BA77’s observation: “many influential people in academia simply don’t want Design to be true no matter what evidence . . .”

_{kairosfocus
August 4, 2014

Atheism, ID Foundations, science education, worldview

2}_{Categories
Atheism
ID Foundations
science education
worldview}

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

The inimitable BA77 observes:

I [used] to think that if ID could only get its evidence to the right people in the right places then they would change their mind about Darwinian evolution and we would have a fundamental ‘paradigm shift’ from the ‘top down’. But after a few years of banging my head on that wall to no avail, I realized that it is not a head problem with these people so much as it is a heart problem. i.e. many influential people in academia simply don’t want Design to be true no matter what evidence you present to them. Indeed, in many educational institutions, there is a systematic effort in academia to Expel anyone who does not toe the Darwinian party line . . . . Scientists are subject to the same pride and prejudices as everyone else.,,, perhaps more so when the issues relate to their preferred worldview.

He concludes: “Thus the growth in popular support for ID has been more of a ‘bottom up’ affair.”

He cites Max Planck on the rise of new paradigms one funeral at a time:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it . . .

Is this what we have come to?

Are we so stubborn as that in the face of the force of evidence such as the significance of the only known cause of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information [FSCO/I] and the linked isolated needles in a haystack configuration-space blind search challenge:

DI’s Stephen Meyer addresses much the same point in speaking to what critics of his Darwin’s Doubt seem to almost uniformly miss:

Why, or why not? Kindly, explain. END

Comments

KF, The OP is about why we have not convinced others. I tried to give you reasons why and it has turned into why we are right in our beliefs not why they do not believe. My assessment is that the educated do not care a rat's rear end about the issue. It does not impact their lives in any way they see. They also exhibit the reasons I bring up. For example, I just came from a weekend wedding reception in Rhode Island where the average education except for the children was about a master's degree. Everybody was having fun but I bet if you started a conversation with anyone about evolution or its implication with any of them away from the wedding, they would have looked at you like you had three heads and was some kind of weirdo. I have done it about a dozen times over the years and each time, I get the same reaction. You are looked at as if you are a nut. And I view myself as one of the more rational on this site. I do not even discuss it with my children and they all know what I believe and they are well educated. This is what you are dealing with. Everyone gets exposed to Darwin in school and the superficial nature of the presentation is overwhelming. It convinced the elite in the 19th century and the elite accept it today without a second thought. Opposition to it is immediately tied into Young Earth Creationism and irrationality as opposed to the extreme rationality exhibited here by you and many of the ID proponents. So we can bemoan all the supposed irrationality that exists with the educated but it is real and hard to deal with. Here is an example from a past thread with Allen MacNeill who has been one of the more reasonable anti-ID people to come here:
You wrote: “The problem as I see it is not getting enough variation, but getting enough original, novel, innovative variation.” That was the point to my list of 47 mechanisms for generating phenotypic variation. Several of the mechanisms listed are capable of producing as much genetic variation as there are elementary particles in the known universe, while others (such as whole genome fusion) are capable of producing novel genetic combinations equivalent to the “hybridization” of the Encyclopedia Brittanica and the collected works of Anthony Trollope. In other words, the “engines of variation” are more than up to the task of generating anything that could conceivably be of use to a living organism (plus an immensely larger amount of useless variation). As to the question of whether any of the mechanisms in my list can produce “new” information, the answer is “yes”, so long as one recognizes that what really matters is the production of new phenotypic variation. As I have already pointed out, the exclusive concentration on genetic variation on the part of both evolutionary biologists (EBers) and IDers has until very recently blinded us to the tremendous potential of other mechanisms that produce the same effects (see Jablonka and Lamb/Evolution in Four Dimensions for a complete discussion).
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-altenberg-sixteen/#comment-177256 The only thing we really argue about in evolution is the origin of new alleles and here Allen says it is a done deal. I know there are other things but if proponents of naturalistic evolution won the day on this, UD and ID would fade much further into the background where it currently resides. I am not sure how it will end, it must end somewhere but it will be with the educated non-elite. Those are the people I spent the weekend with. Right now ID is not on their radar scope and if it does come up as a blip, it is associated with irrationality not rationality.jerry_{August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PST}

I agree that it doesn’t come from official ID arguments but on UD, the arguments often drift very rapidly into other areas. I did a very brief and rough estimate of science vs philosophical/religious comments during July. Over 40% are on religion, morality or materialism. RDFish helps generate lots of inane comments in this area.
Debates on ID science require opposition. Every day there are several science-specific news items posted here, but they don't generate comments because there's nothing to debate. We're already convinced. UD has lost a lot of opposition over the years -- for a variety of reasons. So, where there are debates, they're in-house or on topics that still attract some anti-ID sentiment, and these are the hot-button areas of morality or atheism. This comment from anthropic @#39 explains a lot also:
What I found equally interesting, though, is Stephen Meyer’s remarks about the direction of Discovery’s Science and Culture research. He believes that the basic argument against neo-Darwinism has been won in the peer-reviewed literature, though not in the popular literature such as Cosmos. He based this on recent articles by people like Koonin and Shapiro, plus the formation of the Third Way group. The math is simply overwhelming standard evolutionary explanations.
The debate against neo-Darwinism is over. We're only going to be dealing with the last hold-outs like Dawkins, Coyne and Myers -- and the general public who still think Darwinism is relevant. But that's not where ID science can make any progress. A good example is RD Fish who is anti-Darwin but also opposed to ID. It's like the Third Way group. They will need the positive, scientific case for ID.Silver Asiatic_{August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PST}

Axel: Actually, I disagree. The issue is not intelligence, there is plenty of that around on all sides. The issue is that we have a reigning materialist orthodoxy that is now being challenged to address its warrant, and is not coming up trumps. Unfortunately, this whole issue because it is close to worldviews is not left to discussions on merits but has become a football in the middle of a grim assault by ruthless spin doctors dressed up in lab coats; hence snide accusations like "Creationists in cheap tuxedos," and clever twisting of history and legal issues etc. All of which remind me uncomfortably of the Marxists of a generation ago . . . who looked and fought pretty tough and were quite clever, educated and full of seemingly unassailable talking points for most people, until their ship sank under them. Then, they went out and got new ships and are back in different guises -- I doubt it is a coincidence that it is a KGB Colonel in charge over in Russia, and a trained Alinskyite agitator in Washington DC. Nor should we overlook that the watermelon environmentalist phenomenon is real. So, while Marx had some valid points and the socialists on the whole had a better sensitivity to the cry of the poor, the sheer power of economics driven by Kondratiev long wave technology transformation was decisive across the 1980's . . . building on what the Moon Shot programme developed across the 60's . . . and history is not going back to classic marxism. But a lot of fallacies still remain persuasive, even while we still have not got within a mile of breaking through that sobering observation, the poor you have with you always. I think Pareto still has a lot to teach us on welfare, and we need to think how to balance ever so many things. My heart is sobered and saddened by what happened when the survivors from the trenches went home in Britain, France, Germany and Russia. In that setting, my take on the lab coat clad evo mat reigning orthodoxy in the academy and halls of influence and power is that they are leading us on a lemming-like march of folly, and it will unravel soon enough. But, at what sobering cost I shudder to think, even as last evening I made our family do a moment of silence in the dark in memory of August 4, 1914 -- which 99% of people here have simply forgotten about or never even learned; sad sad sad. Lions led by donkeys is not wholly true or fair but it has a sobering bite, and I think we are again going down a similar road as we allow a self-refuting lab coat clad scheme of thought that is inherently amoral to erode our ability to think and to act collectively on the manifest public good in good time to head off catastrophe after catastrophe. Where, BTW, one of the reasons for evo mat rage is that they do not have a cogent answer to the two points: this system is self refuting and inescapably irrational, and it has in it no foundational IS capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT in a world where it is patent that we are morally governed beings. Where also, there is but one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being and the root of reality. Which is as compelling a reason to believe in such a God as any other, though patently it does not stand alone as such a reason. Frankly on these alone, we have reason to tell materialists: until you answer to these issues cogently -- no rhetorical tricks, question-begging, a priori impositions by methodological back doors, no diversions, side tracks and no ad hominem laced strawman tactics -- you are not even ready to go on the field of comparative difficulties as a serious alternative, never mind the lab coats. KFkairosfocus_{August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PST}

It was never a major issue with me, but like wallstreeter33, I was converted from a belief in theistic evolution to 'common or garden' (of Eden) Creationism by reading the posts of the brain-boxes on here. There seems to be quite a chasm between the exalted level of their intelligence and that of atheism's finest.Axel_{August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PST}

Dr J, SB, Jerry, Anthropic, etc etc: Very interesting perspectives. One thing perpetually stirs me -- where does FSCO/I come from, on what grounds. I think this is foundational, and the way one deals with it shapes all else. So far, on the direct observations by the literal billions and the config space blind search analysis, design is the candidate to beat. And to make that inference is induction, not "superstition" or some other loaded term. However, if one is indoctrinated in a materialism dominated age and is locked into a reigning orthodoxy, one can be easily tempted to refuse to address substance and find an excuse to dismiss. On phil matters the issue that keeps coming up is that logic and reasoning themselves are in the stakes, with a side-order of brain tissue vs minds. I find it astonishing that ever so many today find it hard to see that to think we must recognise distinctions (which are credibly real) from which a world partition W = {A | ~A} drops out and immediately, the SETs LOI, LNC, LEM. Stir in a weak form PSR and we see imposs/poss being and of poss beings, contingent and necessary. Cause is a direct corollary of contingent possible beings once one asks, why in some and not in other possible worlds. Where also, quantum theorists rely on all this to do Q-mech and as a body physics can no more saw off the branch on which we all sit to be rational than any other discipline can. I find it interesting, too that as easily documented fact the design theorists from 1982 or so on, have consistently accepted that evidence of design in the world of life we observe here on our home planet -- the only cell based life we observe so far -- does not by itself implicate an extracosmic designer; only to be consistently smeared as stealth creationists by people who obviously do not take duties of care to truth and fairness seriously. But, on the issue of cosmological fine tuning -- led initially by a lifelong agnostic (Sir Fred Hoyle) -- the inference to a cosmos design put up job . . . which is directly relevant to an extracosmic designer . . . is typically at best a secondary matter and often studiously avoided by objectors. When it does come up, we find stuff about relabelling quantum foams as "nothing" or stuff on multiverses that fails to adequately address local fine tuning of cosmos parameters and laws etc, and usually does not adequately examine absence of observation. Let me put that in plain words: materialistic speculative phil done while dressed in a lab coat is phil not sci. Crossing over into phil opens up a huge can of worms, which guaranteed, leaves evolutionary materialism squirming and gasping for warrant. I think we need to refocus the issue: where does FSCO/I come from, in light of the search space challenge. Until that is squarely faced, all else is majoring on minors. And, RTH, EL et al, I intend to get back on that topic again and again until a serious answer is made. Remember, a config space blind sampling challenge is not the same issue as, oh you don't have an exact probability value. You don't need that to understand a resource constrained needle in haystack search that is blind and what it predictably ends up in finding. As in, clutching at straws takes on a whole new meaning. KFkairosfocus_{August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PST}

A fascinating post, Dr DD, as you seem to have put your finger and addressed some seminal questions, misunderstood, wilfully or otherwise by the atheists. However, more often than not, Jerry's perception notwithstanding, it is querulous and fearful atheists who customarily bewail the potential of ID to leave the 'mother and father' of all questions hanging in the air... 'Oooh errr... Pass me the smelling salts....Axel_{August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PST}

Rich: Pardon, but if you read beyond the clips, or just glance at an infographic and video, you will see that the issue is in the context of evidence and the inductive logic of inference to best explanation. And, comment 3 is in effect a footnote that refers to discussions over time here and elsewhere. That is the focal matter: there is an attitude problem in the face of serious evidence and logic questions, which on years of exchanges, is a persistent problem. In that context, sorry to hurt feelings, but your behaviour of repeatedly making superficial dismissive talking points while dodging the evidentiary issues you have been explicitly invited to address seems to inadvertently illustrate the problem. I again invite you to speak to the evidentiary and logical points. You do not have to respond to that, but repeated resort to talking points while dodging the material substance does tend to support the explanation that you have not got more than talking points in your quiver. Pardon if that comes across strongly, but it is informed by years of dealing with consistent patterns of behaviour in these exchanges. KF PS: Go look up the von Neumann kinematic self replicator and the studies made on what would be required to build one by NASA c turn of 80s IIRC. The Jumbo Jet is not in the same class of machine as the humblest living cell. Which was the point. BTW, the genome size actually grossly underestimates the information in such a cell, the complex organisation involved is also info rich [think, reducing to an AutoCAD drawing file], and behind is the further implication of sophisticated molecular nanotech. PPS: I should also note "open to be persuaded" is not good enough. The challenge on the table is warrant, and you too have epistemic duties of care in the face of evidence. You can start from the challenge of accounting for FSCO/I, including codes, algorithms and associated molecular nanotech execution machines that come as islands of function in AA sequence space, in light of the implications of searches of large config spaces.kairosfocus_{August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PST}

Jerry – this is inevitable though. I largely agree with Stephen here and his exquisite analysis. However I would go further. The problem is with the inquisitive human mind is that on the matters of ID the question never stops there. That is to say, ID as a science posits the evidence for life’s origin is best explained through a form of design that must be from intelligence. This is obviously in contrast to naturalistic Darwinism that maintains life arises from immaterial matter through random chance and the product of obscene lengths of time. The Darwinist then is happy due to accepting that material gives rise to life, that material must have done it somehow, from simple to complex. The original details are not needed as greatly as there is a “mechanism” described. However the Darwinist fails to follow this through to understand that they actually have no overriding mechanism, as where did the material things come from? The Big Bang may be a theory as to how they appear ultimately in this time-space, however you still do not have a mechanistic origin of matter and the universe. The multiverse attempts to address this but again this is not mechanistic (and does not answer the question what generates “universes” and hence matter and material things). So ultimately, the Darwinist can pretend that it is all ok and fits within the framework of having a mechanism for life that they can comprehend. Therefore they are satisfied. Thus when one considers ID, it is of a virtual impossibility to the normal, rational human mind to stop at the idea that a form of intelligence designed life. That is completely and utterly unsatisfactory to most normal human minds, even more so those of the scientific persuasion and those seeking answers to life’s big questions (hence why they are on the internet searching for forums and answers and have an interest in this discussion). Thus it is virtually intellectually impossible to have discussions about just ID and only that without going to the most natural and logical next question – who is the designer and how did they do it? So you say that at UD a large proportion of discussions end up being religious or about God rather than the “science” but I ask you how to avoid that? If nothing more, it is impossible to avoid when every time there is a suggestion that something is not from a common ancestor or is not the product of mindless random mutation, the very first challenge to that (usually from a Darwinist) is “if they didn’t come from a common life ancestor how did they arise?”. To then address that from a theological perspective is no different to answering the anthropic principle by merely postulating that there must be near infinite number of universes out there. So it is supremely difficult, near impossible to follow through any discussion about ID without treading into the territory that examines the designer. As many here would agree the most plausible explanation is given by the Judeo-Christian God, hence why that “religious undertone” often comes through. Finally, you say:
Then there is science from the YEC perspective. This is frequently discussed here and when it is it lends credence that ID is a religiously motivated movement.
This defines the problem – as soon as anything is questioned as it should be in a scientific setting, it is labelled as religiously motivated and instantly dismissed. An example like I said above – we should be asking the questions about ages and soft-bodied preservation but as soon as we do, people just say, “There is a YEC with an agenda” yet I am asking about the evidence for how soft-bodied tissues can be maintained over 10’s of millions of years in strata that are supposedly deposited in a uniformitarian manner. Failure to engage in this matter is pseudoscience, rather than the asking of the question being religious. This is why so few people in the atheistic/evolutionary camp ask the questions that give any credence to the “religious” camp – Derek Ager and his views on catastrophism versus uniformitarianism is an example of that (largely ignored due to the idea that it gives weight to YEC’s). So right there is an indication that atheism and a naturalistic worldview impacts on how evidence is interpreted just as much as one’s religion. The only difference is atheism is shrouded in the word science so much that when you question it, you are considered unscientific. Atheism has been pushed to be the default of a scientist, which is ironic considering modern science was founded on quite the opposite.Dr JDD_{August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PST}

Jerry 41, it really was quite a trip. Great lectures by John Lennox, Ray Brohlin, Paul Nelson, John West, and Stephen Meyer. And Alaska is the one place in the world where I love to cruise. Glacier Bay, ziplining in the rainforest above Ketchikan, fishing in Sitka, high tea at the Empress Hotel in Victoria -- just special. One thing I got from this trip is that leading ID proponents aren't just smart & well educated, they are genuinely good people. Nobody was too important to talk with ordinary people such as myself, and a warm, friendly atmosphere was maintained throughout. I think they got some very positive feedback and may well do it again. At least, that's what John West seemed to indicate. Whether that will be next year I don't know. Of course, my daughter and I now have filthy colds, which frequently happens after cruises no matter how many times you sanitize your hands. But it was worth it!anthropic_{August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PST}

For most of my life until I was 41-42 years of age I was a theistic evolutionist. Most of my relatives are theistic evolutionists as we are mostly Catholic. I left evolution not for theological reasons but because some of its most grandiose claims simply aren't there. I wasn't just a supporter of evolution . I was a passionate supporter of evolution. I was the kind of nerd that knew almost every animal from the different periods and as soon as I walked into my brothers house or any of my relatives or friends I would bring my walking with dvd's (I had them all) in and everyone but my nephews and younger relatives would leave lol. I argued on the side of evolution on certain forums. That all started to change when I saw a video (cant recall the name) which showed different scientists starting to question some claims made my evolution. I naturally laughed at first but because im very curious by nature I watched it anyways. Behe was there making claims like irreducible complexity, and then the fossil record showing that transitionary fossils made large leaps in information. I went to bed that night thinking "could all this be right?, and if so why the heck wouldn't biologist tell us this or at least be skeptical of this." You have to see this from my mindset. i was educated in college and took quite a few biology courses , and most of my relatives and friends believed in evolution. This ID stuff was a shock to my system. This ID stuff was curdling ion the back of my mind while I still held a pro evolution stance, but that changed in a big way when I first watched the Stephen Meyer signature in the cell video (I love video presentation more then book reading as I had done enough of that in my life), and what Meyer said in that video made absolutely perfect sense not just from a scientific standpoint but from a logical standpoint as well. My relatives and friends started to see me showing them links from ID sites and articles. I started to familiarize myself with the ID arguments. They thought (and some still do) that I went off the deep end. Most of them thought that us Catholics are supposed to tow the line and be good little theistic evolutionists, but ive never been good at being a conformist. Truth was more important to me then fitting in. It was the specified complex information within the nucleotide base arrangments within DNA from Stephen Meyer's video that just snapped me away from evolution and here I am ever since. For me it was never a theological problem believing in evolution. I left because of the evidence, or better yet , Lack of eviodence.wallstreeter43_{August 5, 2014
August
08
Aug
5
05
2014
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PST}

Jerry
I am not sure I agree with that. Many here believe they are intertwined as evidence from the comments. Religion comes up quickly on many threads. About 40-50% of comments are about religious or philosophical topics. People seem to relish the religious/philosophical OPs.
I don't think there is anyone here who doesn't know the difference between ID science and Christian apologetics. You could make the case that a small minority (certainly not 40 to 50%) of UD commenters use the former in the service of the latter, but that doesn't mean that ID's methods are intertwined with religion. That is simply a non-sequitor.
So what are casual observers supposed to think who only know what people are talking about here? I have seen a few of them on other sites talking about their experience here just reading the site. Then there is science from the YEC perspective. This is frequently discussed here and when it is it lends credence that ID is a religiously motivated movement.
That is a totally different argument. I suspect that the majority of ID enthusiasts (and YEC proponents, for that matter) are, indeed, motivated by their commitment to Christianity, just as I suspect that the majority of Darwinists are motivated by their commitment to atheism, just as I suspect that the majority of Christian Darwinists are motivated by their desire to be popular with their peers. Meaning no disrespect, but I think you are conflating the what (ID's paradigms) with the why (the reason ID proponents get out of bed). ID's "motives," whatever you think they might be, have absolutely nothing to do with ID's methods, which in turn, have absolutely nothing to do with religion. It is essential to make these distinctions. If readers come here and form the wrong impression because they are too disengaged to read the FAQ, then I don't think their opinions deserve to be taken seriously.
I agree that it doesn’t come from official ID arguments but on UD, the arguments often drift very rapidly into other areas. I did a very brief and rough estimate of science vs philosophical/religious comments during July. Over 40% are on religion, morality or materialism. RDFish helps generate lots of inane comments in this area.
In my judgment, this is a skewed analysis because RDFish always hangs in there long enough to generate and provoke hundreds of comments. Do the same thing for the month of August and I'll bet you get a different result (unless RDF decides to participate in another marathon). It's a necessary burden that comes with the freedom UD grants to its most dedicated adversaries. Just because we must spend a lot of time refuting their nonsensical arguments, it doesn't follow that this it the subject matter we would prefer to discuss. In any case, there is no reason to believe that those unrealistically long threads are the primary influence on onlookers who are forming their first impression. It seems more likely that they would seek out their natural interests and observe the large number of threads devoted to science versus the small number of threads devoted to religion/philosophy.StephenB_{August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PST}

I was fortunate enough to be on the recent Alaska Discovery cruise and my head is still buzzing with concepts like “design triangulation” (Paul Nelson). Fascinating stuff!
Sounds like it was very interesting. When was it? I assume there will be another one next year.jerry_{August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PST}

It would be more accurate to say that, for some people, ID seems intertwined with religion. However, those who believe that way do not normally come up with this idea on their own. It certainly cannot be inferred from the ID arguments. On the contrary, it trickles down from the media, from academia, and from the government.
I am not sure I agree with that. Many here believe they are intertwined as evidence from the comments. Religion comes up quickly on many threads. About 40-50% of comments are about religious or philosophical topics. People seem to relish the religious/philosophical OPs. So what are casual observers supposed to think who only know what people are talking about here? I have seen a few of them on other sites talking about their experience here just reading the site. Then there is science from the YEC perspective. This is frequently discussed here and when it is it lends credence that ID is a religiously motivated movement. I agree that it doesn't come from official ID arguments but on UD, the arguments often drift very rapidly into other areas. I did a very brief and rough estimate of science vs philosophical/religious comments during July. Over 40% are on religion, morality or materialism. RDFish helps generate lots of inane comments in this area.jerry_{August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PST}

kf 15, Thanks for the welcome. I am a long time follower of ID, beginning in the 1980s with Denton's Evolution, A Theory in Crisis. Over time I've become convinced that the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis is seriously deficient, especially when it comes to macroevolution. My original response to jerry was succinct because I thought the points I made had been made here many times before. I was summarizing and synthesizing with a view to discussion of the worldview implications. As many here have also experienced, I find that the biggest obstacle to ID acceptance is metaphysical, not scientific. I was fortunate enough to be on the recent Alaska Discovery cruise and my head is still buzzing with concepts like "design triangulation" (Paul Nelson). Fascinating stuff! What I found equally interesting, though, is Stephen Meyer's remarks about the direction of Discovery's Science and Culture research. He believes that the basic argument against neo-Darwinism has been won in the peer-reviewed literature, though not in the popular literature such as Cosmos. He based this on recent articles by people like Koonin and Shapiro, plus the formation of the Third Way group. The math is simply overwhelming standard evolutionary explanations. Meyer said ID proponents should focus more on using design principles to elucidate biological systems and guide research efforts. In other words, the negative argument has taken hold against evolution, so now is the time to make more positive arguments for design. Paul Nelson, I think, made the point that while the other side has the power, prestige, and money, ID has something even more powerful: truth. Eventually, it will win out. I hope he's right! PS Re the comment about atheists liking the dark, John Lennox had an apt comment. Asked to reply to Stephen Hawking's statement that faith in God is for people who are afraid of the dark, Lennox replied, "Atheism is for people who are afraid of the light!" :)anthropic_{August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PST}

podcast - Michael Behe: Vindication for 'The Edge of Evolution' http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-04T17_51_38-07_00 Dr. Michael Behe talks with Casey Luskin about recent findings that support his argument in The Edge of Evolution. Dr. Behe explains why Chloroquine, a drug that treats malaria, presents a good opportunity to study the limits of random mutation and natural selection, and how his conclusions inspired so much backlash--including misrepresentation of his argument--from his critics.bornagain77_{August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PST}

I have an alternative hypothesis. When an atheist stumbling around in the dark finally does manage to stumble across something, she can with great pride and self-justification proclaim that she then has proof that she wasn't really stumbling around in the dark after all.Mung_{August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PST}

I have a hypothesis. Atheists prefer stumbling around in the dark because of the awesome sense of wonder they derive when they finally do manage to stumble across something.Mung_{August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PST}

I think the phrase, 'spooky phenomenological epistemology from a distance, as Albert might have put it' doesn't fit.Axel_{August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PST}

Dawkins should be nominated for a Nobel prize for his conception and pioneering of quantum epistemology; 'spooky, phenomenological epistemology from a distance', as Albert might have put it; in popular parlance, the subtle, intuitive field of discriminating between appearances and reality.Axel_{August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PST}

Hi KF. I believe that the issue in the OP was people holding dogmatically to viewpoints. I'm quite willing to examine methodologies and evidence, and be persuaded. Next, "matters you lack the technical basis to address". Please, be better than that. I'm not sniping at your credentials or competence, please extend the same basic courtesy to others. I do find your statement "And, frankly, Hoyle UNDER-estimated the challenge at OOL, for the humblest living cell is something no Jumbo Jet has ever pretended to be, a kinematic self-replicating automaton, per von Neumann’s discussion" empirically fascinating, though. May I infer from that you believe the humblest living cell has more FCSI/O than a Jumbo Jet? Thanks, Richrich_{August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PST}

For materialists, logic and the question of whether ID is illusory or real, are context-dependent. They do not subscribe to the notion that you cannot have your own facts. If a certain fact should present an unattractive appearance to them, why, said appearance must remain just that: merely an appearance, and not a reality; in a quantum-epistemological superposition, so-to-speak. Collapse of the wave function will remain verboten.Axel_{August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PST}

These are all great observations. What I'd suggest is that both ID or HA ("Hopeful Allele") are paradigms, a set of assumptions. ID - We assume that the biological things we observe must have a purpose, or might have become broken over time. We also assume that allele frequency changes in response to natural selection. HA - We assume that the biological things we observe are all vestiges of the past, some are defunct "fossil" alleles, and some are currently operating, possibly transitioning to a better adapted form. We also assume that new alleles are constantly being generated through mutation, and are subject to natural selection. Any assumptions beyond these paradigms that related to the existence, purposes, or nature of God is either philosophical speculation, ideology, or religious belief. The result of chosing one of these paradigms over another determines what we investigate. For example, we might not investigate "junk" DNA if one's paradigm is HA, but would dig deeper if one's paradigm is ID. -QQuerius_{August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PST}

Dr J, the issue of worldview bias is important. KFkairosfocus_{August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PST}

SA, serious thoughts too. Oh yes, as no one else specifically took it up, I think I need to point out something regarding an altogether too commonly seen attitude Jerry all too accurately described, starting from AmHD:
su·per·sti·tion (spr-stshn) n. 1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. 2. a. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance. b. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality. c. Idolatry. [Middle English supersticion, from Old French superstition, from Latin superstiti, superstitin-, from superstes, superstit-, standing over; see st- in Indo-European roots.] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Forgive my frankness: anyone who is so foolish as to imagine that a design inference on FSCO/I or an informed theistic worldview, or adherence to the Judaeo-Christian tradition are manifestations of "superstition" is manifesting a graceless sophomoric bigotry and irresponsibility and needs to learn a little humility and intellectual honesty. A is A. The time is long since past to put such sophomoric folly behind. Let us now proceed on a more reasonable basis, to a discussion that is at minimum informed by a modicum of sound understanding of the dictionary and the history of ideas. KF PS: For a few first steps in response to such arrogant folly, cf here on.kairosfocus_{August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PST}

Jerry, will do so. Today, I confess, my further posting is on what happened 100 years ago today, with a focus on 97 years ago today also, cf here. My heart is heavy with other things, including echoes of those catastrophic events in our time -- those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to relive its worst chapters. (And yes, that is one of my motivations for addressing the design issue.) KFkairosfocus_{August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PST}

SB: Good to see you here, and yes I think you are spot on. KFkairosfocus_{August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PST}

Rich: I ask you again to address the issue raised in the OP. This is not at all the level of Hoyle's rhetorical flourish, 500 - 1,000 bits is 72 - 143 characters of ASCII information, something that is pretty modest for a controller program, much less the string for a nodes and arcs coding of a designed object such as an AutoCAD DWG file has. And, frankly, Hoyle UNDER-estimated the challenge at OOL, for the humblest living cell is something no Jumbo Jet has ever pretended to be, a kinematic self-replicating automaton, per von Neumann's discussion. So far; it seems you are inadvertently demonstrating the problem BA77 highlighted, and that you are bluffing using talking points on matters you lack the technical basis to address. Of course, you are welcome to show this estimate wrong, by simply answering to the FSCO/I issue cogently and substantially. KFkairosfocus_{August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PST}

Jerry:
ID comes across as part of this old time religion. I know it has nothing to do with that but it is intertwined with religion. Just look at the comments here by pro ID people.
It would be more accurate to say that, for some people, ID seems intertwined with religion. However, those who believe that way do not normally come up with this idea on their own. It certainly cannot be inferred from the ID arguments. On the contrary, it trickles down from the media, from academia, and from the government. Judge John Jones, for example, used the power of the state to discredit ID by institutionalizing the false claim that ID "depends on" (as opposed to fact that ID is "consistent with") religion. This false claim does, indeed, trickle down into skulls full of mush who cannot distinguish motives from methods. On the UD front, I would estimate that 80 to 90% of the posts are scientifically based and the remainder are philosophically/theologically based. However. there is a good reason why philosophy and religion enter into the discussion. In fact, most of the errors of our adversaries stem from their failure to interpret evidence in a rational way and from their proclivity to inject religion into the discussion. Philosophical and theological errors cannot be addressed on the basis of scientific evidence. When a Darwinist starts arguing that "something can come from nothing," or that "God would not have done it that way," science has left the building. We either address their bad philosophical arguments for what they are or else we let them get by with it. Those are our two choices. It will not do to keep saying "lets look at the evidence" when, in fact, they are already misinterpreting and distorting that same evidence through a faulty reasoning process designed to camouflage unfettered ideology. Sometimes, you have to take an axe to the root of the tree.StephenB_{August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PST}

Hi KF! I see the UPB asserted a lot in these sort of discussions, and I understand it to be "the probabilistic resources of the known universe at this age", but I can't help but feel we've not moved on from Hoyle's 'tornado in a junkyard', though. Can we work through an actual FSCO/I example? Otherwise critics will simply retort that you're trying to wrap "looks designed to me" in technical terminology to give it a veneer of science. Thanks!rich_{August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PST}

The greatest irony is that the materialist will instantly and continually accuse the theist of interpreting evidence based on emotions and beliefs that override actual evidence. They claim to be free from preconceptions and without bias. I have had numerous discussions with atheists over this, and they oddly refuse to see that their atheism is just as responsible for biasing their views as a theist is. To them, the only reason that someone would be a theist is through upbringing or experiential bias rather than facts. This approach is much like uniformitarianism’s contradictory nature. If you accuse someone of making extrapolations and assuming (wrongly) that processes have always occurred as we see now (for example, rates of decay, sedimentation rate through uniformity versus catastrophe, etc.) they laugh and call you a blasphemer of modern day science. Yet when we see evidence to contradict uniformity within their proposed model and framework of life (OOL, evolution, ages), the tune quickly changes. This is why they see no problem with evolution happening at a massive scale in a very short time frame (e.g. Cambrian explosion) whilst other organisms simply do not change for 100s of millions of years (beetles, royal ferns, bacterium, etc.) – because they then deny in effect uniformitarianism but try to make out that this is not what they are doing. This is perhaps the most evident with the complete lack of concern or surprise that is in the community when we consider how many new fossils are being discovered that have soft tissue preserved within. This is in complete contrast to what we expect from uniformitarian views but also to what we know and can observe about decay of soft tissue around ustoday, if we are to believe the supposed 9-figure ages of these fossils. Now with this example I am not saying this is definitive proof that these ages are wrong – however it should open up discussions around this issue yet it is instantly a closed door and any challenge means you are a creationist cretin who must be silenced and mocked. Rather they would just state that the way soft tissue decays must be different to how we thought, rather than question the age. These approaches are clearly reminiscent of a religious and emotional attachment to a worldview that must hold on to their beliefs over what common sense and evidence appears to be showing as the most likely explanation. Ironically as stated this is something reserved for the theist in thought by most, but that is the beauty of this self-deception: it is so deceptive that it even deceives oneself that they are unbiased, outside influence of a particular world view when dealing with evidence/observations and not blinded by one’s own agenda. This is why we often see such people filled with rage and anger when people challenge their views and question their authority or interpretation of evidence. This is quite funny from a psychological angle as when you accuse someone who has done something wrong/lied about something you often see an over the top quite aggressive denial – and these people can be the most convincing as they seem so convinced themselves of their innocence. It is the truthful people who tend to take a step back, think about what you are accusing them of to ensure that they are not in the wrong before plainly saying so and doing so with rationality and passiveness. The problem here is the “we” bit that kairofocus uses. There is no “we” in evolutionary “science”. This is outside of ID because the problem with ID is you are left with the question of “Who is the designer?”. If ID is true, than there must be a designer and that is of supreme importance to find out. So for me personally, it is clear that this designer is in fact the God of the Bible and when you study that God you realise that He makes it abundantly clear that humans will always try to find a way to remove God and bring in false religion. Either man will try and adopt a different kind of god based on their own conceptions and need for a god (note, such a god always relies on a works-based-salvation for acceptance, compared with the God of the Bible that tells us salvation can only occur through faith and grace, not through our own works) or simply deny God’s existence. Denial of God though is not enough for mankind’s mind – there is a space there needed to be filled and man will believe the most absurd things as long as it satisfies that need. Evolution even in its most ridiculous moments then satisfies that need and even more so appeals to man’s arrogance as it also give the impression of intelligence and man being his own god which is why it is so appealing, even more so than other false religions. Evolution is where man can be god, and man is god. You are god because you have worked out life (and it is oh so unimpressive as it is accidental and random), and you are god because you are the most evolved (the product of random chance yet you can be non-random in your actions and thoughts, therefore, a god). Your need for a god is fulfilled but most importantly, what you do, say, think – all these things in life are completely up to you without consequence. Man has always sought out a justification to absolve responsibility (even the much disputed first few chapters in the Bible say this from the beginning – Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent, take it literally or not – the message is the same). Evolution is the height of absolving oneself of responsibility and is not new – man has been doing this for 1000s of years and will continue to do so. So what is the point of my inane pseudo-ID pro-Christian ramblings?! That I do not believe that this is simply a case of changing dogma, that it is a case of advancing “one funeral at a time” but rather much like BA77 alludes to, a case of the majority of human hearts in their desire to live outside the need for God. No amount of evidence will ever change that need.Dr JDD_{August 4, 2014
August
08
Aug
4
04
2014
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply