embed/jesuswordsonly
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Wiki Activity

initial backup of github.com/jesuswordsonly/jesuswordsonly.github.io

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
embed@git.macaw.me 2023-08-31 11:16:13 +00:00
commit 14edd76594
1931 changed files with 1103754 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

541
CBID-webpage.html.html Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,541 @@
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML EXPERIMENTAL 970324//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Adobe FrameMaker 5.5/HTML Export Filter">
<link rel="STYLESHEET" href="CreatedbyIngeniousDesign.css">
<title>Dawkins' Admission That Science Can Accept A Legitimate Limited Design Investigation With Specific Materialistic Assumptions</title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
<font size="+1">Chapter One: Introduction</font><br>
<div>
<h1 class="Heading1">
<a name="pgfId=915574">
</a>
<div>
<img src="CreatedbyIngeniousDesign-1.gif">
</div>
Dawkins' Admission That Science Can Accept A Legitimate Limited Design Investigation With Specific Materialistic Assumptions</h1>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936124">
</a>
Richard Dawkins is the leading defender today of evolution. He is the popular author of the recent book The God Delusion (2008).</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936134">
</a>Dawkins in a radio interview in 2007 says
that life on earth may have been designed by creatures that evolved
elsewhere. This interview is preserved on the Internet by NPR and
available through YouTube.<a href="#pgfId=936127" class="footnote">
1</a>
He says this idea was pregnant all along within Darwininism because it
says matter can evolve to create "consciousness," which in turn can be
the designer of life as we know it on earth. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936139">
</a>Dawkins was captured on video saying the
same thing in Ben Stein's 2008 documentary Expelled: No Intelligence
Allowed. In that movie, we can both hear and see Dawkins relay the same
point. Seeing is believing. Dawkins says that it is actually possible
that life on earth was designed by beings evolved on other planets. He
agrees this is one possible legitimate avenue of investigating
intelligent design. Dawkins only cries foul against anyone who uses the
same evidence to prove this alien life fits the characteristics of God.
Such is not an endeavor of science. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936030">
</a>This is an amazing admission. Some
evolutionists no doubt think Dawkins gave away the store. Some
evolutionists might want to mock Dawkins as engrossing himself in an
Alien Design Theory. No doubt evolutionists also fear Dawkins'
admission will be used to allow Intelligent Design into the classroom,
and thus people of faith can surreptiously use it to prove the
existence of the dreaded being whose name begins with the letter G.</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936069">
</a>Yet, what Dawkins said was quite
sensible. The discussion of design based upon an
evolved-extraterrestrial intelligent being as your fundamental
assumption is thoroughly scientific. The objective of the inquiry then
becomes to investigate the true natural origin of something such as DNA
without fear this will be construed as proving God's existence. A
fairly accurate summary of Dawkins' interview with Stein is captured in
this quote by an Intelligent Design (ID) think-tank: </p>
<p class="Quote">
<a name="pgfId=936147">
</a>Surprisingly, in a lengthy interview with
Ben Stein in Expelled, Dawkins says that living things on the Earth
could be actually (and not just apparently) designed - and that the
design might be detectable. Dawkins thereby concedes the central claim
of ID, though he insists that the designers - if there were any - must
have been highly evolved space aliens, not God.<a href="#pgfId=936091" class="footnote">
2</a>
</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936006">
</a>However, I would challenge one aspect of
this quote. It is true that Dawkins does concede the central claim of
ID, but with an important caveat. If the discussion of intelligent
design is used to prove the existence of a being who had no material
origin, such as God, then the discussion is outside science because
science can only investigate material causes. The use of science to
prove such a being as G-d exists is outside the purview of Science.
This would be a misuse of Dawkins' admission in a science classroom.</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936176">
</a>However, what Dawkins does permit which
should please ID, if it would but change its objectives somewhat, is
that such discussions about the G-word could take place outside
Science. For example, the notion of G-d could be entertained and
discussed by experts in Metaphysics or Natural History. They could
debate whether this Alien Intelligence is singular, eternal,
non-materialistic or the opposite. But it is clearly not possible in
Science to prove the existence of a non-material being without
causation in our realm. Hence, ID can never be solely scientific in its
propositions if the objective is to prove the existence of God as
classically defined. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936255">
</a>On the other hand, ID claims it does not
seek to prove the existence of God. However, the judge in Pennsylvania
was not convinced in the Dover case. He did not think ID had divorced
itself from such a religious agenda. The judge deemed the teaching of
ID in the classroom as inherently religious.</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936259">
</a>Indeed, many ID theorists do seek to
argue that Science is too narrowly defined to omit any discussion of
intelligent design. Yet, in context, it is clear they never were
arguing to prove an Alien Intelligence Theory, as Dawkins concedes is a
worthy avenue of Science They were evidently upset that the proof of
God's existence was being ignored. This is what convinced the judge in
Dover that ID had a religious agenda, and its teaching was a
surreptitious means to impose religious belief on children in violation
of the First Amendment.</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936180">
</a>Hence, truly, if ID wants to be accepted
in Science, it must take Dawkins at his word and agree to his
appropriate limitations. If we solely opined about an alien
intelligence, then we are within Science. Any other kind of discussion
about G-d belongs in metaphysics or natural history courses, and not in
a Science classroom. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936446">
</a>However, ID believes that by being vague
on what is the Intelligence&nbsp;that designed a particular phenomenon,
it cannot be accused of being religious. This is not true. Being vague
is what opens the door to the student to imagine Science can posit a
non-material conscious being as a cause (i.e., God), and that His
existence can be just as scientific as a theorem that assumes an alien
which evolved on another planet did so. Yet, science cannot be so
vague, and hope to be called Science. It must specify a materialist
origin for intelligence as its assumption or it has lost its scientific
bearings.</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936208">
</a>Thus, now that the door has finally been
opened by the leading evolutionist -- Dawkins, we now can pass through
it in a responsible manner. We can still be good scientists even if our
faith is driving our desire to find intelligent design. We must restate
our position as seeking to prove an Alien Intelligence, not Intelligent
Design. In this process, we can develop scientific evidence that is
useful in a course on Metaphysics or Natural History to determine
whether this Alien Intelligence is personal, eternal, all-powerful,
etc., or the opposite. But to use Science in a Science classroom to
prove directly or indirectly (by vagueness) a being whose
causation/origin cannot ever be explained by Science is to misuse
Science. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936209">
</a>Hence, in light of Dawkins' Alien
Intelligence Theory, we can see that the debate is not really about
design. All evolutionists know in their heart they are looking at
design in DNA. They can call it apparent design, a marvel of
trial-and-error, or whatever pleases them which keeps out the idea of
the G-word in science. But now that Dawkins has opened everyone's mind
to posit design as the product of consciousness of a material evolved
origin, we can now formulate a true theorem to explore the question. It
is no longer out of bounds. So what is the theorem that proves an Alien
Intelligence?</p>
<div>
<h2 class="Heading2">
<a name="pgfId=936347">
</a>
The Right Theorem to Prove Intelligent Causation</h2>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936225">
</a>
One can prove relevant actual design by an Intelligence beyond this world in the ancient past by proof of an ingenious design. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936221">
</a>Behe came close to suggesting the right
theorem of proof. He was trying to explain that the flagella of a
bacteria proves intelligent design. However, Behe came about this from
the premises of evolution. He thought the idea of simultaneous
evolution of multiple interworking parts begged credibility, and hence
it was intelligently designed. But this overlooked (or obscured) the
more important fact of the amazing design and engineering skill in the
various parts of the flagella. Demski and others like him focus on high
levels of improbability to prove intelligent design along with
specificity of information-rich biological entities. They believe it
can be mathematically quantified and determined.</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936232">
</a>But the real proof of intelligent design
is, and always will be, ingenious&nbsp;design. No amount of statistics
or powers-of-trial-and-error can ever cross such a barrier. If we find
something that exists in nature which requires ingenuity to exist, then
we have ruled out it was the product of non-conscious processes, e.g.,
evolution. If it takes a Ph.D. to reverse engineer the irridiscence of
a butterfly, or it would take several Craig computers to fold a single
protein in a living cell in a trillion years (which your body does in
under a second for thousands of proteins), then we are talking about an
ingeniousness well beyond the power of trial-and-error.</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936210">
</a>On the other hand, the evidence in this
book about ingenious design will no doubt provide information to help
answer in Metaphysics whether the designer is God or some Alien life
from another planet. But it is beyond the purpose of this book to
venture into such a metaphysical discussion. This book is all about
Science. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936384">
</a>Indeed, this book intends to stay within
the classic definition of Science. It plans to take advantage of the
breakthrough that Dawkins' admission provides. We can now engage in a
constructive sensible scientific investigation into the quality of
design in the universe, life, etc. </p>
</div>
<div>
<h2 class="Heading2">
<a name="pgfId=936388">
</a>
Disproofs of God Which Dawkins Offers Become Irrelevant</h2>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936277">
</a>What this also means is that all of
Dawkins' disproofs of intelligent design based on imperfections in
nature fall away as irrelevant. What Dawkins was attacking was the
religious assumption that was unexpressed but always present in the
first intelligent design movement. Now, if we pass into the second
phase, as I suggest, which expressly divests itself from any religious
agendas and replaces them with solely scientific agendas, Dawkins'
comments become irrelevant. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936392">
</a>Thus, if we make this transformation, it
becomes insignificant whether the Panda's thumb is, in Dawkins' view,
defective. In a Science classroom, we are not trying to determine
anything about the characteristics of the Intelligence on another world
that would answer whether it is or is not G-d as classically defined.
If the Panda's thumb is poorly designed, Dawkins is hoping to prove the
designer could not be G-d by classic definition. However, that debate
on the significance of the Panda's thumb belongs outside Science. It
involves the metaphysical question on the nature of the designer. What
we want to know in Science on this topic is whether there are parts of
the Panda that require an ingenious&nbsp;designer, i.e., there are
parts which could not conceivably be the product of trial-and-error. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936355">
</a>Hence, our response to Dawkins must now
be wiser in the transformation I propose. We will not take the bait of
Dawkins' argument any longer. Instead, we will recognize his arguments
about the Panda's thumb belong in the Metaphysics classroom. In that
classroom, we will devise objective theorems on how to prove whether
this alien intelligence which can now be proven and recognized in
Science fits or does not fit the classic qualities of G-d. Any alleged
imperfection of some designs in nature belongs to metaphysics. Science
only cares whether certain designs match the level of what we call
ingenious, and hence are the hand of an Intelligence not of this world.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<h1 class="Heading1">
<a name="pgfId=936283">
</a>
<div>
<img src="CreatedbyIngeniousDesign-1.gif">
</div>
Of Miracles and Other Quotes On the Defiance of Physics</h1>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936361">
</a>One of the dead giveaways that
Intelligent Design had a religious agenda was how it accepted
evolutionists' leaps into pro-G-d statements. For example, Crick says
that given the extraordinary improbabilities of an evolutionary origin
of the DNA code and life itself, it almost appears life is a "miracle."
The ID person quotes Crick and then leaves it there. The ID person
wants the reader to think G-d did it. Crick's words are treated as a
glorious admission. Then the ID writer exploits the quote to its
height. However, the use of the quote thereby crosses the boundaries of
Science into Metaphysics.</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936291">
</a>
What do we do with such quotes in a revised ID movement that focuses on proof of Ingenious Design by an Alien Intelligence?</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936295">
</a>We must confess in such a quote that a
metaphysical aspect is inter-twined with a scientific aspect. We draw
out the science, and post-pone the metaphysical. We scrupulously remind
our reader that the objective here is to prove whether an alien
intelligence which evolved in some other part of existence consciously
designed the natural phenomenon at issue. That's Science. We must
address quotes such as the one from Crick carefully. We must tell the
reader that the quote means a discovery of ingenious design is under
discussion.</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936398">
</a>What Crick did was make a leap in logic,
and call it a miracle which in popular connotation means a divine being
did it. This was before Dawkins gave anyone a scientific way to speak
about such phenomena. What Crick is recognizing is that life represents
an amazing set of improbabilities and it appears virtually self-evident
that it was a miracle, but whether such a marvel of engineering and
encoding implies a divinity should no longer be the point of our
quotation. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936402">
</a>Instead, to be scrupulous, we must tell
the reader that there is no basis in Science as defined to leap to the
conclusion that because it was a miracle in one sense that we should
say science is studying God's miracles. Only metaphysics can posit such
a being's existence as classically defined, and hope to prove his
existence by appropriate theorems. The quote from Crick is still
useful, but we must keep the discussion to purely scientific questions.
The caveats must be given each time so that the discussion is
maintained as rigidly scientific.</p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936299">
</a>This transformation of the Intelligent
Design movement into a movement called Ingenious Design by an Alien
Intelligence (IDAI) movement must be honest. When I discuss this with
Christians, they hesitate. They do not want to engage in the discussion
if it means talking about an alien intelligence. But this is only due
to religious presupposition. They only want to discuss and prove a
personal G-d. But this new definition of the endeavor based on Dawkins'
admission troubles that agenda. The Judge in the Dover case was right. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936410">
</a>However, we as a community of Christians
can only prove the judge wrong by changing our Scientific agenda into a
purely Scientific Agenda, and then by placing our secondary agenda
inside of a Metaphysics or Natural History classroom. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936366">
</a>Once that transformation is made,
Ingenious Design can enter the classroom as a scientific discussion. I
share as much hope that this will lead to a metaphysical discussion of
whether such intelligence is divine or not. But I cannot let my biases
influence what I define as Science. If I do so, I am merely trying to
take what is a Metaphysical discussion and label it as Science so I can
elevate the credibility of my belief in G-d. But if I truly respect
G-d, I must approach the proof using proper stages of argument.</p>
<div>
<h2 class="Heading2">
<a name="pgfId=936422">
</a>
This Means We Are Taking Chances</h2>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936325">
</a>One of the other reasons we do not want
to do this is because there is a risk in such an endeavor. It may turn
out that in Metaphysics that the theorems will prove an Intelligence
unlike what we presuppose matches the classical definition of G-d. At
this point, I don't know. Science that proves Ingenious Design in this
book has not yet given me the answer. None of us have yet
systematically studied the evidence for Ingenious Design in the context
of metaphysical theorems. Thus, we don't know yet what kind of designer
such analysis will prove. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936370">
</a>Of course, I am excited and hopeful that
the scientific evidence of ingenious design will prove what I imagine
is the classical definition of G-d. But there is a risk that it will
not prove that, and I will be disappointed. </p>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936440">
</a>Yet, regardless, not knowing how this
will end does not mean I should not make a beginning. In this book, I
will endeavor to provide the proof that Metaphysics will likely utilize
later to assess the meaning of the proofs of Ingenious Designs from
nature. They do tell alot. We will see the driving ideas behind certain
patterns in natural history which will later no doubt be useful in
determining what kind of Intelligence made this universe and life. </p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<h1 class="Heading1">
<a name="pgfId=936475">
</a>
<div>
<img src="CreatedbyIngeniousDesign-1.gif">
</div>
Concluding Remarks</h1>
<p class="BodyAfterHead">
<a name="pgfId=936329">
</a>Thus, if you love Science, I trust you
will love this book. If you love God, this book can raise your hopes
that God's existence and His claims on our life will be accepted by
everyone once Metaphysical theorems are applied to this evidence. I
cannot promise this is the outcome. Proof for the existence of G-d is
not the purpose of this book. But it may just turn out by dividing the
stages in argument as rigidly as I have done, we will finally break the
log-jam, and thus allow people to come to faith through science in
stage two. In that stage, we will examine the same scientific facts
using Metaphysical or Natural History analysis to prove the nature of
the ingenious designer. Hence, I pray this book will richly bless each
one of you, regardless of your current faith or non-faith. Indeed, the
marvels of nature are truly more marvelous than any puny effort of man.</p>
</div>
<hr>
<div class="footnotes">
<div class="footnote">
<p class="Footnote">
<span class="footnoteNumber">
1.</span>
<a name="pgfId=936127">
</a>See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNu8F01BD9k&amp;feature=related (Richard
Dawkins on "Fresh Air," WHYY on March 28, 2007.) You can listen to the
full program at www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyld=9180871.</p>
</div>
<div class="footnote">
<p class="Footnote">
<span class="footnoteNumber">
2.</span>
<a name="pgfId=936091">
</a> Jonathan Wells, "Is the "Science" of
Richard Dawkins Science Fiction?, (Discovery Institute, April 21,
2008), at http://www.discovery.org/a/4809 (accessed 6/14/08).</p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>