E. O. Wilson on ID

_{William Dembski

November 26, 2007

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here’s what E. O. Wilson writes in THE NEW SCIENTIST:

. . . Many who accept the fact of evolution cannot, however, on religious grounds, accept the operation of blind chance and the absence of divine purpose implicit in natural selection. They support the alternative explanation of intelligent design. The reasoning they offer is not based on evidence but on the lack of it. The formulation of intelligent design is a default argument advanced in support of a non sequitur. It is in essence the following: there are some phenomena that have not yet been explained and that (most importantly) the critics personally cannot imagine being explained; therefore there must be a supernatural designer at work. The designer is seldom specified, but in the canon of intelligent design it is most certainly not Satan and his angels, nor any god or gods conspicuously different from those accepted in the believer’s faith.

Flipping the scientific argument upside down, the intelligent designers join the strict creationists (who insist that no evolution ever occurred) by arguing that scientists resist the supernatural theory because it is counter to their own personal secular beliefs. This may have a kernel of truth; everybody suffers from some amount of bias. But in this case bias is easily overcome. The critics forget how the reward system in science works. Any researcher who can prove the existence of intelligent design within the accepted framework of science will make history and achieve eternal fame. They will prove at last that science and religious dogma are compatible. Even a combined Nobel prize and Templeton prize (the latter designed to encourage the search for just such harmony) would fall short as proper recognition. Every scientist would like to accomplish such a epoch-making advance. But no one has even come close, because unfortunately there is no evidence, no theory and no criteria for proof that even marginally might pass for science. . . .

Two comments:

(1) ID does not argue from “Shucks, I can’t imagine how material mechanisms could have brought about a biological structure” to “Gee, therefore God must have done it.” This is a strawman. Here is the argument ID proponents actually make:

Premise 1: Certain biological systems have some diagnostic feature, be it IC (irreducible complexity) or SC (specified complexity) or OC (organized complexity) etc.
Premise 2: Materialistic explanations have been spectacularly unsuccessful in explaining such systems — we have no positive evidence for thinking that material mechanisms can generate them.
Premise 3: Intelligent agency is known to have the causal power to produce systems that display IC/SC/OC.
Conclusion: Therefore, biological systems that exhibit IC/SC/OC are likely to be designed.

(2) Wilson’s claim that proving “the existence of intelligent design within the accepted framework of science will make history and achieve eternal fame” is disingenuous. The accepted framework of science precludes ID from the start. Wilson and his materialistic colleagues have stacked the deck so that no evidence could ever support it.

Comments

DD: On implications of relativism [an implication of evolutionary materialism], as illustrated by attempted debates over whether the proper meaning of "Martyr" is a matter of serious controversy:
OED: martyr: noun a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs [Am H D] Murderer: One who commits murder. [Am H D] Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. [Am H D] Unlawful: Not lawful; illegal. Contrary to accepted morality or convention; illicit. [NB: of course this itself begins to skirt the issue of objective morality, with serious implications for our rights and for justice!]
Kindly cf point 1, no 155. I note that apart from complaining that I have given details, all that has in effect been said is that there are those who would disagree with me. SteveB is right to remark:
Please make the distinction between taking someone else’s life and giving up your own [in peaceful witness to one's convictions]. It is not a small one
If relativism cannot tell the difference between the victim and the perpetrator of murder -- all martyrs are by definition murder victims, even where the murder is carried out under false colour of law -- then it is in serious, serious trouble. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 3, 2007
December
12
Dec
3
03
2007
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PST}

Sure stephen. I am still in doubt over any useful definition of 'martyr' that does not have slippery slopes on either side. Following that, I am not sure what operational benefit there is to the 'design inference'. After that, what? It seems that one would still adopt the methodological form of science currently in use. AFAICT the only difference would be in the tangential substitution of whatever we call the thing you use to infer design, and that would only be relevant for the inference. I don't see how this is redefines science, and I don't see the practical purpose of the 'design inference'. I do see the religious implications as practical and comforting but that is a different story. Per character comments, perhaps you are right. Lets let the trolls be and let each other be. I will follow your example.digdug24_{December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PST}

digdug24 at #156:StephenB_{December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PST}

I am still hoping that you will accept my olive branch. In any case ------1) "First, there are many folks who would disagree with you about Rudolph being a martyr. Pure relativism at it’s finest. For the record, I don’t consider him a martyr. But it is clear that he did endure quite a bit of hardship and suffering because of his beliefs." Please make the distinction between taking someone else's life and giving up your own. It is not a small one. -----2) I’m not so convinced that there is a scientific alternative to ‘materialism’ in the methodological sense. I agree this is more about philosophy, but I don’t understand what you will replace methodological naturalism with." Methodological naturalism is the science stopper. It is not necessary to rule out "design infernece" in order to test for natural causes. ------3)" It is telling of one’s character when they are forced to harangue a commenter once that commenter has been removed from the discussion. Can we just forget about the trolls? What purpose does it serve to attack someone who cannot answer you?" Learn from my mistake with you and don't attack character or intelligence.StephenB_{December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PST}

God that is a lot of reading just to get a few basic points. Try the Cliff Notes version next time KF. First, there are many folks who would disagree with you about Rudolph being a martyr. Pure relativism at it's finest. For the record, I don't consider him a martyr. But it is clear that he did endure quite a bit of hardship and suffering because of his beliefs. Regarding point 2, I'm not so convinced that there is a scientific alternative to 'materialism' in the methodological sense. I agree this is more about philosophy, but I don't understand what you will replace methodological naturalism with. 3 It is telling of one's character when they are forced to harangue a commenter once that commenter has been removed from the discussion. Can we just forget about the trolls? What purpose does it serve to attack someone who cannot answer you?digdug24_{December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PST}

H'mm: Some follow-up notes are in order, though it is also clear that the thread has drifted from the subject in the main. That subject is important enough that we need to get back to it. Namely, a correct and fair view of ID,a nd an understanding that there is a questionable injection of materialist philosophy and associated ideological agendas into the current institutionalised praxis of science, science education and science popularisation, which is having deleterious impact through courts and policy-making. On points of specific note: 1] Martyr For the benefit of interested onlookers here is OED:
martyr noun a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs
Historically, the word comes form the ordinary Greek word for "witness," marturos. Early Christians, starting with Stephen [cf here Ac 6 - 8] rewrote the definition in their blood, by standing peacefully and even cheerfully steadfast in the face of threats, torture and unjust death for refusing to surrender what they knew [BTW from another Greek word, gnosis] to be the truth from having met God in the face of Christ. The early Christians recognised this to be sufficiently specially empowered by God to identify it as a spiritual gift [a charism]. They distinguished suffering to the point of death for one's witness to Christ from mere suffering, using the term we translate "confessor" for those who only suffered, short of actual death. As Peter himself pointed out [cf. cite above], it is a gross -- and too often cynically propagandistic -- disrespect to the many, many who have followed in Stephen's path, to conflate this with either one who has acted the part of a common criminal and, especially, one who is a murderer, whether he is Mr Rudolph or one of the 19 of 9/11, etc etc. 2] Rockyr, 150: In their oversimplification of the problem, these people see modern science as a direct threat and enemy . . . these literalists sense or know that this is a key battle about the kind of society we will live in. Sadly, this is very understandable, as there has been a major attempt to redefine "science" -- through the concept of so-called methodological naturalism -- into a synonym for [evolutionary] materialism. For such, science becomes in effect the best materialist explanation of the cosmos from hydrogen to humans. This is an utterly unwarranted, question-begging philosophical move that is counter to the actual history and much of the praxis of science. [Cf here.] Indeed, we can get a far better "definition" by consulting even not so old, high-quality dictionaries, here OED 1990 and my Mother's 1965 Webster's 7th Collegiate:
science: a branch of knowledge ["true, justified belief"] conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [Concise Oxford, 1990 -- and yes, they used the "z" Virginia!] scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge [”the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind”] involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [Webster's 7th Collegiate, 1965]
But, since right now the evolutionary materialists in the main hold the institutional power centres and control the mikes, they -- as Mr Wilson just did -- can easily misrepresent the truth by giving that false impression [in defiance of their duties of care regarding truth and fairness] and, sadly, are abusively exploiting the prestige of science to promote their worldview and associated agendas. In some cases, that is -- as I noted above -- because of major gaps in science education. But we should be hearing loud and clear from the leaders on philosophy and history of science, who have let the likes of Ms Barbara Forrest get away with distortions that are so grossly out of line with the truth that they HAVE to be deliberate lies or else reflections of imbalance that would have to be clinical. Sometimes, silence in the face of slander is complicity. 3] we should stress and loudly keep stressing and correcting and complaining that the modern ID is NOT about such incoherent and confused literalism as Lazarus presented. Yet we should not alienate these people but try to look deep into what is good and correct about such Biblical “fundamentalism.” I agree. Unfortunately, in the case of Lazarus, whether because of his frustration or because of his being a Sokal-style parody, he has not responded when corrected or even invited to serious dialogue. 4] 151, I don’t agree with you that all such “dreams” or precognitive dreaming is of the same kind I never asserted such. I spoke to how we have different ways to be rational, and the ability to creatively synthesise and vislualise is a part of the picture, resting on profound insight. 5] Tesla On Tesla, I have long since forgotten the source on that tidbit -- it would have been an electronics publication for engineers or technicians from about 20 - 25 years ago. If one has sufficient experience with actual behaviour of machines, one can intuitively appreciate boundary conditions and dynamics, thence estimate their behaviour, far beyond what one can calculate. That is a part of what experience and technical judgement are about, and visualisation is a part of that process. (It struck me then, because it parallelled Einstein's visualisations and thought experiments, and the way that certain early IC designers would use similar visualisation to guide them in laying out the IC layers. That was before there was software that could help them do that. BTW, in the European style engineering tradition, a heavy emphasis is still made on drawing and associated 3-D visualisation, as a crucial design technique. There is a logic to such scientifically informed visualisation that cannot be effectively and intelligibly reduced to words, as any experienced person can tell you. On the more abstract side, from my own experience and observation of my own students, it was a breakthrough to be able to visualise the Laplacian s-plane through the stretchy rubber-sheet technique, allowing one to see frequency response curves and intuitively appreciate damping effects, then quantify from observation. Years later, students were still telling me about pole-spotting from time-domain behaviour of e.g. car suspensions on the roads!) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PST}

digdug 24: I apologize. My remarks were uncharitable-----and premature. It was not my intention to shut down dialogue, and I hope I haven't. Critical questions are welcome anytime.StephenB_{November 30, 2007
November
11
Nov
30
30
2007
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PST}

Stephen your uncharitable remarks are misdirected. I was responding completely to post 142, who directly combobulated the issue by bringing up nonsequitors. However, thanks for the heads up on who is looking for a flamewar here though, I'll avoid discussion with you about anything else unless I'm looking for a fight. Cheersdigdug24_{November 30, 2007
November
11
Nov
30
30
2007
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PST}

----------digdug24: “If so, no need to apologize because frankly I didn’t read the several hundred lines of navel gazing. Not until I saw that in a subsequent post did I even catch it.” ----------“But you still have conflated martyr with victim. Several millions killed somewhere because they were Christians? I don’t see how that makes them martyrs. No more than several hundred thousand Iraqi civilians killed because they were in the neighborhood, or how ever many death row inmates killed because they were guilty.” ----------“Being a christian does not a martyr make… I would think it would be deeper than that. Hence my suggestion that under those criteria Eric Rudolph may indeed be a martyr to some. He had a cause, and I’m not so sure that the Sudanese Christians had a cause. Perhaps you can tell me more.” While your opening insult is not directed at me personally, your subsequent comments relate to my earlier post. The only real question for me is whether to confront your ignorance or marvel at your arrogance. No one around here conflates “martyr” with “victim,” except you. It should be clear that I had originally used the term martyr to mean one who would prefer to choose death rather than renounce his faith. The definition would also include anyone who, through charity, lays down his or her life for someone else. What matters is the act and the motive. So, obviously, not all Christians are martyrs. This is basic logic 101. Already you have distorted a definition and ventured an irrational conclusion. Now we must address the way you muddle through the critical distinctions, especially those that pertain to intention and purpose. Can you get your head wrapped around the idea that suicide bombings and mass murders may not qualify as the best expression of charity? Can you appreciate the fact that SOME Sudanese Christians volunteered to offer up their lives rather than submit to the tyranny of Islamic persecution? Can you fathom the concept that the death penalty has nothing to do with voluntary sacrifice and everything to do with paying for a crime? Why not just go ahead and expand martyrdom to include members in gangs who were killed in a street fight? So, there is a big problem here. Either you don’t read with comprehension or you cannot reason in the abstract. In any case, you forfeited the opportunity to engage in good faith dialogue with your opening salvo. A general principle: He who cannot navigate through a syllogism should not enter into a controversy. Clearly, there is no reason to carry on with this foolishness, because there is no point to it. Anyone who cannot distinguish between the heroism of Maximilian Kolbe and the savagery of Eric Rudolph is uneducable.StephenB_{November 30, 2007
November
11
Nov
30
30
2007
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PST}

Kairosfocus, I used the word "irrational" because I couldn't quickly think of a better word, and that is why I added "not subject to rational" to clarify. I agree that precognition is not an irrational act in the strict primary sense of that word. Perhaps a better word would be super-rational, (or sub-rational), or even better, to avoid the super/sub confusion, it is a preter-rational function -- in the sense of preternatural, or what is beyond natural and beyond rational. However, I don't agree with you that all such "dreams" or precognitive dreaming is of the same kind, for example that haphazardly altering one's mind, such as by hallucinogenic drugs, will or may lead to positive results. This is where we should be careful and employ strict reason to our "dreaming", or we may get a nasty surprise. There is also a difference between dreaming and day-dreaming, and between genuine enlightenment or phantasms. That is what the original meaning of the word "day-dream" was meant to convey, so I don't think anybody should brag about doing science by day-dreaming. Even Einstein's daydreaming led to abuses of reason, since you cannot literally or actually apply his physics to people flying at the speed of light - that is where all the nonsensical relativistic paradoxes, like the Twin paradox, come from. That is also why I am opposed to treating things like parallel universes or alien biology as valid science - they are not factual and they are irrational. Just curious, where did you get the Tesla trivia from? I read some of his biographies, and I agree that he was a genius superior even to the genius of Edison, but I don't remember reading about such mental capability of his as imaginatively assessing wear and tear of machines. (Other than simply guessing, by an educated guess, using one's knowledge and experience with materials.)rockyr_{November 30, 2007
November
11
Nov
30
30
2007
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PST}

Frost, thanks for your reply, I am glad we agree about the value of the subjective knowledge and experience. About Lazarus - it's true that he lost his cool and started to babble and offend, and it wasn't nice, and it may have warranted his expulsion just on those grounds. However, (psychologically), that is what happens to most people when they get frustrated about not being understood. There were snippets of truth in what he was trying to express. I don't want to be an arbiter about whether he should be expelled or not, and he certainly should be if he is a troll, but my gut feeling is that he is a Bible literalist or a Bible fundamentalist, ( I don't like to use this word in this context but it is being used by others), to whom the Bible is all that matters. In a way these "fundamentalists" are right - all things considered, to a Christian the Christian way of life is of more importance than any (natural) science. If we didn't have any science, like say Jews 2000 years ago in the time of Christ, we could still live a good and meaningful life. In their oversimplification of the problem, these people see modern science as a direct threat and enemy and insofar as the see that the ID is against modern science -- which ID certainly is not, it is only against the abuses in modern science. Just as ourselves, these literalists sense or know that this is a key battle about the kind of society we will live in. They want to be on our side and be a part of this battle against the deadly threats to their way of life, which threaten us as well, so we are fighting the common enemy. In fact, what you are asking the moderators to do, is to ban all such Bible literalists from ID, and there are many of them, because you perceive them as a liability since we all get falsely mis-labeled as such, often on purpose, by the anti-ID Darwinists and evolutionists. Actually, and historically, it were these fundamentlists, people like William Jennings Bryan, who kept the fight going when the rest of the world, including Catholics, almost caved in and accepted Darwinism hook-line-and sinker. I think we should stress and loudly keep stressing and correcting and complaining that the modern ID is NOT about such incoherent and confused literalism as Lazarus presented. Yet we should not alienate these people but try to look deep into what is good and correct about such Biblical "fundamentalism."rockyr_{November 30, 2007
November
11
Nov
30
30
2007
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PST}

I assume that I am 'DD' in the post above. If so, no need to apologize because frankly I didn't read the several hundred lines of navel gazing. Not until I saw that in a subsequent post did I even catch it. But you still have conflated martyr with victim. Several millions killed somewhere because they were Christians? I don't see how that makes them martyrs. No more than several hundred thousand Iraqi civilians killed because they were in the neighborhood, or how ever many death row inmates killed because they were guilty. Being a christian does not a martyr make... I would think it would be deeper than that. Hence my suggestion that under those criteria Eric Rudolph may indeed be a martyr to some. He had a cause, and I'm not so sure that the Sudanese Christians had a cause. Perhaps you can tell me more.digdug24_{November 30, 2007
November
11
Nov
30
30
2007
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PST}

Hi Frost When you register, you can give a web page link, which will show in your handle, a WordPress feature. The linked page is my own take on the ID issue, starting with the significance of information. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 30, 2007
November
11
Nov
30
30
2007
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PST}

Karios- I am new to the site and was wondering what all of the stuff is that i see when i click on your name. Could you be explicit becuase I dont know too much about this site yet.Frost122585_{November 30, 2007
November
11
Nov
30
30
2007
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PST}

-----kairosfocus: "I would put that a bit differently::" 'Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted . . . At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution — an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project . . .' (No prizes for guessing the source of this excerpt Agreed. In its misguided attempt to distance itself from religion, science filled its own vacuum by wedding itself to materialist philosophy.StephenB_{November 30, 2007
November
11
Nov
30
30
2007
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PST}

H'mm: On looking at Stephen B in 144, I think I need to pull back a bit of my harshness in 142. Apologies, DD.kairosfocus_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PST}

PS: Frost, you have now several times raised some issues on the religious view of life, in a way that I think needs a balancing point or two, on the reasonableness of Bible-anchored Christian faith (as a part of the sider context of the cultural side of the ID issues), pardon, Patrick et al. I think you will find a more balanced approach to handling the Bible here and here. In the former, for College level students and similar youth leaders in training, you will see the difference between simplistic literalism and an introductory-level grammatico-historico-contextual approach to understanding the Biblical message in its context and bridging to its relevance to our own context today; all in light of seeking a proper balance of hermeneutical issues. (On related apologetics issues at a similar level, cf here.) The latter gives a bit of a balancing push on the evolution of theology over the past several centuries, as a part of an into to phil course for theology students. Yes, there are those who have a naive, ill-informed approach to the Bible as Christians [and can give a bad name to Evangelicals if they blunder into a more sophisticated forum than they are used to], but that is not by any means the whole story.kairosfocus_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PST}

-----digdug24, "As much as I would like to agree with you about the rest of what you say, I am not so sure about the analogy of Christian martyrs and Muslim martyrs versus noble and ignoble causes." Thanks for the ability to clarify. I do not consider "Muslim" to be synonymous with "Islamist," the former, a militant terrorist, the latter a believer in the Koran, who may not be sympathetic with that kind of extremism. As an example of a 20th Century Christian martyr, try Maximian Kolbe, who offered up his life at a Nazi concentration camp to save another captive who had already been condemned to death. After hearing the man weep, (he didn't want to leave his wife a widow and his children fatherless) Kolbe asked the executioner to kill him instead. His request was granted.StephenB_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PST}

SteveB, Frost, . . . and digdug et al: First, Stephen, thanks for your you will find that he exhibits this same virtue of “proportionality.” Appreciation [even if also joined to points of critique] enlivens and enhances positive discussion. Now, too, I see DD trying to splash mud over the crucial difference between genuine martyrdom and the abuse of the term by Islamists [as opposed to the many ordinary decent people who are Muslims, who form the single largest pool of victims of radical violent Islamists] to try to make a sensible and important point into something ugly. Evidently, he does not know that it is a commonplace that the past 100 years has, sadly, seen more Christians perish for refusing to surrender to intimidation and oppression designed to make them abandon their convictions based on their encounter with God in the face of Christ, than in any previous century. Just for one instance, Christians were a very high proportion of the 2 - 3 millions killed by the Khartoum regime in southern Sudan. In another incident that should have been headlined in the US -- but was mentioned in passing a few times, then all too conveniently forgotten -- When the Columbine massacre occurred, students were in some cases asked concerning their Christian faith, and if they acknowledged Jesus were murdered. Nor is Mr Rudolph in any way a Christian martyr. In the words of St Peter:
1PE 4:12 Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. 14 If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. 15 If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. 16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.
DD should apologise, or else he has shown himself to be an ill-bred, worse informed trollish slanderer. (Onlookers, that sort of all too commonly encountered uncivil, disrespectful, hostility-laced, ill-informed and supercilious spoiled brattiness is a good part of why UD has to maintain such a high moderation and spamming threshold. It does not speak well of the current state of our civilisation.) Now, on a point or two of note: 1] Rockyr, 132: there are ample examples from the history of science and philosophy that the subjective and irrational intuition (not subject to rational) does play some significant part. For example, Kekule discovered the highly elusive ring structure of the benzene molecule based on a dream. Actually, I am not so sure this is an IRRATIONAl act, so much as a flash of creative intuition that synthesised a key model or approach to understanding intensely studied but then poorly understood phenomena. That intuition was then amply confirmed by onward investigations. Similarly, Einstein often conceived his most fruitful insights through daydreams, e.g. taking an imaginative ride on a beam of light, then working out the mathematical consequences of that. Subsequently, he became a champion of the Gedankenexperiment [sp?], i.e the thought-experiment, which has now been extended into scientific visualisation on the computer. On the engineering side, Tesla was noted for his ability to mentally assemble a novel electrical machine in his mind, run it for several weeks, then disassemble it and inspect it for the likely amount of wear and tear. (I shudder to think of how much shop experience went into that!) At a more trivial level, one of my old HS Math teachers tried long and hard to get us to the point where we had in our heads our own mental chalkboards where we could rapidly write down a derivation or difficult calculation [including of course the relevant diagrams] then check it before committing to paper. Rationality has dimensions far beyond the mere assessing of chains of implications. These points also bring us to the issue of . . . 2] The logic of explanation We are very used to reasoning from premises that are generally accepted to their implications, i.e demonstrative, deductive "proof." But science and a lot of other things actually work in a different way, by abduction [sometimes, adduction]. Here, we examine a set of credible but puzzling [indeed, often apparently contradictory] facts, and ask what best explains them. Then we compare competing explanations and accept the best one as the most likely, relative to tests such as factual adequacy [covering the widest range of facts], coherence [logical consistency] and having dynamics that can credibly originate or "drive" the observed patterns from a reasonable starting point], elegant simplicity [as opposed to ad hoc-ness or being simplistic]. In such reasoning, the explanations are always provisional, though they often attain to what is called moral certainty. This is because there is a counter-flow between the directions of logical implication and empirical support. Namely, Explanation entails observed facts, but the facts are where the empirical support comes from. So the explanation pattern cannot be a proof, though it can attain to high reliability and confidence. And of course, this is a matter of philosophy [and even intersects with theology, for the ultimate explanations at he core of our worldviews have theological (or anti-theological) aspects!], not "science." That brings up . . . 3] SB, 133: our materialistic culture breeds, in large part, one-dimensional, narrow-minded scientists, who have become detached from and even contemptuous of the humanity they are supposed to be serving. Precisely, and sadly, because their education and indoctrination have been ever so narrow, and they have been taught to be arrogantly dismissive about the worldviewl-level [philosophical, moral and theological] questions that naturally emerge from their studies. And, in fact, such are some of the logical consequences of evolutionary materialism, which should warn us of its incoherence and delusional character. 4] For one thing, [a materialist scientist SB encountered recently] could not even bring himself to admit that I can draw inferences about design from an ancient hunter’s spear. Here we see selective hyper-skepticism at work. He uses the very same logic of inference to best explanation in his day by day scientific work. But so soon as his evolutionary materialist worldview is in question, he cuts off the logic arbitrarily, and raises all sorts of objections that would not come up in any other comparable case. So, he is logically incoherent, question-begging and closed-mindedly insecure. 5] he lacks the wisdom that can only be found outside of science. His unabashed battle cry dramatizes his point: “whatever we can do, we ought to do.” In short, we see nakedly revealed the corruption of morality by evolutionary materialist ideology in the guise of science. Has he ever pondered why it is that, even though many more lives were saved by applying the scientific findings of the Nazi concentration camps experiments on prisoners than were taken in the experiments, Medical science actually went back and replicated the findings until they could purge the text-books and the research literature of all of that foul "work"? In short, there is a vast difference between legitimate inquisitiveness and vicious curiosity. But then, I suspect that exposure to phil of science and ethics of science is not frequently to be found in the core of professional science programmes in universities. Given the relevant and horrible history, one wonders why . . . NOT. 6] Science’s radical isolation from philosophy and religion has indeed taken its toll. I would put that a bit differently:
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted . . . At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project . . .
(No prizes for guessing the source of this excerpt . . . ; - ) .) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PST}

Rockyr, I appreciate what "you" are saying about the informational value of a subjective expierence. I have to say 2 things. 1, The kind of thoughtful reasoning that you cited and layed out is not the nature of the claims Lazarus has made. I think Lazarus is a troll and that is just my opinion. There was nothing resembling an argument except a very simple one that was a. The bible is the only true knowledge B. only true knowledge matters and C. The bible is all that matters. Everyone ignored and rightfully complained when Lazarus began to insult everyone on the post saying one nasty unfounded unsupported thing about ID after another and completely dismissing it altogether for no reason. Lazarus has no reason to be on this site. If i went to a National Football league site and just tlaked about how football sucks and only rugby is a real game I would be removed and rightfully so. Now I am not a bible literalist so i have the pleasure of judgeing people based on their actions. I have concluded Lazarus and Lazarus types are not only bad for this site but really bad for the ID movement in general which I am currently very much an advocate of. My quote about the virgin Mary flying into my bedroom window was not supported by any great scientific discovery of any sort and analogous Lazarus claims were not either, they were not even suppoted by current science. I agree with your point but it does not apply to Lazarus except in a very moot way.Frost122585_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PST}

YW ;-)Apollos_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PST}

wow, ok thanks alot apollos!Frost122585_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PST}

Frost, use blockquote tags:
QuotedText
will show up as
lets see
Frost122585_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PST}

Frost, use blockquote tags: <blockquote>QuotedText</blockquote> will show up as
QuotedText
Apollos_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PST}

Wow! in my last paragraph on 132, I posted too quickly and transposed two phrases that may well distract. Obviously, I meant----"Having said that, I don't want to minimize an important point: your comment on 115 does resonate:........ and in the final sentence......"as long as we place them in the right context and temper them in the right proportions." Sorry!StephenB_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PST}

stephenb, Absolutely. Queston: I am new to this site and am wondering how people make quotes grey and with smaller bounds?Frost122585_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PST}

As much as I would like to agree with you about the rest of what you say, I am not so sure about the analogy of Christian martyrs and Muslim martyrs versus noble and ignoble causes. I don't know of too many contemporary Christian martyrs. Do you have examples? I was thinking at first of Eric Rudolph but surely you can't mean that?digdug24_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PST}

-------Frost 122585, (On Lazurus) “I feel that when I am debating this kind of a person I am more or less just debating a Prophet Yahweh.” I appreciate and agree with your reasonable objections to the irrational religious injections that threatened to cheapen the scientific discourse. The operative word here is, “irrational.” One of the reasons posts such as those of Lazarus tend to disrupt and even destroy destructive dialogue is because they take something very beautiful and made it very ugly. Let me offer a risky, but, I hope, helpful analogy. Islamists radicals have taken the idea of Christian martyrdom, a very praiseworthy thing, and transformed it into a very repulsive thing. Christian martyrs sacrifice their lives for the love of a noble cause; Islamist martyrs throw away their lives out of slavish obedience to an ignoble cause. The former values life and would save others with his act; the latter devalues life and would take as many others with him as possible. Thus, the very term martyr, which once evoked admiration, now causes fear and disgust. As a theologian once put it, “The corruption of the best is the worst.” Any discussion about the intersection of science and religion is subject to the same uses and abuses. Taken in the right proportions, theology illuminates science, and science confirms theology. No one has commented on this more beautifully than Dembski, and, alas, his enemies have tried to turn it into something very ugly. In fact, understanding theology and science, as Dembski does, enables him to more accurately assess the limits of science. He well understands the line that separates the two realms, while his enemies, typically grounded in materialism, don’t even know that there is a line. Further, if you take the time to investigate kairosfocus’ links, you will find that he exhibits this same virtue of “proportionality”, focusing at times solely on science, and at other times on a variety of other issues that either influence science or are influenced by it. Sadly, our materialistic culture breeds, in large part, one-dimensional, narrow-minded scientists, who have become detached from and even contemptuous of the humanity they are supposed to be serving. They have become insular almost to the point of madness. I interacted with a researcher yesterday who, thanks to methodological naturalism, has completely lost perspective about the things that matter most. For one thing, he could not even bring himself to admit that I can draw inferences about design from an ancient hunter’s spear. For another, he lacks the wisdom that can only be found outside of science. His unabashed battle cry dramatizes his point: “whatever we can do, we ought to do.” Science’s radical isolation from philosophy and religion has indeed taken its toll. ” Having said that, your comment on 115 does resonate: “People need to stay on topic and show real intellectual interest to the concepts of this site.” I couldn’t agree more. I submit further, that we should not allow clueless trolls like Lazarus to contaminate our public discourse by causing us to abandon something beautiful that he has tried to make ugly. We should always free to discuss supra-scientific themes as long as we place them in the right context temper and them in the right proportions.StephenB_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PST}

Frost, Objective science is about reducing subjectivity and sticking with the objective and demonstrable, and I wish we could deal only with such science. It would make things a lot easier. (Re your 120 & 123 : "But i do think we try to reduce subjectivity as much has possible .That is why I said the Virgin Mary flew in my window last night and told me ID was true. This kind of reasoning should not be allowed on the site Im sure we both agree." ) However, there are ample examples from the history of science and philosophy that the subjective and irrational intuition (not subject to rational) does play some significant part. For example, Kekule discovered the highly elusive ring structure of the benzene molecule based on a dream. Or Descartes, the "Father of Modern (digitalized) Mathematics" leading to modern science & technology, who claimed that he discovered the foundations of a "marvelous science" in a dream. On a larger scale yet, consider Descartes' objective to discover a sound scientific method. His whole reasoning starts with separating the dream from reality, see for example, http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dcarg.htm If it were true that a vision like Virgin Mary told you that ID were true, such a statement would still contain some "information", especially if were indeed true. (And it would mean something even if you lied to us.) Now if you posted on this forum that you solved one of the great unsolved scientific or mathematical problems, be it one that would prove ID once and for all, or say you proved the Goldbach conjecture, and if at the same time you claimed the solution was revealed to you in a dream by an angel or by a spirit during an ouji-board seanse, what would be the value of such a statement? Would it be inappropriate to tell us how you acquired such stunning knowledge? In fact, if you didn't tell us, wouldn't you be witholding an important piece of information from us? Modern psychology calls this precognitive dreaming. History, including the history of science, is to a large degree based on such dreams. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precognitive_dreams ) And I am sure Denyse O'Leary, one of the moderators in this forum, might be especially interested in such stuff which you would ban, since her Spiritual Brain is based on disproving "Cartesian Dualim" which postulated that brain and mind are separate. P.S., providing Lazarus is not a troll, don't be too hard on him: "I am accustomed to sleep and in my dreams to imagine the same things that lunatics imagine when awake." (attributed to Descartes)rockyr_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PST}

DL, your "amen brother" comment had me laughing out loud and rolling on the floor. I'm sure were correct in our assesment. Lazarus- "Janice I am not so sure that what we need is more science but probably less of it." Lol,... rediculous.Frost122585_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PST}

1 2 3 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply