We have a new home at www.mereorthodoxy.com

Visit http://www.mereorthodoxy.com/

A Fond Farewell of Sorts

I've had a fantastic time blogging--it has brought numerous benefits into my life, most of which were entirely unexpected. However, I'm done. Kaput. Finis. Hit the wall. Etc.

At least at this address. And the other guys are going with me.

That's right--Mere(DASH!)orthodoxy.blogspot.com is officially no longer operational. It simply became too cumbersome to say on the air. And so we're packing up and moving to a new home, a much prettier, more sophisticated domain than our current dwellings.

We're still moving in over there, but the boxes have been transferred, and enough have been unpacked to allow us to entertain (or bore, whichever the case may be!) guests in the new digs. We hope you'll adjust your blogrolls and bookmarks accordingly and maybe even spread the word to friends (or foes) near and far.

And so, without further ado, we introduce to the (rather small!) viewing public, the brand-new Natalie Jost designed, Stacy Harp funded.....

MereOrthodoxy.

a refreshingly clear definition

"The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion."

Part III - What does "intelligent" mean?

A hearty thanks to Warren for his thoughtful responses. There is a second misunderstanding that I have observed twice or thrice, here or there. It is a simple and understandable one, having to do with the term "intelligent." Warren conveniently supplied me with an instance of the misunderstanding here: "...Yet it cannot define "intelligent," and so cannot make any falsifiable predictions. For example, a man's urethra, passes through his prostate which is prone to inflammation later in life causing all kinds of problems. That does not appear to be "intelligent." ... If a designer is intelligent, one might expect him to reuse the innovation from one organism on any other. But in an evolved system, an organism can only use and make minor modifications to traits inherited from its ancestors. So then which hypothesis explains why birds and bats, both engineered for flying, do not share traits such as hollow bones, feathers, and wishbones? Could an eagle not benefit from a canine-like mouth? Maybe beaks are better for flying. But then why did bats not get any?" There are plenty of examples to be amassed about parts or systems of nature not working correctly. Quite simply, this is not the point. Perhaps a better term than "Intelligent Design" is "Intentional design." Intelligence simply refers to a thoughtful, willful agent acting with a purpose. How "intelligent" this person is in accomplishing their purpose is quite irrelevant. The interpretation of certain irreducibly complex systems like the Flagellum Motor is this: "The evidence suggests that this system, which cannot (yet) be accounted for by evolution, but is already well explained by intention." Rather than ask, "If there is an 'Intelligent Designer', why do some things work poorly? Rather ask, "If there is no designer, why does anything work at all?" Right now, the best explanation for the "suprising fact" that the universe "appears to be designed" is.. Well, that it was intentionally designed.

Part II - What, then, IS intelligent design?

It is an interpretation of the evidence found in the observable universe. *In interpreting evidence, there are three types of causes used by scientists. 1. Law, 2. chance, and 3. intention (or design). 1. Law explains things like the rate of speed an apple will fall to the earth if dropped from 40 feet. Chance and intention to do not enter in. 2. Chance explains the number of dots that will appear face up if a pair of dice are thrown 38 times in a row. Law and intention do not enter in. 3. Intention explains things like a dead man, lying in a forest with three bullet wounds in the head. Law and chance do not enter in. The conclusion of intelligent design is simply this: the order of the cosmos (small and large) is best explained by this third kind of cause, namely, it is probably the result of some intelligence acting willfully towards a desired end. All forms of science draw from each of these explanatory causes, but for the sake of context, I've provided a brief list of sciences that depend heavily on one of these three. Branches of study relying on Law: Mathematics, Physics (somewhat), Philosophy (somewhat), etc. Branches of study relying on Chance: Mathematics, Economics, etc. Branches of study relying on Design: Forensic Science, Psychology, Literature, Archeology, History, Criminology, etc. The argument is simply that Physics is one of those sciences wherein intentionality is discovered as a cause. There need be no fear of an unthinking acceptance of any one or the other religious system as a part of acknowledging what is currently the best, most likely hypothesis available for explaining what we see.

Congrats to Joe Carter

Joe Carter, one of my favorite bloggers, has won the "Best Religious Blog" category of the Weblog Awards, 2005. Mere-O garnered a healthy 98 votes, which is encouraging, given our competition. Thank you to all those who helped us stay ahead of Mere-O friend Charles Lehardy! In other news, I am going on blogging hiatus for the rest of 2005. I am disappearing tomorrow to finish a project I have been working on for some time--a book that I am hoping to vanity publish (thanks for the term, Jon) in January. Finally, starting January 1st, watch for exciting changes here at Mere-O. 2006 is going to be an exciting year for Mere-O, and we're eagerly anticipating its arrival!

"Life" by George Herbert

I had a birthday last week, and, as a part of the evening celebration, took a moment to "zoom out" on my life. The psalmist reminds us that human life is like grass, or clouds. It is brief and passes by. In light of this brevity, What are those things worth doing? What is not just futility? George Herbert wrote a poem about an experience he had. It is a pleasant little piece, and makes a suggestion about what is worthwhile. In this moment of reflection his words came as a conviction and comfort. Take a moment, if you like, to smell this small flower of a poem.

"Life"

I made a posy, while the day ran by;

Here will I smell my remnant out, and tie

My life within this band.

But time did beckon to the flowers, and they

By noon most cunngly did steal away,

And withered in my hand.

My hand was next to them, and then my heart:

I took, without more thinking, in good part

Time's gentle admonition:

Who did so sweetly death's sad taste convey,

Making my mind to smell my fatal day;

Yet sug'ring the suspicion.

Farewell dear flowers, sweetly your time ye spent,

Fit, while ye lived, for smell or ornament,

And after death for cures.

I follow straight without complaints or grief,

Since if my scent be good, I care not, if

It be as short as yours.