It’s funny, I’ve never really read anything by the higher-ups in Intelligent Design circles, but some of it strikes me as rather beautiful theologically and philosophically. Take this oft-quoted item from William Dembski:
The world is a mirror representing the divine life. The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.
Hearing them use the phrase the “sacramental nature of physical reality” really fills me up with a lot of sympathy for this point of view. And I think pairing up the Logos with information theory is a very smart move. In fact, it’s quite similar to a lot of ideas (such as negentropic agents) put forward by people like Philip K. Dick who are anything but Christian fundamentalists.
For all you Christ-heads out there, do you feel Dembski’s connection the Logos to Intelligent Design is appropriate or useful?
- END -
ASSOCIATED CONTENT @TMBCHR (Auto-Generated)
- Notes: Dance This Into Existence
- Heraclitus and the common
- Intelligent Design
- Who Designed the Designer?
- Will the Logos Descend Into the Internet?
21 Comments
Christ-head. I think I need to put that on a t-shirt. I used to be very critical of the ID movement, but I’m warming to it, especially Dembski’s view of it. I’ve always subscribed to a mode of theistic evolution where everything is unfolding quite organically, like a seed. Objectively, the process would seem random, because God designed the universe to unfold in such a way that he wouldn’y have to interfere along the way. In other words, you wouldn’t be able to perceive design. This philosophical mindset led me to reject ID out of hand without giving it a fair shake. But I’ve been reading more and more lately, and while not convinced, I can no longer bash it like I once did.
Putting the Logos in the context of an evolutionary process is nothing new and I fully subscribe to it. Teilhard did it best. There’s really no way you can’t do it, if you take both Christian theology and evolutionary theory seriously.
I really wish that Christianity and intelligent design were seperated moreso in the media. I can’t discuss it without being pegged a “stupid Christian” or something. And then people go, Wait, weren’t you a Satan worshiper or something? There’s just no winning…
BTW, some info on Teilhard for anyone unfamiliar.
I find it funny that ID folks don’t seem to want to touch Teilhard with a ten-foot pole, when the guy actually had far more interesting ideas than they do…
“Intelligent Design” ought to read “Stupid Design.” Keep in mind that the Catholic Church has accepted evolution for a good time now–the only requirement was that one believe that God was involved and behind creation–and the Catholics never felt the need to teach “ID Theory.” “Intelligent Design,” frankly, is that bullshit about the earth being 5400 years old, just covered in make-up like an aging whore. Evolutionary theory has a number of problems itself, but considering that cosomologists and astrobiologists are beginning to write mathematical equations proving that we aren’t even real, that should indicate that science is catching up to Goethe.
Let me put it another way. “Intelligent Design” is a sigil, a media virus. The outside looks smart, beautiful, gnostic, but inside, in its intention, it’s that ugly Xian Fundie shit all over again. Don’t get infected.
As something of an aside, the ID folks are of the same vein as the clowns earlier in the 20th Century who would argued against use of epidural anesthesia during childbirth because “God” (i.e., Yaldabaoth) commanded Eve/woman to know pain during the labor childbirth. Those same assholes didn’t oppose the use of air-conditioning in tractors or factories even though “The Lord” commanded Adam/man to suffer the sweat of his brough during labor.
With regards to Teilhard and noospheric evolution, I consider that as totally seperate from ID. ID is a political movement founded in the same old boring protestant fundamentalism. Teilhard was pratically excommunicated for his theories, and while I believe that most humans possess the intelligence to understand his or, say, Aurobino’s theories, I suspect that most Americans are too soaked in anti-intellectualism and media-promulugated sophistry to consider the “noosphere.”
People need to stop knocking Intelligent Design. The main detractors are so bitter at anything that implies God that they refuse to actually think about it.
Kurt Vonnegut was on the Daily Show recently, and although he didn’t come out and say he believed in ID, his comments came very close to it:
“My training is scientific, but I do feel that evolution is being controlled by some sort of divine engineer. I can’t help thinking that… this engineer knows exactly what he or she is doing and where evolution is headed. And that’s why we’ve got giraffes and hippopotami and The Clap.”
Vonnegut worked as a chemist and attended Cornell. He was raised by atheist parents. He is also a brilliant writer and a humanist.
You have to understand that fundamentalist Christians do NOT believe in ID– they believe that God created the world in 6 days. That is not the same as saying “evolution is controlled by a divine engineer”…
ID resembles Deism more than anything else. But try telling that to someone who was raised religious but now claims “atheist”. They are as zealous as the Pat Robertspns of the world… and just as narrow-minded. I can understand not wanting to be preached to, but when you mimic your enemies’ tactics by plugging up your ears and screaming “lalala” whenever something like ID is mentioned, you do no one any favors, least of all yourself.
btw: I personally don’t care how the world was created. It was here long before me, and will continue to be here long after I’m gone.
i still like rolling in the unanswered questions. i poked through a book recently about ancient mysteries and in one chapter the writer went to an old quarry at aswan in egypt where stone had been cut for the pyramids. there was evidence of stone age technology and crafting of stone but underneath there was markings and polishings and drillings that matched and superceded the available skill and technological application we have today. right there baking in the desert sun. questions lead to more questions. especially if the answers provided make less and less sense as we go.
Fell, that’s what Chopra’s piece was about: Intelligent Design Without the Bible. He did a masterful job of phrasing questions, I think.
Hehe. Thanks for the warning, but don’t you think that’s a little ironic of a thing for an occultist to warn? Don’t get involved in that occult stuff - it will rot your brain!
I tend to agree with James here that people are so resistant to the idea of God that they just freak out and plug their ears when anything remotely Christian is put on the table. I mean, I’ll be the first to admit that Christianity is connected to a lot of bad stuff. But as a symbolic and mythological language, I find it both extremely beautiful and useful. I don’t mind being “infected” with this stuff if it means that I can better understand and communicate with other people on issues that are important
Tim, you made that point earlier this month with the “Ijtihad” post. There’s nothing wrong with The Bible in and of itself, just as there’s nothing wrong with the Koran or The Book of Mormon or even The Satanic Bible. It’s how you apply the knowledge contained within those tomes that can be dangerous.
In the past ten years, I’ve noticed that my middle-ground views on science and religion manage to piss off both hardcore atheists and fundamentalist Christians. Try talking to a Jerry Falwell-type about Intelligent Design– you’ll get an earful. But then, when you present the same argument to a zealous atheist, you’ll get a similar earful but coming from the other extreme.
Maybe that’s why, in the Bible, it is mentioned that God would rather have people feel “hot” or “cold” about him than “lukewarm”– something about the ambiguity of beliefs really irks people. It reminds me of the contempt that both heterosexuals and homosexuals have for bisexual people– humans tend to not like it when people want to have their cake and eat it too.
However, my views are not a case of wanting to have it both ways. I just think everything deserves to be questioned, even the things I hold sacred– ESPECIALLY the things I hold sacred.
Most everyone here has pointed out, correctly, that the folks opposed to ID also seem allergic to higher force, organizing principle, or similar things; personally, I find that all those points are far more debatable than Fundie ID ever might be. I am personally as disgusted by Richard Dawkins as Pat Robertson. Like james said, I don’t consider it “having it both ways” I simply consider it a thoughtful analysis and questioning. Skeptics come in two varieties, the skeptical and the True Nonbeliever. I fall into the first camp, and since I cannot discount the possiblity that I am simply a line of code in a simulation, or that god exists, and since I can’t know what happens to me after I die, I avoid pontificating one way or another on this things. Fortunately, no one turns my pontifications into law.
With regards to occultism rotting brains, if approached poorly or by the weak-minded and weak-willed, it most certainly does, but you’ve equated one thing, my warning based on a possible analysis, with another, a social warning based on a generally flawed consensus, and I think you’ve missed my point. The dagger cuts quickly and destroys that which cannot stand. Frankly, I don’t think all the media mummurings about ID and evolution have a single goddamn thing to do with understanding or communication. It’s the advertising campaign for legislation requiring schools teach that the world was made in six days. If you earnestly believe that these people want to have a discussion with you, then I have some marshland to sell you.
More often than not, media coverage of prayer in schools doesn’t address whether or not you can pray in school, it addresses whether or not you must pray in school. These Fundies have an either/or mentality and live in a shit-poor reality tunnel, but have become very good at reinforcing the reality tunnel. They believe George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin were not Deist Masons, but Fundies. You’ve probably heard that some pharmacists refuse to dispense birth control because it can be used for abortions. That’s true, but it’s not how it’s typically used. Oral anaesthetics can be used to get a coke high, if they are also used against directions… Once journalists starting interview these pharmacists, it became apparent that they actually thought that birth control destroyed every concieved zygote. That’s a blatant lie–birth control prevents ovulation, thereby preventing conception. Not only that, but I discovered that many of my Xian co-workers, the Protestants, also believed birth control destroyed life. None of them knew how, but they knew it “caused abortions.” Now, whenever that story got air-time, a number, probably small, of Xian sleepers became activists, seeking to change laws.
I reiterate, this is not about belief, this is about the law and freedom. Belief can’t kill you or abrogate your freedoms, but the law most certainly does.
As something of an aside, the comments Tom Cruise made about psychiatry and drugs probably deserved more “Fair and Balanced” treatment than ID gets, but he was a man voicing an opinion, and not a spokesman for an agenda, at least in that regard.
No, I got what you’re saying…
On another note, I happened to put together just the thoughtful analysis of what Cruise was saying in regards to psychiatry that you’re describing.
I believe in intelligent design. But not in the way fundies do. Fundies think that scientifically studying a phenomenon takes God out of the picture. I believe that studying it sanctifies it. If you believe in Creation, what is more holy than the study of The Creation? I cannot wrap my brain around how they think. I have an analogy that sort of demonstrates:
There is a road between London and Manchester. The map-maker does what a scientist does, mapping (IE understanding objective phenomenon through symbol and formula). THE MAP DOES NOT PROVE THAT NOBODY BUILT THE ROAD. Why object to it?
Dick does believe in Intelligent Design. The Urgrund, ground of being, wrote, emanated, or otherwise produced the LOGOS, or the program running ZEBRA, the artifact construct (IE The Kosmos). Dick wholeheartedly attributes intelligence and intention to the Godhead. He is not a pantheist, who thinks God is blind force and synonymous with the Universe, he is a Panentheist, who considers the Universe to be a part of God, but subordinate to the totality. The totality HAS TO have innate mind: How else would mind arise out of a mindless system?
Jung sees it pretty much just like Dick. Probably not a coincidence!
Channel - Intelligent Deign does not RELY on taking Genesis literally. Only tardjar fundies do that. Unfortunately, and not ssurprisingly, they are the loudest Christians.
I reiterate, this is not about belief, this is about the law and freedom. Belief can’t kill you or abrogate your freedoms, but the law most certainly does.
Absolutely! This is the three hundred ton gorilla or whatever it is, sitting in the room. I hate to link whore, but I wrote up a vague something or another in a post I entitled: More Intelligent Than You Know. If you can get past my juvenile toying with the Discovery Institute’s name (a top-down rightwing organization I have nothing but antipathy towards) you might find it and the comment the post garnered worth a read.
What does that mean? It sounds good, but I have no idea what it’s supposed to mean. Of course, much of what Dembski says is bogus,k no matter how good it sounds. He tends to misrepresent those who disagree with him.
Contra James, I think we do need to keep knocking intelligent design. While not as simple-minded as creationism, ID has no basis in evidence. Zero. Zilch. If we’re doing science, then ID isn’t a legitimate theory. That’s not to say that we can’t believe in God, Goddess, or the Divine. Biology is a secular science that doesn’t say one thing or another about the existence of deities. Those who oppose ID aren’t all raving atheists, or atheists at all.
Again, ID may sound good. Wiccan creation myths sounds good, too. But they’re myths. They’re not science.
no it isn’t, and yes it does. spiritual experiences supposedly result from misfiring synapses and dysfunctional brain chemistry. it’s considered to be a disease, no?
zero evidence for intelligent design? from a science that doesn’t even know what intelligence or mind even is, or how it works, or why we have it?
science is just another myth. show me anything that isn’t.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater carlos. You say in this bit of a slip: “from a science that doesn’t even know what intelligence or mind even is, or how it works, or why we have it?”.
Did you notice how you are subjectifying all of the scientific and meta-scientific fields to one grand misnomer? Which is “A Science”. When in all reality, science is a field open to us all, not because its laws are meant to be infallible but because they are meant to be broken and disproven. Anything other than science is true belief. True, the establishment has its scientists, but the field of “The Sciences” also has, more than any other intellectual realm in the western tradition, the most brilliant of multifaceted iconoclasts. They need only be heard from and amplified.
I shall leave you with the secularist quote that set me on way towards gnosis and even rejecting materialism altogether — keeping a few choice argumentative bits of course. But anyways it comes from Carl Sagan and I have never forgotten the chill it sent down my presumably atheist spine when I read it.
A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed
by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe
hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.
I have never swayed from the fact that all I want to see in life is to see such a religion take form. A beautiful and transcendent social form that overthrows all that consterns us. It’s only an attitude adjustment away! And yet so far.
Nevertheless it is from science and a long time pondering and accepting atheism where I pull my grounding for wanting this. I want a robust motherfucking religion.
Christian here. I know quite a bit about information theory and I’ll tell you that the way it has been misused by IDers is scandalous. They have lifted arbitrary formulas from their original context and tried to apply them to a misrepresentation of evolution. (I’m talking here about the abuse of “No Free Lunch” theorems. Dembski is a fool, and not fit to lace Teilhard’s sandal.)
IDers are not just barking up the wrong tree, they are barking up the wrong plane of existence. IDers ignore metaphysics entirely, when EVERYTHING spiritual is metaphysical!
If they really want to bring the Divine back into public consciousness, then they should promote Neoplatonic metaphysics or Thomist metaphysics, both of which paint the most beautiful picture of the manifestation of the divine principle in Being. However, they won’t. They won’t because ID is a bad-faith movement, it’s fundamentalism dressed up as science. (”Fundamentalism dressed as science” also describes the crypto-eugenics of places like the Heritage foundation.)
I know what you are trying to get at, but let’s not get sloppy in our thinking. The mistake many “scientifically minded” people make is to confound a model of a phenomenon with the phenomenon itself. When a physicist says “the universe is a Hilbert space” this is flat-out WRONG. If he says “certain quantitative phenomena are extremely well-modelled by a Hilbert space,” then he has got his head on straight.
This conflation of models with what they represent is at the root of all modern evil. The Stalinists believed so fiercely in their economic model that they slaughtered millions to bring the world into conformity with it. The National Socialists believed so strongly in their scientific endeavors that… well you know.
Neocons believe so strongly in their own economic models that they may destroy America to bring it into conformity with them. They have already killed 100,000 Iraqis because of their faith in the philosophers of their tribe. The movement is one of fanatics, who of course cannot recognize the depth of their immersion and blind faith in their theories.
In this light the “knowledge of good and evil” gains a new ramification: perhaps it symbolizes the failure of man to distinguish between his “knowledge” and the immanent reality of his experience, the holy Logos.