Welcome to the new home of Mere Orthodxy. We are still under a bit of construction, and probably will be for some time. We have nearly five hundred posts that will have to be categorized. However, we are excited to finally have them imported from our previous site and to be over here at MereOrthodoxy.com.

We at Mere O are immensely thankful to a number of people who made this site possible. In particular, I (Matt) am incredibly thankful to friend and blogger extraordinaire Stacy Harp, founder and owner of the fantastic service BlogforBooks. In an act of the sort of ridiculous generosity that is charachteristic of her, Stacy offered to pay for a site design for Mere O. What you see before you is the fruit of that gift. I speak for all the guys at Mere O when I say “Thank you” for the immense blessing.

Not only did Stacy agree to pay for the design, but she agreed to enlist the immensely talented and creative Natalie Jost. Natalie’s sense of style is incredible–for hours of fun viewing incredible designs, first visit her site, and then look through her portfolio. Natalie put up with long delays as we guys attempted to sort out what we wanted–we are absolutely thrilled with her work and extremely thankful for her patience.

On a personal note, this marks my return to the blogosphere as well. I have been absent for over a month now working on various projects. Work, marriage, a crazy project to write me a book have all consumed me, but nothing has kept me away from blogging like my new hobby: Firefly. We borrowed the DVD’s, watched them all the way through, and then immediately watched Serenity. My wife and I are officially “Browncoats”–reviews and further thoughts will follow. In the meantime, sign up for a potential season two here (I will!).

However, I should point out as “thanks” to Stacy, I have finally fulfilled two more reviews for “Blog for Books.” There are more coming, but I am closer to being caught up on my obligations. I would highly encourage you to check them out here and here. As always, I’d love to hear thoughts and feedback on them.

We are immensely excited about our new home, and we will commit to providing the same level of content our readers are familiar with–esoteric, unengaging and irrelevant to your life. Or something like that. We would continue to encourage you to join with us in our pursuit of all things Good, True and Beautiful.

In August of 2005, Joe Carter of Evangelicaloutpost penned these words: 

What we need is a third way. We need a clear Christian vision that understands that markets are a moral sphere (contra the libertarians). We need to promote the idea that free individuals rather than government force is necessary to carry out this task (as the left often contends). We need to realize that the “market” is not a mystical system that will miraculously provide for our neighbor (as many conservatives seem to think). What we need is develop a coherent Biblically-based conception of how the market as a human institution can be used for the redemptive purposes of our Creator. As with every institution, what the markets need is for Christians to act more like Christ.

Though not an explicit attempt to develop a “Biblically-based” conception of economics, Alberto Piedra’s Natural Law:  The Foundation of an Orderly Economic System goes a long way toward integrating theologically oriented thinking with economics. 

Piedra argues that the philosophical foundations for both socialism and capitalism are bankrupt, and do violence to the “metaphysical dimension of man.”  On the one hand, socialist regimes tend to “stamp out man’s individuality and make him a tool of the state.”  In doing so, it destroys the motivation for work and any incentive for economic activity.  Amongst conservative Christian thinkers, these criticisms are neither unique nor new (though this does not lessen thier force).

On the other hand (or the ‘right hand’, if you will), Piedra contends that classical capitalism and its emphasis on self-interest presumes that the ‘common good’ is reached when individuals all pursue what is in their own self-interest.  While it’s had more overt economic success than socialism, this approach tends to “bestow value only on those things that serve economic ends.  Under such conditions man is regarded as one more input in the production process and subject to the same laws of supply and demand as any other factor of production.” 

Piedra advocates solving the problem by returning to the transcendent basis for the “natural law”–what Aquinas calls the “Eternal Law.”  Piedra, in fact, draws heavily from “the Angelic Doctor”:  “In his Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas defines Natural Law as the participation of the eternal law in the rational creature.  Natural Law is written in the hearts of each and every man…It is the highest way of participating in the Eternal Law [the law 'by which the Creator wills the universe to be governed'] and has as its main function the ordering of all the forces of human nature toward their proper ends, particularly the intelligence and the will.”  

The Natural Law (which is the participation of Reason in the Eternal Law) forms the basis for all ethics–transcendantal moral directives are themselves built into the very structure of the cosmos, and hence are necessarily teleological.  They are, as it were, guides to help man attain his ‘essential nature.’  According to Alisdaire MacIntyre, “Ethics is the science which is to enable men to understand how to make the transition” between man-as-he-is and ‘man-as-he-could-be-if-he-realized-his-essential-nature.’  For Piedra, the end of man ‘exceeds his natural capacity’ making it ‘necessary for him to be directed to this end by a divinely revealed law.’  Without it, man becomes the final arbiter of good and evil.

Piedra faults enlightenment thinkers for rejecting this transcendent basis for ethical commands and for human nature.  By emphasizing the autonomy of reason at the expense of “authority and hierarchy,” they made man the “sole arbiter of the truth” and moved the authority of right and wrong into man himself, destroying any objective basis for morality.  Piedra writes, “The arbitrariness of our modern culture lies precisely on its exclusive reliance on a natural theology divorced from the sacra doctrina; on the power of reason and/or experimentation as the only sources to discover the laws of nature.”  

This affects economics, of course, which is the subject of Piedra’s text.  He writes, “Once the concept of transcendence is rejected and man is limited to the immanent, progress and happiness are reduced to earthly goods and the whole project of morality becomes unintelligible.”  When Enlightenment figures asserted that reason was autonomous and rejected the concept of the Eternal Law, they attempted to ground moral commands in self-interest, a project that in most cases neglected to account for the brute fact of human sinfulness.

In economics, this meant that on the one hand, thinkers like Adam Smith emphasized freedom, self-interest, and competition as the basis for economics.  But on the other hand, he had to ground ethics in this realm as well–Smith’s solution, “the spontaneous identity of interests and…the invisible hand of God” ignores the tendencies toward evil of human nature.  In Piedra’s words, ”Market forces, per se, will not necessarily bring justice and harmony to the economy.  In such cases there is an irreconcilable conflict between the private self-interest of the producers, those of the trade unions and the community at large; a clash of interests that can only be solved by government intervention or voluntary moral restraints.  But voluntary moral restraints will not prevail unless grounded on virtuous acts.”   

Throughout the rest of the work, Piedra attempts to point out how divorcing economics from its transcendant roots has transpired, both in the history of ethics and in our current global situation.  Throughout he stresses that though sinfulness demands submission to contstrants imposed by the state (even in economics), such constraints should be grounded in the Natural Law.  If society recovers the appropriate understanding of the Natural Law, then they will be able to regain the proper perspective on human nature and human action, perspective that is crucial for preserving human rights and promoting the public good. 

For a reader not trained in economics, Piedra’s book can be difficult.  For someone trained in philosophy, Piedra’s explication is at times frustratingly unclear, especially with regard to how we know the Natural Law if not through the powers of reason (Lewis seems more clear on this point in The Abolition of Man).  However, Piedra’s book is also a primer on the history of economics, and his explanation of the ethical basis for economics is intriguing.  Piedra is well-read and the book is well-researched and thorough.  I would highly recommend it to any interested reader, and suggest that readers interested in having a robust Christian worldview carefully consider his arguments.

Update:  spelling errors removed.

It seems that books on apologetics have two benefits:  if done well, they can equip Christians to address popular level critiques of Christianity.  Additionally, they can reaffirm and strengthen a Christian’s confidence in the rationality of the Christian faith.  Norman Geisler and Frank Turek’s I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist accomplishes both in a non-technical, even-handed, and clear manner.

Geisler and Turek’s take an evidentialist approach to the truth of Christianity–faith, for them, rests upon evidence, and the preponderance of evidence is on the Christian’s side.  To get their, they establish the necessary foundations of the knowability of truth and the necessity for some belief (contra Hume and Kant).  After that, they attempt a cumulative case for the existence of God, laying out the cosmological argument, arguments from (and for!) design, and an argument from the existence of a moral law.  They then move into the specifics of Christianity itself:  the possibility of miracles, the reliability of the New testament, and the deity of Jesus Christ.

In particular, their discussion of Intelligent Design (a topic the discussion of which has not been lacking at Mere O recently) was particularly helpful.  Their argument that endeavours such as SETI that have been viewed as legitimate by the scientific community (Sagan, after all, was influential in its founding) rest upon identifying intelligent causation raises the plausibility of introducing intelligent causation as a viable, identifiable, scientific category.  Additionally, their discussions of miracles and the reliability of the New Testament were particularly helpful.

However, they are at their worst when discussing the barriers to belief by atheists, typically mitigating the intellectual challenges to Christianity and emphasizing the volitional aspect to belief and disbelief.  I remain uncomfortable attributing disbelief to a fundamental desire for autonomy, which Geisler and Turek clearly do.  Such psychologizing is rather unhelpful in any discussion that touches on the truth of Christianity.

That said, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist is eminently readable and extremely helpful.  Their presentation is extremely clear.  Though any single argument may not satisfy, the cumulative case they present is compelling.  Even if one adopts evidentialism, Geisler and Turek make it clear that there is an immense amount of evidence for the truth of Christianity–certainly enough that any particular Christian is justified in holding their beliefs.  Atheists may not be persuaded, but persuasion is a long process and I would hope a popular level book would not persuade.  However, Christians who wish to begin to get a grasp (and this should be all Christians) of some of the intellectual foundations of the faith would be well advised to read Geisler and Turek’s excellent book! 

Before there was Sleepless in Seattle and You’ve Got Mail, Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan made Joe Versus the Volcano, a film with lasting value that could help save your soul if you don’t watch out.

The plot goes thusly: Tom Hanks plays Joe, a hypochondriac with a dead-end job he hates. He is isolated and depressed and his life just doesn’t seem much worth living. In the meantime in the world abroad, a rich businessman who has a deal with an island people runs into trouble. The islanders won’t do business with him because their god demands a sacrifice and they can’t find one from among their own ranks. So the rich guy rigs Joe’s doctors appointment and has his personal doctor diagnose Joe with the dealy disease of “Brain Cloud.” Joe is almost happy to have a disease to justify his unhappiness and doesn’t really question the shady diagnosis.

Step 2 is that the rich guy comes and offers Joe a chance to be the sacrifice and briefly “live like a king, die like a man.” Joe gladly quits his job, and soon sets sail to the island with Meg Ryan’s character Patricia piloting the ship. Along the way they get into a wreck, fall in love, but finally arrive in at the island where Joe must face his destiny with Patricia at his side.

I won’t go on and spoil any of the plot because you’ve got to see this film if you’re the kind of person who read Mere-O posts.

The film is ripe with symbolism and the overarching theme that the way to live is to courageously lose yourself, letting go of your fears and selfishness and to actively seek the good, trusting in providence (the film basically implies God) to watch over and protect you.

My favorite scene in the film – and one of the better scenes I’ve ever seen at all – is when Joe and Patricia are drifting in the ocean. Patricia is unconscious, and Joe is starting to become weak and dehydrated as he has given her all of the water. Late one night as he is staring up at the stars the moon begins to peek over the horizon. It rises into a great silver mass right in front of the overawed Joe, who struggles to his feet and finally lifts his arms above his head, revelling in the beauty before him. Then he prays, “Dear God, whose name i do not know, thank you for my life. I forgot how big…thank you, thank you for my life!”

I don’t really know what’s going on with the “whose name I do not know” part, but if you have ever been keenly aware of beauty similar words may have fallen from your lips. This recognition of the glory of creation instantly turns our minds to that which is greater than us – our God.

All that to say, it is surprising to find a film from the early nineties so saturated with Christian themes. It’s pretty goofy and corny, but that’s nothing different from classic comedies of the past and doesn’t mean there aren’t deep layers of meaning buried in the humor – think Aristophanes or Shakespeare. This is definitely a film that will make you remember and be thankful for this great gift of life! If you let it, it might make you a Manalive.

P.S. Apparently, there are whole websites devoted to the layers of meaning in this movie like this one.

Many thanks to Radar, a newcomer, for his thoughtful comments and his referencing real research in the areas we are discussing and attempting to shed light on.

Radar, I assume you have encountered a few answers to the question “What exactly is ‘information’?” I would invite you to read my quickly-collected thoughts below, and add whatever you might think beneficial.

———————————————————————————————

Warren’s task was as follows: Intelligent Design proponents simply do not define “intelligent.” They will also say that there is too much “information” in the genome to have evolved, but cannot define “information.”

Having dealt briefly (whether satisfactorily or no) with the term ‘intelligent’; I would now like to attempt a definition of “information.” It is mere regurgitation of something I have found particularly helpful and challenging in the book Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey, which is an impressive, encyclopedic piece of research, covering the history of Christianity, some basic, populuar-level epistomology, and the presuppositions of the currently prevelant philosophy of science.

The argument cited by Warren runs: “information,” which is supposedly found in the human genome, cannot be produced from simpler elements to more complex.

His challenge is to define the nebulous term “information.”

Pearcey gives for a definition of information, and argues that the above argument is stronger than it might seem. She argues that the above is not an argument from ignorance, but that it is an argument from principle.

Types of Pattern

Now, there are four kinds of pattern.
1. Random selection (from a limited pool).
2. Simple repetition.
3. Cyclic repetition.
4. Information.

Examples of each:

1. ABKQNOKDJQOKGHOCN.

2. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

3. ABCABCABCABCABCABC.

4. THEQUICKBROWNFOXJUMPSOVERTHELAZYDOG.

Sources of Each Type

How do we arrive at each of these?

#1. can be produced by the formula “A or B or C or D or E (on through the 26 possibilities)… plus A or B or C or D or E… plus” and so on, with 17 total additions.

#2. can be produced by the formula “A times 17″

#3. can be produced by the formula “ABC times 6″

#4. can only be produced by the formula “THEQUICKBROWNFOXJUMPSOVERTHELAZYDOG times 1″

A preliminary definition of Information

This fourth kind of pattern is the only one that counts as information, because a) it is meaningful as a whole, and b) its meaning cannot be “built” out of its parts.

While chance can produce random collections of letters (from a given pool), it cannot produce information.
While law can produce simple repetition, it cannot produce information.
While chance plus law can produce limited cyclical repetition, it cannot produce information.

Only a mind can produce information.

There’s a preliminary definition, and, again, I invite correction/commentary from Radar or anyone who has studied this subject more thoroughly than I.

Information as such, found in the Human Body

Now, DNA patterns in the human body are more like the 4th kind of pattern (ie Information) than the other two. Certain genetic chains translate into certain tasks when “read” by the appropriate proteins. These chains are not merely two codes with their own “meaning” added to eachother to create a sum of the two meanings. Two independently meaningful codes produce a third meaning that is greater than the sum of its parts. When observed occuring naturally and mindlessly in the human body, this is, well… its kinda eeiry.

Notice that this argument is one from principle, not from ignorance. We are not giving up and saying, “We do not yet know how a complex genome evolved out of simpler ones, so let’s call it something else.” Rather we are confidently saying, “It is impossible that information arise out of patterns governed by law or chance.”

A few more examples:

Random selection, from a pool of 10 arabian numerals (chance) =
65198432491649849546546
654651324935856519894654

Simple Repetition (law) =
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Pattern (law plus chance)=
ICANTBELIEVEITSMIDNIGHTICANTBELIEVE
ITSMIDNIGHTICANTBELIVEITSMIDNIGHT.

Information (designed by a person) =
MIDWAYTHISWAYOFLIFEWE’REBOUNDUPON/
IAWOKETOFINDMYSELFINASTRANGEWOOD/
THERIGHTROADWASWHOLLYLOSTANDGONE.

The fourth sentence example had to be created “with the end in mind.” It could not, in principle have evolved from a set alphabet of simpler letters, repeating in obedience to any law of repetition or cycle.

Many people are trying to understand the answer to this question: “Where did all the complexity come from?”

IDers say, “It came from an intelligent designer,”
Evolvers say, “It came from previous simplicity, gradually increasing in complexity.”

In the previous post, Warren made this challenge: “An intelligent designer” doesn’t explain anything, scientifically, unless we can explain how he’s doing it.”

He summarized, “Intention is not an explanation. Things don’t get intended into existence.”

With which I fully agree.

There is a difference between mechanism, and originating cause. It is the difference between “How” and “Why,” the difference between a pool cue striking an ivory ball into a pocket, and a person who’s trying to win a game.

I do not claim to know the mechanism for how things got made, I claim to see clues that suggest they were made on purpose.

“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.”

Many thanks to Radar, a newcomer, for his thoughtful comments and his referencing real research in the areas we are discussing and attempting to shed light on.

Radar, I assume you have encountered a few answers to the question “What exactly is ‘information’?” I would invite you to read my quickly-collected thoughts below, and add whatever you might think beneficial.

———————————————————————————————

Warren’s task was as follows: Intelligent Design proponents simply do not define “intelligent.” They will also say that there is too much “information” in the genome to have evolved, but cannot define “information.”

Having dealt briefly (whether satisfactorily or no) with the term ‘intelligent’; I would now like to attempt a definition of “information.” It is mere regurgitation of something I have found particularly helpful and challenging in the book Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey, which is an impressive, encyclopedic piece of research, covering the history of Christianity, some basic, populuar-level epistomology, and the presuppositions of the currently prevelant philosophy of science.

The argument cited by Warren runs: “information,” which is supposedly found in the human genome, cannot be produced from simpler elements to more complex.

His challenge is to define the nebulous term “information.”

Pearcey gives for a definition of information, and argues that the above argument is stronger than it might seem. She argues that the above is not an argument from ignorance, but that it is an argument from principle.

Types of Pattern

Now, there are four kinds of pattern.
1. Random selection (from a limited pool).
2. Simple repetition.
3. Cyclic repetition.
4. Information.

Examples of each:

1. ABKQNOKDJQOKGHOCN.

2. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

3. ABCABCABCABCABCABC.

4. THEQUICKBROWNFOXJUMPSOVERTHELAZYDOG.

Sources of Each Type

How do we arrive at each of these?

#1. can be produced by the formula “A or B or C or D or E (on through the 26 possibilities)… plus A or B or C or D or E… plus” and so on, with 17 total additions.

#2. can be produced by the formula “A times 17″

#3. can be produced by the formula “ABC times 6″

#4. can only be produced by the formula “THEQUICKBROWNFOXJUMPSOVERTHELAZYDOG times 1″

A preliminary definition of Information

This fourth kind of pattern is the only one that counts as information, because a) it is meaningful as a whole, and b) its meaning cannot be “built” out of its parts.

While chance can produce random collections of letters (from a given pool), it cannot produce information.
While law can produce simple repetition, it cannot produce information.
While chance plus law can produce limited cyclical repetition, it cannot produce information.

Only a mind can produce information.

There’s a preliminary definition, and, again, I invite correction/commentary from Radar or anyone who has studied this subject more thoroughly than I.

Information as such, found in the Human Body

Now, DNA patterns in the human body are more like the 4th kind of pattern (ie Information) than the other two. Certain genetic chains translate into certain tasks when “read” by the appropriate proteins. These chains are not merely two codes with their own “meaning” added to eachother to create a sum of the two meanings. Two independently meaningful codes produce a third meaning that is greater than the sum of its parts. When observed occuring naturally and “mindlessly” in the human body, this is, needless to say, kind of eeiry.

Notice that this argument is one from principle, not from ignorance. We are not giving up and saying, “We do not yet know how a complex genome evolved out of simpler ones, so let’s call it something else.” Rather we are confidently saying, “It is impossible that information arise out of patterns governed by law or chance.”

A few more examples:

Random selection, from a pool of 10 arabian numerals (chance) =
65198432491649849546546
654651324935856519894654

Simple Repetition (law) =
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Pattern (law plus chance)=
ICANTBELIEVEITSMIDNIGHTICANTBELIEVE
ITSMIDNIGHTICANTBELIVEITSMIDNIGHT.

Information (designed by a person) =
MIDWAYTHISWAYOFLIFEWE’REBOUNDUPON/
IAWOKETOFINDMYSELFINASTRANGEWOOD/
THERIGHTROADWASWHOLLYLOSTANDGONE.

The fourth sentence example had to be created “with the end in mind.” It could not, in principle have evolved from a set alphabet of simpler letters, repeating in obedience to any law of repetition or cycle.

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.

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.

Twice I have heard certain critiques levelled against intelligent design theory and its proponents that do not seem to me to comment on the actual theory. I would like to present this critique now and point out that is not actually critique of intelligent design, but a critique of some misunderstood modification thereof. As a critique of this as yet unnamed third theory, it is devestating. Of intelligent design theory per se, it is not a critique at all.

Critique of some theory #1: Federal Judge John E. Jones III… called [intelligent design] a “mere re-labeling of creationism” and said it amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

What intelligent design is not, part 1: Intelligent design is not Christian, is not Creationism in the normal sense of the term, nor is it even Theistic. It is a scientific hypothesis born out of observation of our very perplexing universe.*

Critique of some theory #2: “I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.”

First of all this is hilarious. Second of all, it does not, sadly, comment on the important issues surround the origins debate. The critique being levelled, if I may be permitted to “propositionalize” the joke, is that invoking a god or gods as the creator of things, without seeing him, knowing anything about him (them), or even making sense of his (their) attributes, is absurdity beyond absurdity. Well and good! God does make sense to some people, I have no problem with that.

What intelligent design is not, part 2: Intelligent design makes no comment (as of yet) as to who this intelligence is. Whether it is a spaghetti monstor, a lepricon, or James Taylor, having become supremly powerful and omniscient, going back in time to design our universe to support life… this is not currently at question. The first question for science is, “The universe has irreducibly complex systems within it. What hypothesis explains this data?”

I do hope this clarification is helpful to some people. Please let me know if it is not, or if I am missing something.