you think that fatals flaws of Darwinian evolution "can be demonstrated through the No Free Lunch theorems of Marks", then I challenge you to do so. Neither Marks nor Dembski have attempted it.
Comment by 2ndclass — August 30, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 4:24 pm |
Good question, and I appreciate the concern.
However, the issue is his research is relevant to the field of evolutionary computing. If the result is friendly to ID but damaging to Darwinian evolution that should be irrelevant. Truth is truth. If Baylor wants to be a research university why should they not be eager to host research by a world-class scientist in the field?
If the study of RNA synthesis is discourged because it is ID friendly (as will be shown in Expelled), is that reason to add disclaimers.
The results of Marks work is stating the obvious and formally so. It is like a formulation of thermodynamics, except this is information dynamics. The result is too important to suppress, because industry must be as cognizant of these issues as it is of things like thermodynamics.
His work imho will affect our conceptualization of what Artificial Intelligence is. This has important implications for the future of computing and understanding its limitations.
I'm not worried that Bob's ideas will fade into oblivion by Baylor's actions. The truth will win out in the end. All this is just a short-term inconvenience.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 30, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 5:04 pm |
Salvador:
This paper explicitly argues for ID. For instance:
(Brackets and ellipses in original)
BTW, if positing the existence of prior information is in fact a restatement of design arguments, then IDists might want to reevaluate the strength of their arguments.
Comment by 2ndclass — August 30, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 5:19 pm |
Bradford:
No. That's an observation of a dissimilarity in Salvador's comparison.
Comment by 2ndclass — August 30, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 5:23 pm |
Salvador:
Would you care to tell us what you're alluding to? What result is too important to suppress? What insights does it provide into AI and the limits of computing? What insights does it provide into anything?
Comment by 2ndclass — August 30, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
August 30th, 2007 at 10:30 pm |
Hi JAllen,
I suppose. It’s just odd because it has never occurred to me to take the position of any individual professor and view it as representing the entire university. In fact, throughout all the years of watching this debate, I have never seen anyone try to make Behe’s position representative of LeHigh University. Thus, for example, when I see something like this page, (note it has no disclaimer), I would never argue or think that the University of Minnesota supports the idea that the CIA is responsible for 911. Would you?
Anyway, I can understand the need for disclaimers (I’ve had one on my personal web page since the beginning!). But I would think that sober people would at least be somewhat concerned about how this trend could hurt academia in long run. If universities show a willingness to publicly distance themselves from controversial view A, they leave themselves wide open when they fail to issues such decrees or disclaimers about controversial positions B, C, and D. If more and more universities are willing to issue decrees and disclaimers, the lack of such decrees and disclaimers starts to become meaningful.
Comment by MikeGene — August 30, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
September 1st, 2007 at 12:06 pm |
Baylor University officials don’t even know whether to spit or wind their watches! If this is how they respond to the weenie threat of the IDers, how do they respond to real threats on campus like drunken greeks, roid-raging “scholar-athletes,” Ethnic Studies Departments, and sociopathic lone gunmen?
(Does the Board of Regents hold its meetings in a bomb shelter? Sounds like they live in a cave.)
These disclaimers are a patent insult to everyone to whom they are addressed! In their paternal wisdom, Baylor officials, want to protect us from ourselves. Their heart is in a good place. We need disclaimers like this like we need stickers on toasters warning against their use in the bath!
The only people who can’t be insulted are those who need the disclaimer—and are therefore too dumb to be insulted!
I don’t feel insulted. LOL I’m tickled!
Comment by Rock — September 1, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
September 1st, 2007 at 1:57 pm |
BREAKING NEWS:
Denyse O'Leary Reports
I suspected something was up, and I deliberately chose not to inquire and just wait for everything to play itself out.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 1, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
September 1st, 2007 at 2:38 pm |
2nd class,
Read them yourself and publish your critique on the net for all to see.
The papers will be found eventually and will be discuseed in due time.
In the mean time, you might try to persuade the information savvy amongst us that evolutionary biologists understand information dynamics. NOT!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 1, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
September 1st, 2007 at 4:54 pm |
Any word on whether Dr. Marks will continue the work on his own time? It sure would be a shame to let Baylor win. Success is the best revenge.
Comment by leo_s — September 1, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
September 2nd, 2007 at 10:45 am |
Well, sal, I gotta say, it looks like your prediction was pretty much right about what happened there.
Comment by Deuce — September 2, 2007 @ 10:45 am
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:14 am |
Salvador,
You're the one making grandiose endorsements of Marks' work. I've pointed out specific problems with your claims and asked questions about them and, as usual, you come up with nothing. You're bluffing without so much as a pair of deuces, just as you do with the rest of Dembski's work.
I've read them, thanks. Apparently you haven't, or if you have, you show no evidence of understanding them. Count yourself lucky that you didn't end up joining Marks' group.
Speaking of which, congratulations on starting your MS program at JHU. I hope everything goes well with that.
Comment by 2ndclass — September 3, 2007 @ 9:14 am
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:05 am |
Well, sal, I gotta say, it looks like your prediction was pretty much right about what happened there.
Look at it this way, now Marks can continue his work unencumbered by institutional suppression. We should check Evolutionary Informatics frequently to see how it is progressing without Baylor dragging him down.
Comment by leo_s — September 3, 2007 @ 11:05 am
September 4th, 2007 at 6:35 pm |
leo_s:
It's back up now. BTW, haven't Marks and Dembski always had the option of working "unencumbered by institutional suppression"? Why were they so set on having Baylor host their website?
Comment by 2ndclass — September 4, 2007 @ 6:35 pm