Sometimes, one of UD’s frequent objectors makes an inadvertently telling objection that deserves highlighting in order to publicly document what we are up against. In this case, AK has provided us with TWO, as headlined. Accordingly, over the past several days, I responded in the Skeptical Review thread. This morning, on seeing doubling down, I have further responded and I now highlight for all to see:
KF, 125: >> . . . let us go back to your context from 64 above: “the ID technique [–> that’s already a Big Lie agit prop tactic and slander] that you excel at called the Gish Gallop [–> diagnostic, terrible sign], made famous by Duane Gish and others [–> root-slander]” and again at 100 above: “evil is a concept fabricated by religion.”
Before anything else, I note this is an attempt to relativise and dismiss the reality of evil and to side-step two significant developments. First, that while up to the 50’s – 70’s the appeal to the problem of evils was a favourite tactic of atheists to try to dismiss the reality of God. But after Plantinga’s highly successful free will defense [–> cf. PS below] was put on the table the deductive form collapsed and the inductive one was broken in its impact. But of course, some of us are old enough to remember and to bear witness.
The second matter turns on recognising what evil is, as a secondary phenomenon:
EVIL: the frustration, twisting, perversion or privation of what is good in itself that prevents or hampers it from attaining its proper end. A proper end that is often naturally evident. Such as, that our minds are properly aimed at and governed by truth and linked correct, cogent reasoning and duties to the just, the good, the prudent, the wise, etc.
As WmAD famously highlighted from Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, that issue is the problem of good:
In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” . . .
I doubt that you would as cavalierly assert through the confident manner fallacy: evil [–> GOOD] is a concept fabricated by religion . . .
But the two are inextricably intertwined, indeed evil parasites off the good and much of its repugnance when its destructive effects are manifest for all to see comes from its patent violation and frustration of what is a manifest proper end.
And so, we can hardly but observe that you are forced to appeal to our sense of duty to truth, justice and more, even as you work as a saw-tooth cutting away at our connexion to the root of such things.
Now, Rational Wiki (and no I will not link the source, do your own search):
The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as “starting 10 fires in 10 minutes.” [U/D May 16: Subsequently RW updated their definition to speak of “weak arguments.” This is itself problematic (as, in inductive contexts arguments may mutually reinforce as a cumulative case and “weakness” is often a matter of opinion, especially when tendentious charges of “half truth” and out of context or distorted quotes or the notion that you cannot use an expert’s admission against interest are in play) and it turns out that Ms Scott suggested misleading citation and used “half truth” — a half truth being a whole lie — right from the beginning. As at May 15, 2018, Wikipedia used: “During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.” The term is clearly tainted with invidious insinuations and attacks to the man. It should not be used, especially as it is already a case of attacking a man, by its very name.]
Each tooth of a saw cuts a tiny curlicue of sawdust, but with many teeth going zip-zip-zip, soon a pile of sawdust tells how much of a cut has been given. (That is how mass-mobilisation agit prop activism cumulatively wreaks havoc.)
Now, too, before I speak more specifically, remember my metaphor just above on the cumulative impact of corrosive polarising slander and cutting off the roots of our civilisation — noting, the dismissive genetic fallacy on evil also made by you, AK: one tooth of a zipping saw does not do much, it seems, from how tiny a sawdust shaving is. But once we see many teeth in action, the cumulative effect is huge as the sawdust pile grows and grows and grows zip-zip-zip, especially if the branch we are sitting on is under strain and has to bear all of us.
Then, beyond a certain unpredictable point, a critical threshold is hit and CRAACK, SNAP, COLLAPSE.
Too late, bitterly too late.
Where, we are dealing with a civilisation that — having nukes — is far too dangerous to fail safely.
In that light, AK’s strawman tactic of twisting my words into:
Civilization is going to come crashing down because I used the term “Gish gallop” . . .
. . . only manages to show the sort of destructive blindness caused by evil and in accumulation, the zipping saw at suicidal work in our civilisation may well precipitate the unthinkable.
FYI, AK, you sheared off one little curlicue of sawdust from the branch on which we are all sitting. You did this by a doubly slanderous reference. Which, I called you on, and which you show no signs of due responsiveness and responsibility over. And indeed, making that particular reference is a serious sign of how far the rot has progressed in a particular case.
I don’t know if we can wake up from the stupor of a Plato’s Cave suicidal horror show already in progress, but that will take a miracle of mass repentance.
This I do know, our civilisation is in self-induced mortal peril, and the saws are busily zipping away with destructive agit prop cutting us off from the root and support that are vital for our civilisation to thrive.
Not that the blinded, benumbed and polarised will be particularly inclined to wake up to, face and do something about our common peril.
Now, here is my longstanding response to the Gish-smear slander, here at UD (and no it is not a threat to ban, in answer to yet another twister of facts and issues out there):
In short, this term [= Gish gallop] is an accusation of lying, distorting and the like on a wholesale basis, further allegedly in order to overwhelm an opponent and thus prevent answering the flood of falsehoods.
Something is very wrong here, however, even after taking the questionable list of sources cited at face value for the moment, for the sake of discussion.
For, it is well known that to select several examples of actual falsehood or gross error and to expose them normally suffices to ground the conclusion that the party who has actually indulged such a flood of false assertions, is not responsible or credible and should be dismissed.
One slice of such a spoiled cake has in it all the ingredients, and all that.
In short, if the accusation were TRUE, it would be quite easy to overturn such an argument.
It would fail so spectacularly, that it would be rhetorically suicidal.
Provided, the other side of the debate or discussion were in command of the actual facts, not mere ideological talking points and disputable opinions.
So, it is quite plain that there is no real need for such a named fallacy.
And, in the case of Mr Gish, it is well known that he consistently won debates on origins science by focussing on the problem that the fossil record is full of gaps that lead to a want of on-the-ground evidence for body-plan level macroevolution. [Kindly, see the linked discussion of the real facts, — let me now use the unlimited number of links capacity of an OP: “here is Ken Ham’s summary of the relevant history, and here and here we may see John Morris of ICR on debates. It is to be noted that Creationist spokesmen, for forty years, have actively sought debates, and have had such a long-running pattern of success, that it is the advocates of body-plan level Macro-Evolution by blind chance and necessity who have counselled their colleagues not to participate in debates. As a result, while Gish seems to have taken part in some 300 – 400 debates and Henry Morris some 100, such are reportedly rare today.”]
Nobody wins 300+:0 public debates, inducing opponents to find excuses to dodge further debates and to smear the debater unless he stands on solid facts and cogent reasoning. In this case, were [neo-] darwinist evolutionary theory even roughly true, 250+k fossil species in museums and the billions of further readily seen fossils in the field [e.g. Barbados, where I have lived, is literally built out of layers of fossil limestone, often in the form of corals] would overwhelm us with gradualism of body form transformation as a dominant, obvious pattern. Instead, as Gould et al inadvertently highlighted by championing Punctuated Equilibria, the actual pattern is one of systematic gaps and persistent absence of the roots of the tree of life icon — OoL by blind watchmaker mechanisms. That’s why we see so many evolutionary just so stories in the textbooks, the museums, the documentaries and the literature.
By utter contrast, we may answer the slanders against ID simply and directly.
On a trillion directly observed cases [including your objecting comments above, which are meaningful text strings], functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information — FSCO/I for handy short — is a highly reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration [= design] as relevant cause. This is backed up by the search challenge posed by blind chance and mechanical necessity driven needle in haystack search for configuration spaces that start at the 500 to 1,000 bit threshold of complexity. That is, such a search challenge overwhelms sol system or observed cosmos scale resources, given 3.27*10-150 to 1.07*10^301 and sharply up possibilities, overwhemingly non-functional gibberish.
The only empirically warranted, analytically plausible cause of FSCO/I is design.
PS: Let me excerpt here a short summary [scroll down here] of Plantinga’s reply to the problem of evil:
>>Leading design theorist and philosopher-theologian William Dembski helps us put the intellectual forms of the problem of evil in context, by citing the sixth century Christian philosopher, Boethius:
In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” Boethius contrasts the problem that evil poses for theism with the problem that good poses for atheism. The problem of good does not receive nearly as much attention as the problem evil, but it is the more basic problem. That’s because evil always presupposes a good that has been subverted. All our words for evil make this plain: the New Testament word for sin (Greek hamartia) presupposes a target that’s been missed; deviation presupposes a way (Latin via) from which we’ve departed; injustice presupposes justice; etc. So let’s ask, who’s got the worse problem, the theist or the atheist? Start with the theist. God is the source of all being and purpose. Given God’s existence, what sense does it make to deny God’s goodness? None . . . . The problem of evil still confronts theists, though not as a logical or philosophical problem, but instead as a psychological and existential one [as was addressed above] . . . .
The problem of good as it faces the atheist is this: nature, which is nuts-and-bolts reality for the atheist, has no values and thus can offer no grounding for good and evil. As nineteenth century freethinker Robert Green Ingersoll used to say, “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments. There are consequences.” More recently, Richard Dawkins made the same point: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” [“Prepared Remarks for the Dembski-Hitchens Debate,” Uncommon Descent Blog, Nov 22, 2010]
In short, when we come to core worldview problems, we should address the comparative difficulties of the main alternatives, and make our choice on which difficulties it is better to live with.
Plantinga’s free-will defense, in a skeletal form, allows us to effectively address the problem. For, it is claimed that the following set of theistic beliefs embed an unresolvable contradiction:
1. God exists
2. God is omnipotent – all powerful
3. God is omniscient – all-knowing
4. God is omni-benevolent – all-good
5. God created the world
6. The world contains evil
To do so, there is an implicit claim that, (2a) if he exists, God is omnipotent and so capable of — but obviously does not eliminate — evil. So, at least one of 2 – 5 should be surrendered. But all of these claims are central to the notion of God, so it is held that the problem is actually 1.
Therefore, NOT-1: God does not exist.
However, it has been pointed out by Plantinga and others that:
2a is not consistent with what theists actually believe: if the elimination of some evil would lead to a worse evil, or prevent the emergence of a greater good, then God might have a good reason to permit some evil in the cosmos.
Specifically, what if “many evils result from human free will or from the fact that our universe operates under natural laws or from the fact that humans exist in a setting that fosters soul-making . . . [and that such a world] contains more good than a world that does not” ?
In this case, Theists propose that 2a should be revised: 2b: “A good, omnipotent God will eliminate evil as far as he can without either losing a greater good or bringing about a greater evil.” But, once this is done, the alleged contradiction collapses.
Further, Alvin Plantinga – through his free will defense — was able to show that the theistic set is actually consistent. He did this by augmenting the set with a further proposition that is logically possible (as opposed to seeming plausible to one who may be committed to another worldview) and which makes the consistency clear. That proposition, skeletally, is 5a: “God created a world (potentially) containing evil; and has a good reason for doing so.” Propositions 1, 2b, 3, 4, and 5a are plainly consistent, and entail 6.
The essence of that defense is:
“A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures . . . God can create free creatures, but he can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For . . . then they aren’t significantly free after all . . . He could only have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.” [NB: This assumes that moral good reflects the power of choice: if we are merely robots carrying out programs, then we cannot actually love, be truthful, etc.] [From: Clark, Kelley James. Return to Reason. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 69 – 70, citing Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, (Eerdmans, 1974), p. 30.]
Nor is the possible world known as heaven a good counter-example. For, heaven would exist as a world in which the results of choices made to live by the truth in love across a lifetime have culminated in their eternal reward. This we may see from an argument made by the apostle Paul:
Rom 2:6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 78 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [NIV]
Anticipating the onward response that in at least some possible worlds, there are free creatures, all of whom freely do what is right, Plantinga asserts a further possibility: trans-world depravity. That is, in all worlds God could create in which a certain person, say Gordon, exists; then that person would have freely gone wrong at least once. And, what if it is further possible that this holds for every class of created, morally capable being? (Then, there would be no possible worlds in which moral good is possible but in which moral evil would not in fact occur. So the benefit of moral good would entail that the world would contain transworld depraved creatures.)
Moreover, Plantinga proposes that there is a possible state of affairs in which God and natural evil can exist. For instance, if all natural evils are the result of the actions of significantly free creatures such as Satan and his minions, then since it is logically possible that God could not have created a world with a greater balance of good over evil if it did not contain such creatures, God and natural evil are compatible.
At this point, albeit grudgingly, leading atheologians (Such as Mackie and Williams) concede that the deductive form of the problem of evil stands overturned. Thus, a new question is put on the table.
It is: But what if the world seems to contain too much evil, and evil that is apparently pointless, i.e. gratuitous? First, the greater good “absorbs” at least some of the evils. To this, the Christian Theist further responds that there are goods in the world that are left out of the account so far; especially, that the fall of mankind led to the greatest good of all: that God loved the world and gave his Son, setting in motion the programme of redemption as a supreme good that absorbs all evils. That is, it is rational for a Christian to believe there are no un-absorbed evils, even though the a-theologian may beg to differ with the Christian’s beliefs.
However, it should be noted that there is an existential or pastoral form of the problem of evil (as we saw above): where the overwhelming force of evil and pain brings us to doubt God. To that, no mere rational argument will suffice; for it is a life-challenge we face, as did Job. And, as a perusal of Job 23:1 – 7, 38:1 – 7, 40:1 – 8, 42:1 – 6, God may be more interested in exposing our underlying motives and calling for willingness to trust him even where we cannot trace him, than in satisfying our queries and rebutting our pained accusations. That is, it is at least possible that God is primarily in the business of soul-making.
Where then does the problem of evil stand today?
On balance, it is rational to believe that God exists, but obviously there are many deep, even painful questions to which we have no answers. And, those who choose to believe in God will have a radically different evaluation of evil than those who reject him. >>
PPS: For reference, the seven mountains model:
. . . also, the window of change/change challenge model:
. . . and the Overton Window, double-BATNA model:
H’mm, I feel prompted to add this, on the SWOT-BAU vs. ALT solution strategy (which ideally works by bringing a cross-section of stakeholders . . . including hitherto marginalised ones . . . to the table to ponder together a wall-sized version of the chart and use ZOPP-style contributions to collaboratively synthesise a solution-strategy):
PPPS: I tracked down the source and confirm the slander. I clip for record from another thread (on somebody’s review of Darwin’s Doubt):
KF, 151:>>I took time out to track down the essay where the ideas are introduced by Ms Scott. The taint [of slander] I pointed out is there from the outset. Ms Scott complains on citing Gould on the trade secret of paleontology, then says:
Creationist debaters (at least the nationally-prominent ones) are masters at presenting these half-truth non-sequiturs that the audience misunderstands as relevant points. These can be very difficult to counter in a debate situation, unless you have a lot of time.
[–> she later contradicts herself on this point, arguing for a tight time debate format that locks out substantiating the big picture problem that is at stake; surely, 45 minutes and what a 20 – 30 minute rebuttal is a lot of time, especially after hundreds of debates have been done and books have been published so the substance is no surprise. BTW, Creation Scientists Answer their critics is a key part of that literature, as well as Gish’s Fossils say no series]
And you never have enough time to deal with even a fraction of the half-truths or plain erroneous statements that creationists can come out with. Even if you deal with a handful of the unscientific nonsense spewed out by your opponent, your audience is left with the , “Yeah, but…” syndrome: well, maybe there are intermediate forms and the creationist was wrong about radiometric dating, YEAH, BUT why didn’t that evolutionist answer the question about polonium halos?” (or some other argument.)
[–> Thin gruel. If one has solidly broken several key cases AND has laid out the positive evidence that actually shows by clear observed case the pattern of body-plan level macroevo that surely is there all across the fossil record, the other side should be shattered. Oh, maybe, the point is, that from molecular machines in the cell to major body plans, there is a systematic pattern of gaps and islands of function isolated by gaps without functional forms . . . in which case Gish and co clearly have a point, one the public has a RIGHT to hear.]
The evolutionist debater is never going to be able to counter all of the misinformation that a creationist can put out in a lengthy debate format. And the way these things work is that suspicion is sowed in the minds of the audience no matter what . . . .
[–> suspicion that a case has not been made on the empirical merits, substantiating the arguments by icon?]
Now, there are ways to have a formal debate that actually teaches the audience something about science, or evolution, and that has the potential to expose creation science for the junk it is. This is to have a narrowly-focused exchange in which the debaters deal with a limited number of topics. Instead of the “Gish Gallop” format of most debates where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error
[–> see the contradiction? What about the cross-complaint that YEARS of schooling, hundreds of hours of TV time, acres of museum space and more are used to indoctrinate and it is complained that there should never be a forum where both sides can make the case they have in summary at feature article length or book chapter length?]
that the evolutionist hasn’t a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate, the debaters have limited topics and limited time.
There is much that is utterly wrong with this essay, for reasons already highlighted and in part noted in-quote.
In particular, a torrent of half-truths is a thinly veiled way of saying reams of lies. For, a half-truth is a whole lie.Including twisted quotation — as I was accused of above. I here substantiate that my concern was there from the beginning, though Ms Scott is a bit more genteel than the raw statement in Rational Wiki which I found years ago on first encountering this pseudo-fallacy.
Where spewing reams of half-truths, lies, distorted dishonest quotes etc is an actual problem, any half-decent lawyer knows that if you pick out several points of error, and properly expose falsity and deceit or even just incompetence, the credibility of the other side is shattered.
So, the rhetorical premise Scott offers is fundamentally false.
Her claims about Creationists dodging narrow formats is also misleading, as in fact the claimed gradualism is a matter of a wide array of evidence relative to 150 years of fossils, with a broad pattern that should be there but is not. That’s Gould’s famous trade secret. And no it’s not just rates, the rates issue [as is suggested in Punctuated Equilibria] was put up to explain the gaps. The systematic gaps.
So, the core point is there, right from the beginning. The term is tainted, it insinuates deceitful insincerity and manipulation of the public. Even, going so far as to suggest that a format that gives time to make the case is calculated to get away with in effect public education fraud.
I am reminded of the what, six year old offer here at UD that we would publish an up to 6,000 word or so (the limit is generous and flexible, where at 120 WPM that is 50 minutes of speech, about the times in question) essay that would outline and substantiate the core blind watchmaker thesis case for ooL and tree of life. Links can go elsewhere but the case as a summary must be made in the essay. After a year of pursuing it, no satisfactory submission was received from the penumbra of objector sites.
That is relevant to the credibility of the argument Ms Scott made. No, I do not buy the claim, for cause.
Coming back to the core point, it is clear that “Gish gallop” is loaded to the point of slander and should not be used. it boils down to saying that if one puts up a sustained, lecture length or magazine feature article length argument with many sources, using expert testimony against interest one is a liar and misquoter, pretty automatically.
That is patently false and unjustifiably accusatory.
It is time this was set aside.
And, web searches show the term is now being migrated into making even more loaded political points in what is in effect a policy opinion verbal war that is deeply poisoning the atmosphere for discussion.
Something is wrong here, seriously wrong.
Something connected to the obvious ongoing suicide of our civilisation.
It is time to turn back before the crumbling cliff’s edge collapses underfoot.>>
Comments
Allan Keith:
But Behe said that if we could show that unguided evolution could produce something as complex as the flagellum that ID would be falsified.
Biological ID would be so falsified.
Now you are saying that even if we could demonstrate that this was the case that we would then have to prove that the universe itself wasn’t designed.
To refute cosmological ID
Which is it ET? Because this definitely sounds like ID is not falsifiable.
It definitely sounds like you cannot follow along because you are scientifically illiterate.ET
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Allan Keith,
I ask again. What known law of physics states that an object in an orbit cannot have it’s orbit reversed?
I’m trying to pin down exactly which law of physics you think wold be violated if an object in an orbit were to have its orbit reversed. So far I haven’t heard one.
If you don't know of any such law just say so.Mung
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
AK,
But ID as a concept is not falsifiable.
ET,
Yes, it is and we have said exactly how to falsify it. Again your ignorance is not an argument.
AK,
And even if we were capable of reproducing the entire ecosystem using unguided evolutionary processes, what is to say that a designer wasn’t involved in establishing the universe and all of the laws such that our ecosystem was inevitable.
<ET,
Then you would also have to refute that just by showing that your position has something to account for it.
But Behe said that if we could show that unguided evolution could produce something as complex as the flagellum that ID would be falsified. Now you are saying that even if we could demonstrate that this was the case that we would then have to prove that the universe itself wasn't designed. Which is it ET? Because this definitely sounds like ID is not falsifiable.Allan Keith
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
ET:
Clearly Bob does NOT understand how science and falsification work. He is completely dug in now and will never change his mind regardless of who corrects him.
What is the point in arguing about how falsification works with someone who believes in evolution the designer?Mung
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Bob O'H @ 106:
As far as I know, ID (if the theory is “some parts of nature are the product of design by an intelligence”) can’t be falsified
That's a big IF Bob. :)Mung
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
Clearly Bob does NOT understand how science and falsification work. He is completely dug in now and will never change his mind regardless of who corrects him.ET
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
gpuccio:
Your arguments derive from a false definition of ID.
This is spot on.Mung
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
gpuccio -
Falsifiability means exactly that: that it is possible that some specific facts, if observed, will make the theory inconsistent.
Yes, but that's done by invoking a system where the theory is relevant. Invoking a system that explicitly excludes the theory is just silly.Bob O'H
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
Refuting Bob O’H and Allan K:
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
Notice number 3- that means if natural selection can produce it we don’t infer intelligent design.ET
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
Allan:
Before you can do this you have to propose hypothesis about the mechanisms for realizing the design.
That is completely false and borders on the moronic.
But ID as a concept is not falsifiable.
Yes, it is and we have said exactly how to falsify it. Again your ignorance is not an argument.
If we observe that unguided evolution can produce something with over 500 (or 1000) bits of information, ID isn’t falsified because we haven’t observed unguided evolution produce something with 5000 bits of information. Or 10,000. Short of observing unguided evolution reproduce the entire ecosystem, you can never rule out that design didn’t have some role to play.
Wow, that has been covered in the ID literature. Again your ignorance means nothing.
One last charge must be met: Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He's wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997
and
How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.
Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?
And even if we were capable of reproducing the entire ecosystem using unguided evolutionary processes, what is to say that a designer wasn’t involved in establishing the universe and all of the laws such that our ecosystem was inevitable.
Then you would also have to refute that just by showing that your position has something to account for it.ET
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
ET’s response (@ 164) is to move away from falsification
That is completely false, Bob. What I said in 164 is the falsification. Thank you for proving that you do not understand how science operates.
Really, folks, if you are going to insist on a falsificationist view of science, then your theories have to make bold predictions that can be falsified.
I have presented just that, Bob- see my comment in 156
You have to say “X was designed” and test the design, not test another theory.
You are totally clueless, Bob. Newton's four rules come into play here, Bob. I see that you still cannot grasp what they mean.ET
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
Bob O'H,
Really, folks, if you are going to insist on a falsificationist view of science, then your theories have to make bold predictions that can be falsified. You have to say “X was designed” and test the design, not test another theory. That’s not how falsification works.
Before you can do this you have to propose hypothesis about the mechanisms for realizing the design. Only then can you test them. But ID as a concept is not falsifiable. If we observe that unguided evolution can produce something with over 500 (or 1000) bits of information, ID isn't falsified because we haven't observed unguided evolution produce something with 5000 bits of information. Or 10,000. Short of observing unguided evolution reproduce the entire ecosystem, you can never rule out that design didn't have some role to play.
And even if we were capable of reproducing the entire ecosystem using unguided evolutionary processes, what is to say that a designer wasn't involved in establishing the universe and all of the laws such that our ecosystem was inevitable. Or that the designer only steps in at intervals to ensure that everything is proceeding as he wants.
ID doesn't rule out any of this.Allan Keith
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
You say:
"That’s not how it works."
Instead, that's exactly how it works.
Falsifiability means exactly that: that it is possible that some specific facts, if observed, will make the theory inconsistent.
One single object exhibiting complex functional information, and which can be independently shown to originate in a non design system, will falsify the whole ID theory.
That's how falsification works.gpuccio
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
My prediction simply derives from the basic foundation of ID theory: that only intelligent design can generate complex functional information.
Now you are evading my clear questions.
ID theory states that only intelligent design can generate complex functional information. Therefore, when we observe complex functional information in an obbject, then, and only then, we can safely infer design. Therefore, the procedure that infers design from complex functional information has no false positives, and many false negatives. Therefore, if we positively infer design from complex functional information we are right.
This theory can be easily falsified: one single example of object exhibiting complex functional information, and whose origin from a non design system can be independently proved, will falsify it.
Therefore, ID theory is absolutely falsifiable.
And it makes a bold prediction: that we will never find any object originated in a non design system that exhibits complex functional information.
So, it is a theory easily falsifiable, and never falsified. Perfectly good as a scientific theory according to Popper's ideas.
I have always thought that you are an honest discussant. Must I change my mind?gpuccio
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
Bob (and weave),,, Split hairs much?
"ba77 shifts the goalposts, from “ID is the best explanation for something” to “ID is the only explanation for something”,
Golly gee whiz, If the "only" known cause for molecular machines does not constitute, by far, the "best" explanation for molecular machines, I certainly would like to know what the best explanation for molecular machines would be in your fertile, unscientific, unfalsifiable, Darwinian imagination.
Speaking of falsification, I have a question for you,,,,
Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics – George Ellis & Joe Silk – 16 December 2014
Excerpt: In our view, the issue boils down to clarifying one question: what potential observational or experimental evidence is there that would persuade you that the theory is wrong and lead you to abandoning it? If there is none, it is not a scientific theory.
https://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535
,,, is there any evidence whatsoever that would ever falsify your seemingly unshakable, yet erroneous, belief that you are the product of mindless accidental processes. Like for instance, the existence of your own immaterial mind with its immaterial thoughts (i.e. mathematics, language), and/or the existence of your own 'beyond belief' brain?
Mind and Cosmos - Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False - Thomas Nagel
Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history.
http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199919758.do
The Half-Truths of Materialist Evolution - DONALD DeMARCO - 02/06/2015
Excerpt: but I would like to direct attention to the unsupportable notion that the human brain, to focus on a single phenomenon, could possibly have evolved by sheer chance. One of the great stumbling blocks for Darwin and other chance evolutionists is explaining how a multitude of factors simultaneously coalesce to form a unified, functioning system. The human brain could not have evolved as a result of the addition of one factor at a time. Its unity and phantasmagorical complexity defies any explanation that relies on pure chance. It would be an underestimation of the first magnitude to say that today’s neurophysiologists know more about the structure and workings of the brain than did Darwin and his associates.
Scientists in the field of brain research now inform us that a single human brain contains more molecular-scale switches than all the computers, routers and Internet connections on the entire planet! According to Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, the brain’s complexity is staggering, beyond anything his team of researchers had ever imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief. In the cerebral cortex alone, each neuron has between 1,000 to 10,000 synapses that result, roughly, in a total of 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies!
A single synapse may contain 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A synapse, simply stated, is the place where a nerve impulse passes from one nerve cell to another.
Phantasmagorical as this level of unified complexity is, it places us merely at the doorway of the brain’s even deeper mind-boggling organization. Glial cells in the brain assist in neuron speed. These cells outnumber neurons 10 times over, with 860 billion cells. All of this activity is monitored by microglia cells that not only clean up damaged cells but also prune dendrites, forming part of the learning process. The cortex alone contains 100,000 miles of myelin-covered, insulated nerve fibers.
The process of mapping the brain would indeed be time-consuming. It would entail identifying every synaptic neuron. If it took a mere second to identify each neuron, it would require four billion years to complete the project.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/the-half-truths-of-materialist-evolution/
"Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 8, 2012
Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse -- the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse -- about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years..., even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html
Of related note as to the immaterial mind:
A MAP OF THE SOUL - by Michael Egnor - June 29, 2017
Excerpt: Aquinas taught that our soul’s immaterial powers are only facilitated by matter, not caused by it, and the correlation is loose. His insight presaged certain findings of modern neuroscience.
Wilder Penfield, an early-twentieth-century neurosurgeon who pioneered seizure surgery, noted that during brain stimulation on awake patients, he was never able to stimulate the mind itself—the sense of “I”—but only fragmented sensations and perceptions and movements and memories. Our core identity cannot be evoked or altered by physical stimulation of the brain.
Relatedly, Penfield observed that spontaneous electrical discharges in the brain cause involuntary sensations and movements and even emotions, but never abstract reasoning or calculation. There are no “calculus” seizures or “moral” seizures, in which patients involuntarily take second derivatives or ponder mercy.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/06/a-map-of-the-soul
bornagain77
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
gpuccio - your "bold prediction" about intelligent design simply excludes intelligent design from the system. In other words, by design (ha!) is specifically says nothing about intelligent design. That's not how it works.Bob O'H
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
You say:
"Really, folks, if you are going to insist on a falsificationist view of science, then your theories have to make bold predictions that can be falsified. You have to say “X was designed” and test the design, not test another theory. That’s not how falsification works."
Well, here is the "bold prediction":
No object which originates in a system where no conscious design intervention takes place will be ever found to exhibit complex functional information higher than 500 bits.gpuccio
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
Excuse me, but I don't understand.
"In some cases" just means that we can infer design only if it is linked to complex functional information.
Of course there are cases of design that cannot be detected from the objetc: that includes all cases of simple design.
I don't see what is the problem.
ID is the theory that design can be inferred from the object if and only if that design is characterized by complex function information.
IOWs, if we observe complex functional information we can infer design. If we don't observe it, we cannot infer design. The object could be designed or not, but there is no scientific way of affirming that it is designed.
IOWs, ID is a procedure to detect design with no false positives and a lot of false negatives.
And so? Where is your problem?
The ID procedure to detect design is completely falsifiable. Again, one single example of an object originated in a system where no design interventio took nplace, and that exhibits complex functional information, would falsify the whole procedure.
Again, ID is not about detectin all cases of design: it is about detecting cases where an objective property of the designed object (complex functional information) makes the detection possible.
Please, be more clear about your problems with these very simple ideas.gpuccio
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
LocalMinimum @ 167 - I've explained why I have the rule, and I haven't seen anyone give a logical objection to it. ET's response (@ 164) is to move away from falsification to an older epistemology, ba77 shifts the goalposts, from "ID is the best explanation for something" to "ID is the only explanation for something", which contradicts both this website and Behe (quoted at 152). kf insists on equating ID with FSCI/O, and then uses the same goalpost shift as ba77. gpuccio also makes the goalpost shift (and his "in some cases..." makes ID unfalsifiable, because if one does not infer design, it just means that that was not one of the cases).
Really, folks, if you are going to insist on a falsificationist view of science, then your theories have to make bold predictions that can be falsified. You have to say "X was designed" and test the design, not test another theory. That's not how falsification works.Bob O'H
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
Mung:
OK, for pink unicorns on pajamas I would definitely infer design. I see your point! :)
But what about green horses? :)gpuccio
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
Please, excuse me if I arrive late to this discussion about ID falsification.
I think the point is simple enought: ID is completely falsifiable.
Your arguments derive from a false definition of ID. ID is not the generic idea that design exists and that it can do things (which is, of course, true). Also, it is not the generic idea that something we observe could have been designed.
That generic idea, of course, is not falsifiable, because anything could have been designed.
But that's not the point of ID theory.
The point of ID theory is completely different. It is that:
In some cases, design can be correctly inferred from properties of the designed object, in particular from the observation of complex functional information in the object.
This is completely falsifiable. You just need to show that objects that exhibit complex functional information do originate from systems where there is no design intervention.
Moreover, as we believe that design detection by complex functional information beyond, say, 500 bits, has no false positives, even one example of an object that exhibits 500 bits of complex functional information, and was generated in a system which doen not imply any conscious design intervention, would falsify ID theory.
Any thoughts about that?gpuccio
May 18, 2018
May
05
May
18
18
2018
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT
BO'H: With all due respect you have set up and knocked over a strawman. First, notice that I pointed out that the relevant subset of complex, specified information is FUNCTIONALLY specific, as WmAD long since noted. FSCO/I is simply a descriptive acronym for that subset, taking in that functionally specific organisation is informational. Also, irreducibly complex organisation is a subset of this. And while ID can be defined in various ways -- e.g. that scientific enterprise that studies signs of intelligence (and has concluded that we may confidently infer from certain signs that certain features of the cosmos and the world of life were designed) -- there is no responsible doubt but that the inference to design on sign is absolutely central to ID. In that context, it is trivial to note that were it shown that FSCO/I (as just explained the umpteenth time) were to come about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity per observed cause, then the design inference on signs relevant to the world of life would be shattered. ID would be falsified. So, no, your attempt to reframe ID as unfalsifiable fails. As should have been quite evident all along -- this is an utterly needless rhetorical tail chase. KFkairosfocus
May 17, 2018
May
05
May
17
17
2018
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
Bob OH
The problem I see with ID is that it can explain everything, and therefore explains nothing. Seeing pink unicorns in your pyjamas? The designer did it!
Or it explains everything therefore it explains everything.bill cole
May 17, 2018
May
05
May
17
17
2018
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
Bob O'H:
The problem I see with ID is that it can explain everything, and therefore explains nothing. Seeing pink unicorns in your pyjamas? The designer did it!
Do you know of another way to get pink unicorns on pajamas?
Perhaps evolution can do it?Mung
May 17, 2018
May
05
May
17
17
2018
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
Charles McVety:
He should not be allowed to post comments on an excellent God fearing site such as this.
Neither should I, but here I am.Mung
May 17, 2018
May
05
May
17
17
2018
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
The (design) explanatory filter demonstrates that once you have attributed something to necessity and/ or chance the design inference doesn't even get heard.
It would take extraordinary evidence to overturn it once the EF spits it out before the final decision node.
Bob's point is that intelligent agencies can mimic nature. ID's point is we may get a false negative due to that but it's the false positives that we care about. Good thing none have been found, yet.ET
May 17, 2018
May
05
May
17
17
2018
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
If I show that A produces X, that doesn’t mean that B can’t produce X
They've already made it clear they and leading proponents of the field allow A producing X as a falsification. You're the one worried about B still producing X.
You're insisting that ID is unfalsifiable on the basis of your personal exclusion of a rule that makes it falsifiable. Which is a straw man.
ID isn't about finding every intelligent causation, it's about inferring intelligence against unknown causation.LocalMinimum
May 17, 2018
May
05
May
17
17
2018
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
Bob apparently doesn't understand falsification.
Intelligent agents, with extreme difficulty, can build molecular machines and win Nobel prizes for their 'Tinkertoy' imitations of the molecular machines found in life.
Darwinian processes have been shown to be grossly inadequate for making even 'Tinkertoy' imitations.
Hence the claim, only intelligent agents can design and build molecular machines.
To falsify the claim all you need to do is produce one molecular machine by unguided Darwinian processes.
It is not that hard to understand Bob. Along the lines of grasping the simple fact that 2+2=4.
Why you are so obtuse to what is so blatantly obvious only you and God can possibly know.
As far as I can tell from my perspective, it is a heart issue with you not a head issue, since I've seen you be reasonable on other issues that do not deal directly with Intelligent Design.bornagain77
May 17, 2018
May
05
May
17
17
2018
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
To Bob O'H:
Four Rules of Scientific Reasoning from Principia Mathematica
by Isaac Newton
1- admit no more causes of natural things than are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances,
2- to the same natural effect, assign the same causes,
3- qualities of bodies, which are found to belong to all bodies within experiments, are to be esteemed universal, and
4- propositions collected from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate or very nearly true until contradicted by other phenomena.
What part of that don't you understand?ET
May 17, 2018
May
05
May
17
17
2018
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
Bob,
Clearly you don't understand science. If someone can demonstrate that non-telic processes can produce what ID says required an intelligent designer then parsimony takes over- Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning take over.
It means that an intelligent designer is added without cause.ET
. . . and the Overton Window, double-BATNA model:
PPPS: I tracked down the source and confirm the slander. I clip for record from another thread (on somebody’s review of Darwin’s Doubt):