Back to Basics of ID Darwinist rhetorical tactics Design inference Science, worldview issues/foundations and society

Back to ID Basics, 0: The distinct identity, “A is itself, A = A” challenge

Spread the love

It is time to get back to basics (BTB henceforth) on ID, but as step zero, we have to set first principles of right reason straight.

For instance, it seems that — once we are certain that we can be certain of nothing falls apart in absurdity — the fallback position on the issue of distinct identity is that it is only about an empty tautology, A = A that sets up a tiresome little game we call logic, when we would rather be playing another game, Science . . . actually, a priori Evolutionary Materialist Scientism and/or its fellow travellers.

(Now, I know I know, this is not about the scientific specifics that some crave getting back to the usual unyielding back-forth on. But, y’see, science lives in society and has to address worldview foundation issues, including not only ontology but ethics and more, especially when we go over to the underlying issue of ideological impositions on science institutions and education. Where, too often we have seen deadlock and intransigence, backed up by oh we control the institutions and set the rules so there. And, we are therefore following up the trail on where the intransigence is coming from to its source, having found disagreement on technical, ethical, ontological and policy issues, then on the logic of chained warrant, and at length we have now arrived at first principles of right reason. The principle is, if the foundations are destroyed or undermined, the building erected on them cannot stand. So, indulge us the favour of allowing us to draw the issue together and sum up as a basis for reassessing the actual merits on the science and linked science in society issues we also need to face.)

Accordingly, I have amplified as follows, in a response to LH that I now clip and augment with what a full Original Post allows:

____________

>>Again [LH], to post a comment in reply you have used letters etc, relying implicitly on distinct identity.

{Such as a bright red ball on a table and the ontological/logical issue of distinct identity it sets up:}

red_ballLaws_of_logic

Do you or do you not acknowledge that once distinct identity A obtains (immediately, letters and/or phonemes are in view but this is an illustrative example of a pattern that obtains for Jupiter in the sky

calar9_small

or the ground underfoot, or the PC you are using etc),

I: A is itself (A = A, with all that is implied for A to be, and to have its distinct nature/identity that allows us to give it a relevant name or label),

II: A is not at the same time and in the same sense its opposite ~A (A AND ~A = 0), and

III: that anything x in the world is going to be either A or else ~A? (A XOR ~A = 1)

If you acknowledge such, you have acknowledged the infallible self-evident and foundational certainty of LOI, LNC and LEM. And no, it’s a tautology that only has inner world significance does not obtain once we see that the concept that there is an ugly gulch barring knowledge of the external world collapses in self-referential incoherence. So soon as you argued with others, using text and pc’s etc you conceded that by direct implication.

If you do not, you are absurdly self-referentially incoherent and that emerges so soon as you post or posted a comment that relies on distinct identity to work.>>

____________

In short, as UD blog  contributor Stephen B sometimes gives as an apt, three perspective summary of the pivotal law of non-contradiction, e.g. here:

[If] an object has an essence or a nature [–> thus, a distinct identity], we do, in fact, know what it is by virtue of having abstracted its universal “whatness” from the particular we encounter through our senses.

In other words, the law of non-contradiction is true

  • ontologically–a thing is what it is and cannot also be something else at the same time and in the same way.
  • logically–a proposition about that thing cannot be true and false at the same time and in the same way.
  • psychologically–a proposition about that thing cannot seem to be true and false at the same time and in the same way.

So, when something A exists, as itself sitting there like Jupiter in the sky with a line of impacts from Shoemaker-Levy as seen in IR, it can be viewed as having possibility and actuality of being. This means that it has core, mutually compatible characteristics, unlike a proposed square circle for which what is needed to be circular or to be squarish cannot be met in the same sense, point, entity and circumstances:

One and the same object cannot be circular and square in the same sense and place at the same time
One and the same object
cannot be circular and
square in the same
sense and place at the same time

But that’s trivial, and it’s not science!

It is foundational — another thing that is so sharply contested — and it is indeed ontological-logical, but without first acknowledging this or implicitly using it, there is no basis for doing science. And, one of the rhetorical tactics we consistently see is the refusal to acknowledge foundational self-evident truths in order to be able to play at selectively hyperskeptical logic with a swivel. When it suits the agenda, all proceeds smoothly, but once logic and fundamental issues of being cut across the agenda suddenly all is dubious and you Creationists in Cheap Tuxedos are trying to smuggle your god into Science.

So, when we stand in a day of rampant illogic and incoherence, it is an act of courage to say, A is itself, A is A, A = A. Where the equals sign means that the RHS re-states and perhaps amplifies or explains what is on the LHS. Where for Science, we are concerned to think logically about real things on the real ground as investigated empirically by real observers.

Next, when A is, we are entitled to another revolutionary act: ask and seek to answer why A is, expecting a reasonable answer.

And yes, I here stated a weak form principle of sufficient reason, let’s tag w-PSR. This is embedded in the fundamental vision of science and if someone objects, I simply look at A — Jupiter in the sky with those nine scars on it and the red spot etc — and ask why is this here? Then, I proceed to apply empirical investigations and logic, including deduction and induction to seek a best current understanding that is empirically reliable. You try to do Science without such as an underlying premise.

The w-PSR points to ontological issues, questions of fundamental being, nature and by implication origin.

Where we have already seen that some candidate-beings are impossible and others are possible, tied to whether such a distinct identity is coherent and thus feasible. There is no possible coherent and detailed state of affairs — no possible world — in which a square circle can exist. But bright red balls on the table or in the sky are very feasible.

Yes, this is vital, A is itself is tied to whether such an A can exist.

Then, of possible beings, we see that some are contingent, dependent on external, enabling on/off factors; such as how the fire tetrahedron:

Fire_tetrahedron

. . . illustrates how four enabling factors are each necessary and jointly sufficient for a fire to begin or be sustained. A fire is contingent and the on/off factors are why it can begin, be sustained, and come to an end. These are causal factors and each such factor is a necessary causal factor — remove it and the fire is blocked from beginning or being sustained. Indeed that is how firemen fight fires.

Then, we notice, a sufficient cluster of factors such that when such is present, the fire will begin or be sustained. This shows us an adequate or true cause in action.

Which can include a cause adequate to set up a statistical/probabilistic distribution of possible outcomes, e.g. tossing dice:

A pair of dice showing how 12 edges and 8 corners contribute to a flat random distribution of outcomes as they first fall under the mechanical necessity of gravity, then tumble and roll influenced by the surface they have fallen on. So, uncontrolled small differences make for maximum uncertainty as to final outcome. (Another way for chance to act is by  quantum probability distributions such as tunnelling for alpha particles in a radioactive nucleus)
A pair of dice showing how 12 edges and 8 corners contribute to a flat random distribution of outcomes as they first fall under the mechanical necessity of gravity, then tumble and roll influenced by the surface they have fallen on. So, uncontrolled small differences make for maximum uncertainty as to final outcome. (Another way for chance to act is by quantum probability distributions such as tunnelling for alpha particles in a radioactive nucleus)

Later, we will look at the vera causa principle championed by Newton and acknowledged by Lyell and Darwin, that

VERA CAUSA: in explaining the cause of things we cannot directly inspect (such as remote reaches of space or the past of origins) it is reasonable to insist that we only consider as explanations causes shown to be adequate to cause the like effect.

(NB: Adhering consistently to this principle, by itself, would remove most of the rhetorical, ideological and institutional barriers encountered in addressing the controversies over the design inference on tested, empirically reliable signs.)

What about things that do not depend on external on/off enabling causes?

Can such exist?

Yes, and a characteristic of a serious candidate to be such is that it will either be impossible of being or present in any possible world, as it will be inextricably entangled in the framework for such a world to exist.

A simple example is the reality of two-ness, one thing and another thing, which is closely connected to distinct identity of some thing A and linked world partition of W:

W = {A|~A}

There is no possible world in which two-ness cannot exist.

If you doubt me, start with the set that collects nothing, {}:

{} –> 0

{0} –> 1

{0, 1} –> 2

. . .

This never began, nor can it cease from being, it is a necessary being.

All of this abstract stuff . . . !

. . . Is highly relevant to reality.

For, consider an utter nothing, true non-being (as opposed to quantum foams and multiverses etc.)

Such can have no causal properties, so if utter non-being ever existed, such would forever obtain.

If something — a world — now is, SOMETHING ALWAYS WAS.

Something unconditioned by other realities.

And, as our observed cosmos credibly had a beginning:

The Big Bang timeline -- a world with a beginning
The Big Bang timeline — a world with a beginning

. . the material world we inhabit is patently contingent and has a deeper causal root; ultimately in a necessary being.

That is the context in which we do science, seeking to describe, explain/understand, predict and influence our world by compiling observations on the things we see in it, the orderly patterns of factors, forces and effects we see, and resulting dynamics. Then, as we infer from observed patterns, we look to stating and at least provisionally validating empirically reliable laws, explanatory accounts and theories that are of inductive — yes, inductive — character.

Arguments, where evidence and reasoning supports and makes conclusions reasonable but not grounded beyond doubt or possibility of being overturned through later evidence and analysis.

Often, in the form inference to best explanation:

Abductive, inductive reasoning and the inherent provisionality of scientific theorising
Abductive, inductive reasoning and the inherent provisionality of scientific theorising, with the body of accepted theory onward

Where also the issue of successive warrant of claims leads tot he chaining of warrant and the issue of world-root foundations for arguments:

A summary of why we end up with foundations for our worldviews, whether or not we would phrase the matter that way}
A summary of why we end up with foundations for our worldviews, whether or not we would phrase the matter that way}

This sets the context in which we will be able to explore the issues of Science, origins and the basis for the scientific character of the design inference. END

 

35 Replies to “Back to ID Basics, 0: The distinct identity, “A is itself, A = A” challenge

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Back to basics of ID, step zero — yes, logic, identity and world foundations. These set the context for all else.

  2. 2
    StephenB says:

    Kairosfocus, Excellent!

    As an extra bonus, you have pointed to the all important, often neglected, psychological component of the law of non-contradiction. It isn’t just that A is A (ontology), or that we cannot logically say that it is not. (epistemology). It is equally true that we cannot, even remotely believe that it is not. (psychology). Put another way, absolutely certainty about the law is a part of the law. Those who claim not to be certain about it do not mean what they say. It isn’t possible for a sane person not to know that a submarine is not a piano.

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    SB, and of course that point is a very big hat-tip to you for a very well expressed summary. KF

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Added a few explanatory links on science, logic, ontology, ethics etc. KF

  5. 5
    Carpathian says:

    kairosfocus:

    VERA CAUSA: in explaining the cause of things we cannot directly inspect (such as remote reaches of space or the past of origins) it is reasonable to insist that we only consider as explanations causes shown to be adequate to cause the like effect.

    I agree.

    This is why I have asked IDists many times to consider whether biological ID is possible .

    Every time I look at the logistics involved I don’t see how it is possible for intelligence alone to get an ecosystem up and running.

    It is also less likely that intelligence alone could maintain and modify organisms in an ecosystem to maintain the balance between populations.

    What I never get is a plan that explains how one would perform biological ID in the real world.

    Until someone makes a detailed plan, biological ID cannot be considered as a cause of life as we see it today.

  6. 6
    Virgil Cain says:

    Carpathian:

    This is why I have asked IDists many times to consider whether biological ID is possible.

    We have the evidence that biological ID is real so obviously it was possible.

    Every time I look at the logistics involved I don’t see how it is possible for intelligence alone to get an ecosystem up and running.

    Is that supposed to be an argument?

    Until someone makes a detailed plan, biological ID cannot be considered as a cause of life as we see it today.

    That doesn’t follow. We weren’t the designers of biological life so why would we need a detailed plan?

    What we don’t understand is why you think that your ignorant blatherings are an argument.

  7. 7
    Carpathian says:

    kairosfocus,
    Is A used in the same context in both of the following statements?

    #define A 1

    if (A == 2) {};

  8. 8
    Carpathian says:

    Virgil Cain:

    What we don’t understand is why you think that your ignorant blatherings are an argument.

    ?

    Not a great response in support of the biological ID movement.

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    Carpathian,

    first cf our good friend Venter and the others who have been carrying out genetic engineering to identify whether intelligent contrivance of biological forms is possible. As VC stated it is actual so it is possible. Further to that, as will be argued later — and you are here deliberately jumping ahead of what is being argued at ground level, a sign that you have no truly cogent answer — life forms show strong signs of features that are empirically reliable markers of design on a trillion member evidence base. The place for that discussion is when it is on the table, not when the issue on the table is first steps in reasoning.

    Next, you have used some C-like pseudocode.

    Kindly state the meaning you intend in English, and then we will all be able to see whether you have used A in the same sense in both contexts. This is a bit problematic as the second half is an opening for an unfilled IF-Then-Else structure.

    The evidence in view is that you are playing at subject switching by trying to drag out to irrelevancies, rather than addressing what is on the table in the OP.

    I decline to provide a proposed definition as that would simply pander to the distraction.

    The context in the OP is, we have a distinct A, you can start with the opening word of your post, say:

    {Is | Is} + . . .

    In order to assert a statement, you were forced to rely on the distinct identity of letters and words in text.

    This leads to:

    W = { A |~ A}

    from which LOI, LNC and LEM immediately follow, and necessarily follow on pain of being unable to even object without using them implicitly. To object, you must implicitly use what you object to; reductio ad absurdum on steroids.

    In the classic words of St Paul, 55 AD:

    1 Cor 14:6 Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I help you unless I speak to you with a revelation or with knowledge or prophecy or teaching?

    7 It is similar for lifeless things that make a sound, like a flute or harp. Unless they make a distinction in the notes, how can what is played on the flute or harp be understood?

    8 If, for example, the trumpet makes an unclear sound, who will get ready for battle?

    9 It is the same for you. If you do not speak clearly with your tongue, how will anyone know what is being said? For you will be speaking into the air.

    10 There are probably many kinds of languages in the world, and none is without meaning. 11 If then I do not know the meaning of a language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. 12 It is the same with you . . . [NET]

    KF

  10. 10
    Virgil Cain says:

    Carpathian:

    Not a great response in support of the biological ID movement.

    ?

    It was meant to show that you are a strawman creator and nothing more. We have supported biological ID and all you want to do is play with straw. You ignore the support in favor of your straw.

    Strange

  11. 11
    Carpathian says:

    Virgil Cain:

    It was meant to show that you are a strawman creator and nothing more.

    It doesn’t address kairofocus’s statement:

    VERA CAUSA: in explaining the cause of things we cannot directly inspect (such as remote reaches of space or the past of origins) it is reasonable to insist that we only consider as explanations causes shown to be adequate to cause the like effect.

    If biological ID is supposed to explain biology , you need to do better than say, since biology exists , it must have been designed .

    Come up with an explanation that is adequate for the effect we see.

    Your first problem is gathering the information required to make a decision.

    The second is to create an organism.

    The third is to roll out the design without damaging the ecosystem.

    The fourth is handling errors that you make.

    The fifth is responding to environmental disasters in a timely manner.

  12. 12
    Carpathian says:

    kairosfocus:

    first cf our good friend Venter and the others who have been carrying out genetic engineering to identify whether intelligent contrivance of biological forms is possible.

    First of all, saying something does not make it so.

    Show someone taking chemicals in a lab and creating life.

    Next, you have used some C-like pseudocode.

    Kindly state the meaning you intend in English, and then we will all be able to see whether you have used A in the same sense in both contexts.

    I’m asking you because you know a little about programming.

    If you can’t understand what I wrote, you won’t get the analogy.

  13. 13
    Virgil Cain says:

    Carpathian:

    If biological ID is supposed to explain biology , you need to do better than say, since biology exists , it must have been designed .

    Then it is a good thing that we do much more than that.

    Come up with an explanation that is adequate for the effect we see.

    We have.

    Your first problem is gathering the information required to make a decision.

    That problem has been solved as ID has a methodology for determining design from nature, operating freely.

    The second is to create an organism.
    The third is to roll out the design without damaging the ecosystem.

    The fourth is handling errors that you make.

    The fifth is responding to environmental disasters in a timely manner.

    We weren’t the designers of life. Obviously you have other issues.

    We have supported biological ID and all you want to do is play with straw. You ignore the support in favor of your straw.

  14. 14
    Virgil Cain says:

    We have the evidence that biological ID is real so obviously it was possible.

    For example, the genetic code is a real code, mother nature doesn’t produce codes whereas intelligent agencies do.

    The Origin of Information: How to Solve It

  15. 15
    Carpathian says:

    Virgil Cain:

    We weren’t the designers of life. Obviously you have other issues.

    We didn’t design life and neither did any other life form.

    Their problems would have have been the same ones we would face.

    That is the point.

    Biological ID is not an adequate explanation for how life was created .

  16. 16
    Carpathian says:

    Virgil Cain:

    For example, the genetic code is a real code, mother nature doesn’t produce codes whereas intelligent agencies do.

    Clearly, mother nature produces what you call code.

    You could show me I’m wrong by coming up with plan that can be followed for implementing biological ID.

    Otherwise, you have only an opinion.

  17. 17
    Virgil Cain says:

    Carpathian:

    We didn’t design life and neither did any other life form.

    The evidence says that living organisms were intelligently designed.

    Biological ID is not an adequate explanation for how life was created .

    Intelligent Design is the only explanation for how life was created .

  18. 18
    Virgil Cain says:

    Carpathian:

    Clearly, mother nature produces what you call code.

    LoL! Everyone with knowledge of codes calls it a code. Everyone with knowledge of biology calls it a code. And clearly mother nature could never produce one.

    You could show me I’m wrong

    You are not even wrong. You are a clueless strawman maker.

    Otherwise, you have only an opinion.

    Unlike you we have the methodology and the evidence. All you have is your strawmen.

  19. 19
    kairosfocus says:

    Carpathian, it seems that you are first insistent on side tracking a thread on one subject to another one not substantially addressed in the OP, and where there will be opportunity enough in due course. On that you have already been warned, and this notice is strike two. Thirdly you have implicitly denied the existence of genetic engineering which is actual intelligent design of life forms, which shows the level of denial of reality we are dealing with. You are now on strike three. KF

  20. 20
    Mung says:

    Leave it up to Carpathian to confuse logic with logistics.

  21. 21

    Of course the real grounding of science is mathematics. The universe certainly can be in a state in which “twoness” does not obtain, which is the universe in a state as exhaustively described with a single 0. 2 can be derived from 0, but if it hasn’t been derived in the universe, then it is inaccurate to say “twoness” applies to the universe. In regular mathematical theory the natural numbers are obtained by counting. But counting is already a complex process, and new mathematical theory works differently, it works by “rewriting” the 0 as a 1, and proceed from there.

    That is some of the theorizing going on in mathematics, which is really going much deeper and much more fundamental than the law of identity.

    There is no neccessary being for science, the universe can consist of 0, and then the 0 can disappear as well. That leaves the spiritual domain, and there is then some moral imperative that saying the spiritual domain is empty, is low morale.

    Obviously the logic proposed has value, but it is neither fundamental in science, or religion. God as a neccessary being, is better understood as using the word neccessary as an expression of emotion. A disgust with spiritual emptiness, so that there neccessarily has to be some spirit. That is a charitable interpretation. Another interpretation could be that God as a necessary being is an expression of original sin, which is that good and evil be regarded as fact (eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil). The neccessity seems to make a fact out of goodness.

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    MNY,

    actually, twoness per the discussion in the OP is abstract and would obtain in a materially empty cosmos crunched down to a singularity. It is a part of the substructure for a world to exist at all. In short the number 2 did not begin nor can it be terminated.

    One way to look at such is that such are eternally contemplated.

    And, you don’t go deeper than necessary foundations. Perhaps you mean more complex, more sophisticated, more impressive or even astonishing. (With respect, pardon if I err, I assume English is not mother-tongue for you . . . the one absorbed with mother’s milk.)

    Yes, but as so much classical Geometry grows from a few almost simplistic axioms, much the same obtains in general Mathematics.

    Logic and its links in ontology are truly fundamental, at the very root. Yes, these things are not day to day emphases in scientific or mathematical work, but as Lord Keynes observed of Economics in the 1930s, when profound crisis happens, we are forced to look afresh at fundamentals and things taken as axioms. I prefer to speak in terms of first plausibles and confess to sympathies towards Haack’s foundherentism though I may not go all the way there.

    I must add, when Mathematicians scratch out symbols or think regarding entities, relationships, logic chains etc, they instantly rely on distinct identity. Which instantly brings its triple corollaries in with it.

    Kuhn on normal vs crisis science and paradigm shifts is also relevant. So is Lakatos on armour belts around core commitments and I always think of the British Battlecruisers at Jutland and inadequate armour joined to unsafe praxis. Three blew up suddenly. Fast forward to 1941 was it and Hood — named after an admiral blown up at Jutland — makes four.

    KF

  23. 23
    daveS says:

    KF,

    Is any mathematical entity not a necessary being?

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, that’s a good question. Your thoughts would be welcome i/l/o dependence. I would suggest for starters that a lot of functions and systems such as the decimal place value systems are cultural artifacts. By contrast, whether you express pi as a Gk letter, a decimal value or a series etc, it expresses a necessary relationship on an object that is itself as a category necessary. Though, that we choose to express the relationship as pi instead of what we call 2 pi or the like is pretty contingent. Isn’t there a movement to do something like that? Sort of like is h or h-bar more important in Physics or more convenient? And, what log base is best or chosen? Even sines, cosines etc as functions are contingent choices from alternate possibilities. KF

  25. 25
    daveS says:

    Yes, I can’t think of any natural “stopping point”. Natural numbers, integers, rationals, etc. Then what’s to prevent us from going on to groups, rings, categories, topoi, and so on?

    I think it’s tau that you’re referring to (2pi).

  26. 26
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, N, N + 0, Z, Q, R and C seem to me to be necessary beings and at least several of the relationships and structures as a direct consequence. In short, inextricably entangled in the foundation of any world, discovered not really invented — and yes that implies I take exact logic to be integral to the structure of reality, any coherently possible or actual world. Or if some do have contingent aspects, they are tied to necessary things; like the relationships aback of pi or its near relatives. And of course the astonishing result 0 = 1 + e^ i* pi, shows whole provinces of Mathematics to be similarly interlocked. The cluster of connexions onward into the physics of a world, including the complex frequency domain and transfer relationships is also suggestive. We live in a world with exact Mathematical relationships in its framework. Where of course I think one of the best short “definitions” of Mathematics is the formal study of the logic of quantity, structure and linked relationships. KF

    PS: This discussion may be suggestive (note, bridging), I just ran across it: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1006.3930v1.pdf

  27. 27
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: I think I should note that for me, tautology does not usually carry the connotation of empty question-begging repetition as I first seriously encountered the concept in a propositional logic context. In this sense, a tautology is a double implication, P IFF Q, which often is to be demonstrated and may be surprising or even astonishingly insightful, or else it speaks to foundational theorems, particularly the seventeen axiomatic assertions of classic Boolean Algebra. That is why I have specifically used the sense, EMPTY tautology, to point to things of the order of the gostak distims the doshes, which then leads without breaking the circle to the gostak is the distimmer and the doshes the distimmed. And yes that was a formative story in my intellectual life. Where my view on it was and remains, that if one has not acquired the underlying framework in which a circle of dictionary definitions operates, one will be frustrated. But under certain circumstances there indeed is an empty question-begging circle involved. The significance of the triple choice on chains of warrant then emerges and bang the significance of plumb-line self-evident truths stands there in front of you. Then you can address belief webs on anchor points and lines that are then woven together with a spiral narrative path. And, an observation of a perfect spiral spiderweb woven by a spider while hurricane George was hitting, was catalytical. Thence, comparative difficulties of diverse sets of finitely remote first plausibles on factual adequacy (anchor points), coherence (spiral intersecting the anchor lines) and explanatory balance of elegant simplicity vs an ad hoc patchwork vs the simplistic (a proper neat and clean spiral). This also connects to my thoughts on design of proper curricula and web sites. KF

  28. 28
    daveS says:

    Thanks for the reference, KF, I’ve saved that one and will look at it as soon as I get some free time.

  29. 29
    Carpathian says:

    kairosfocus:

    Thirdly you have implicitly denied the existence of genetic engineering which is actual intelligent design of life forms, which shows the level of denial of reality we are dealing with.

    Our level of “genetic engineering” is not even close to what’s required to create life and roll it out.

    The logistics are not within the capability of anything less than God.

    Show me a workable plan for rolling out life forms into an ecosystem.

    You will fail.

  30. 30
    Carpathian says:

    Mung,

    “Logistics
    The planning, execution, and control of the movement / placement of goods and / or people, and the related supporting activities, all within a system designed to achieve specific objectives.”

    This is what makes biological ID highly improbable.

    The successful execution of all the required actions pertaining to biological ID are so improbable you may as well say impossible.

    Unless you are God.

  31. 31
    Virgil Cain says:

    Carpathian:

    The logistics are not within the capability of anything less than God.

    That’s your opinion.

    Show me a workable plan for rolling out life forms into an ecosystem.

    We are not the designers of life.

    The successful execution of all the required actions pertaining to biological ID are so improbable you may as well say impossible.

    More opinion. Why is it all you offer is your opinion and think it means something?

  32. 32
    Box says:

    Carpathian: Show me a workable plan for rolling out life forms into an ecosystem.

    Maybe the alien scientists, who seeded the Earth with designed life forms, got incredibly lucky that things worked out.

    Who knows?

    I know of a theory that is based on a dramatically lower probability. 😉

  33. 33
    Carpathian says:

    Box:

    I know of a theory that is based on a dramatically lower probability.

    I think that “Darwinism” is more likely than a hands-on detail by detail methodology.

    If biological ID is improbable in practice , you can rule out the theory .

  34. 34
    Virgil Cain says:

    I think that “Darwinism” is more likely

    And yet it remains evidence-free. Not only that no one can say if it is even feasible.

  35. 35
    kairosfocus says:

    C, I pointed out that you were side tracking the thread. Your insistence shows to me that the best approach for this series will be to post several successive points before re-opening for a general discussion as the insistent side-tracking is obviously distractive. KF

    PS: You are also setting up and knocking over a strawman led up to by a red herring. The actual design argument has no dependence on whether we can design ecosystems or terraforming of the planet. Instead, it has identified empirically reliable markers of design i.e. intelligently directed configuration, such as functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, which pass the vera causa test. We are epistemically warranted to then hold that the FSCO/I seen in biological entities is a strong index of design as causal process accounting for their origin. Where also Venter et al have shown that such engineering of life forms is possible.

Comments are closed.