Pro-Darwin Biology Professor...Supports Teaching Intelligent Design

Discovery Institute ^ | June 22, 2007

[Alamo-Girl]

You may be right. But I'm thinking it'll be worth the effort.

[betty boop]

You may be right. But I'm thinking it'll be worth the effort.

With effort come the rewards.... :^) We value most what we have struggled with, once the struggle is over....

[betty boop]

The initial program requires a programmer - but the program can subsequently modify itself....

Indeed. It has been explicitly designed so that it can do so, I imagine.

[tacticalogic]

Programs don't create themselves as far as I know. They require a programmer. At least all the programs that we humans know about do.

It's not a question of self-creation. It's a question of whether or not the program itself contains a "header" or signature put there by the programmer.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. It has been explicitly designed so that it can do so, I imagine

Precisely so, dearest sister in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

It's not a question of self-creation. It's a question of whether or not the program itself contains a "header" or signature put there by the programmer.

Again I aver that the "unreasonable effectiveness of math" is God's copyright notice on the cosmos.

In the case of DNA/tRNA for instance, the unreasonable effectiveness includes the geometry of the message and structural logic.

[betty boop]

Thank you so much for your kind words, dearest sister in Christ! And thank you for thinking to include Wesson’s model in our book.

[tacticalogic]

Again I aver that the "unreasonable effectiveness of math" is God's copyright notice on the cosmos.

You've also averred that science cannot answer the question of what the source is by studying the program - ie the answer to the question of the source of the program is not embedded in the program itself.

[Alamo-Girl]

I don't think science has gone as far as it can go in asking and answering that and other questions. Nor do I believe it should throw up its hands and declare either "Nature did it!" or "God did it!"

When it goes beyond the "toolkit" of science and math - the question should be put in the hands of the theologians and philosophers.

Nevertheless, I'm very sincere in asserting that science - and math - should pursue the origin questions, all of them - as far as it can go.

Lack of curiosity is poisonous. Christians understand that God wants us to look and see. (Psalms 19:1-3, Romans 1:20)

My statement about God's copyright notice on the cosmos being the "unreasonable effectiveness of math" is my own speculation.

[tacticalogic]

I agree. I also agree with the opinion you expressed earlier that when the scientists scale the last mountain of knowledge, they’ll find the theologians there waiting for them. I believe I disagree with significanly applying that in the context of the current debate, because doing so carries with it a tacit assertion that this is that “last mountain”, and the theologians are already there.

[hosepipe]

[.. The initial program requires a programmer - but the program can subsequently modify itself.... / Indeed. It has been explicitly designed so that it can do so, I imagine. ..]

Thats what BOOTSTRAP(program) means.. The strap on the boot that makes it possible to put the foot into the boot.. and "the Foot" can then line dance wherever it wants to..

NO Bootstrap then the "program" is just abstract ideas in an abstract language.. and the "computer" is a poorly designed anchor..

[Alamo-Girl]

We are on the same page, dear tacticalogic!

[Alamo-Girl]

Excellent metaphor. Thank you!

[ColdWater]

Interesting.

“No one is immune from bias. However, bias should at least be admitted.”

I suggest that you admit your bias on your main page so that readers will understand the reason for your distortions.

[GodGunsGuts]

Tell me ColdWater, which one of my so-called biases influences my position re: the failed HIV/AIDS hypothesis?