William J Murray

IMO, an entailment of the scientific theory of ID as it pertains to biological evolution, is that at least one of the following occurs: (1) directed variation, and/or  (2) artificial selection/maintenance, and that such processes produce outcomes that are detectable as the product of directed/artificial input.  (Note: these are posited as entailments of ID theory as it relates to biological evoloution, not origin-of-life or cosmological fine-tuning.  If ID is involved in biological evolution, it seems to me it must be involved in either the variation or selection process in some way; otherwise, we’re talking about the origin of a life form.) Directed variation may include the insertion of extra-species genes or other systemic instructions, the application of a system to Read More ›

First, I’d like apologize to RDFish for mistakenly attributing to him an argument others had made earlier in the “Moral Viewpoints Matter” thread, which I had argued against prior to RDFish entering the thread.  He never changed his position as I later asserted. Sorry, RDFish.  I also think my mistake led me to take RDfish’s argument less seriously as it led me to believe he was flip-flopping around, especially after he moved from color perception to beauty perception as comparable to morality perception – when, from RDFish’s perspective, he was attempting to use a less problematic comparable given his perspective that I held an erroneous understanding of what color actually is (which I may or may not). I took some Read More ›

The history of science is – of course – full of theories that have been proposed by people with deep religious or philosophical convictions (including materialism).  These great minds and others around and after them have often opined about the social, philosophical and religious implications of their scientific discoveries or the discoveries and theories of others.  Certain scientific discoveries and theories are often extrapolated into social perspectives and even used to support political agendas. Eugenics, for example, was advocated for and embraced by various Darwinism proponents. Religion has been brought up several times here at UD and there is no home thread for it to be discussed or debated. I thought I’d provide one for those that wish to engage Read More ›

Keith brought in an argument he claimed to be a “bomb” for ID. It turned out to be a failed suicide mission where the only person that got blown up was Keith. (Please note: I am assuming that life patterns exists in an ONH, as Keith claims, for the sake of this argument only.  Also, there are many other, different take-downs of Keith’s “bomb” argument already on the table.  Indulge me while I present another here.) In my prior OP, I pointed out that Keith had made no case that nature was limited to producing only ONH’s when it comes to biological diversity, while his whole argument depended on it.  He has yet to make that case, and has not Read More ›

Even though keiths “bomb” has been defused and debunked in several ways, it has occurred to me that there is another major flaw in keiths argument. However, to reiterate the main debunking point: Barry Arrington asked for a “science bomb” that would demonstrate him wrong about what ID argues; keith’s “bomb” assumes the very thing that ID challenges – that natural forces are capable of producing the CSI found in living organisms. This makes keiths argument logical in nature (given he assumes everything that requires actual science), not scientific, and renders it irrelevant to the challenge – irrelevant even if it was logically valid, which it is not, as I will now show. First, let’s assume that genetically, living organisms Read More ›

The materialist position is that the mind is an effect of biology and physics. If the materialist appeals to a person’s mind (logic, reason, thoughts, conscience, emotion) to try and get them to change their views/beliefs, they are necessarily assuming that the mind is not limited to being only an effect of biology/physics, because they would be appealing to an effect (the mind) to change itself, or to itself act in a top-down, causal manner, circumventing the physical causes the materialist supposedly believes actually produces the state-of-mind effect. Appealing to the minds of others necessarily means assuming those minds are not caused by biology/physics and that those minds have the causal ability to change themselves based on concepts and arguments.  Read More ›

Instead of afflicting scientific research with a vague, culturally-dependent set of metaphysical expectations and constraints (naturalism), why not characterize the scientific method in a metaphysically neutral manner? I think a more productive alternative to “methodological naturalism” would be “methodological pragmatism”. This would define science as a methodology for finding/creating models that work for various purposes without assuming or making any metaphysical judgements on the nature of reality. It would also not generate metaphysical expectations or confine interpretations of data to metaphysical narratives that are largely cultural.

1. If morality is subjective (by individual or group), as atheists/materialists claim, then what any individual/group ought to do is necessarily relative to that individual/group purpose. IOW, if my purpose is to make a frozen margarita, I ought put ice in the blender. If my purpose is to make fresh peanut butter, I ought not put ice in the blender. The ought-ness of any task can only be discerned by mapping it to the purpose for which the act is committed. Under moral subjectivism, acts in themselves are just brute facts with no objective moral value; they must be mapped to the subjective purpose to determine subjective moral value (oughtness). 2. The question “Is it moral to gratuitously torture children?” Read More ›

I love and thoroughly enjoy believing that I have free will; that I have a soul; that god exists, and that my existence will continue on in some sentient format forever; that I will be reunited with loved ones after death; I love the feeling of love, fulfillment, joy, and hope these beliefs instill in my life on a day to day basis. I love the amazing miracles I see every day that reassure me that the divine exists and is all around me. I appreciate the patience these beliefs provide me; the profound sense of meaning and value for every kindness and good thing that I encounter and that I can muster for those I love; the stability and Read More ›

Under moral subjectivism, good and bad are entirely subjective commodities.  This means that if I think a thing is right, it is as right as is possible for moral right to exist.  The principle of subjective morality authorizes an act as “morally good” if the person that performed the act believed it to be the right thing to do; that is the only framework available to moral subjectivism for an evaluation of “moral” and “immoral”.  It is strictly a relationship between the actor/believer and the act. Therefore, as long as Hitler believed his actions right, and those who carried out his orders believed similarly, then to the full extent that the principle of moral subjectivism has to authorize anything as Read More ›

An earlier thread here wondered which group (presumably, Darwinists or IDists/Creationists) was more charitable. At TSZ,  a rhetorical post full of anti-ID venom popped up asking if IDists “deserved” charity (as in, charitable interaction & debate).  (Previously, I would have provided a link to the TSZ post, but I’m no longer interested in “fair play”.) I used to be one that diligently attempted to provide Darwinists charitable interaction.  I tried not to ridicule, demean, or use terms that would cause hurt or defensive feelings.  My hope was that reason, politely offered, would win the day.  My theistic perspective is that returning the bad behavior I received at sites like TSZ would be wrong on my part.  I thought I should Read More ›

Truth, rationality, and morality under naturalism, are irrelevant commodities, in and of themselves. The naturalist’s (atheistic materialist’s) concern with truth, reason and morality are stolen obligations – obligations that are not derivable from naturalism. If minds are the computed product of physics, they output whatever they output.  There is no ideal form, perfection, or “truth” outside of what physics produces in any particular instance to compare what physics produces against.  Whatever any individual computation of physics outputs with the label “rational” attached is the natural limit of what can be termed “rational”.  There’s nothing the individual can compare it against; they are stuck with their own ruler and no means by which to check its length.  What is considered “true” Read More ›

The stolen concept fallacy is a form of self-refutation. From Wikipedia: Stolen Concept – the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends. In an ongoing, multi-thread sub-debate at The Skeptical Zone, I have been making the case that when materialists argue, they necessarily employ stolen concepts, such as those referred to by the following terms and more: “I”, “we”, “prove”, “evidence”, “reason”, “logic”, “determine”, “conclude”, “error”, “fact”, “objective”, “subjective”, etc. Generally agreed upon by many of those at TSZ (although now I suspect we’ll get a barrage of disagreement via DDS), human beings are material computations of physics, meaning that everything a human does, says, Read More ›

At TSZ, Dr. Liddle made the argument that a “ghost in the machine” is not a necessary component when it comes to experiencing qualia and providing us with what I call “conscious free will”.  In another thread, she took issue with Barry Arrington’s premise that the brain, under materialism, is taken as, in essence, a biological computer. My response (below) is, even if biological physics can produce experiential  qualia,  learn, and contain self-referential subject/context loops as she describes, so what?  That doesn’t make any significant difference to Mr. Arrington’s premise that, under materialism, the brain is like an organic computer, nor does it provide any metaphysical relief from the materialist conclusion that one’s will (choices, decisions) are being determined (not Read More ›

First, by “Darwinistic” I mean “atheistic-materialist neo-Darwinist”, which includes the view that even the origin of life can be explained by reference to chance and natural law. As Alan Fox points out, many of those here are “laymen” when it comes to evolutionary biology.  Most of us are not specifically schooled or trained in that arena – by “us”, I mean anyone who is interested in the debate about Darwinian evolution vs ID-inclusive evolution.  I, like many, have informed myself to a moderate degree about Darwinistic claims and the ID argument, but I’m certainly not a professional scientist, nor a philosopher with any formal academic training. IMO, a reasonable layman would be highly skeptical of claims that matter, chance & Read More ›