Here’s a proposal from a friend of mine for Darwinalia, Inc. With some additional work, it may have commercial possibilities.
Comments
Aris, track "the law of inertia." (post 22) Also, on natural selection, and later the anthropic coincidences.--ThanksMario A. Lopez
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
Mario: "Aris, you are still dodging my question. Furthermore, the ancient Greeks never saw the inner workings of a cell, or the expanse of the universe with its vast galaxies..."
I don't think I dodged any question. But if you feel that I did, please state it and I'll address it tomorrow. I'm going to have a little wine now. Have a good night.Aris
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
jboze3131: "aris- please, at least try to be honest about your motives. don’t claim you’re here to simply ask honest questions to see why someone sees things the way they do. you’re here to belittle and attack."
Why are you so concerned with my motives? What difference does it make what my motives are?
Sure, I'll admit that I have been exasperated with the combination of ignorance and arrogance that some people seem to exhibit. For example, when someone argues that science "flourished" because of Christianity, not despite of it, without bothering to explain why there was no scientific progress between the demise of the pre-Socratics and 1600 or so -- which just happened to be the period of total dominance of Europe by the Christian church. I wish we could ask Galileo and Copernicus about the wonderful support their scientific ideas received from the Christian church. Hey, they could tell us how helpful the Christian church had been to the development of the theory of a heliocentric solar system.
I have endevored to state and restate positions as clearly as possible and provide detailed explanations -- even when it would have been easier to dismiss an argument as too juvenile to even deserve a response. That's what ought to count.Aris
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
"Anyone who posts here does so using a computer. I trust that we can agree that computers are not the product of prayer, or the creation of exorcising priests, or of any supernatural entity of any sort. They are merely the product of a process that started a few hundred years ago. Obviously that process is science."
No, they are a product of intelligent design. The computers did not build themselves. They were brought together by thinking agents.
"Bottom line: Science works, unlike all the supernatural gobbleygook and fairy tales that passed for explanations of life, the universe, and everything for millennia. And it works precisely because it presupposes that every phenomenon has a natural explanation."
And you're making the same straw man that everyone else does when they encounter Intelligent Design. You are forgetting that as a movement it does not posit that the designer was supernatural. It only posits that creativity/intelligence is a causitive force, separate from but constrained by law and chance. If design was not a causitive element, then NOTHING in the last 100 years would have occurred. You are taking the supernatural-vs-natural tack. But the point of Intelligent Design is that you don't even have to talk about God to see the gigantic hole in materialist philosophy. You just have to talk about humans and intelligence, and the flaw is staring you in the faith. Many of us (including myself) think that the logical next step is to talk about God, but it is amazing beyond belief that scientists don't want to talk about intelligence/creativity as a causitive force in the universe, despite the fact that it underlies everything they do.
To call naturalism the cause of everything we have today, and Intelligent Design its antithesis is to call into question the very necessity of having an intelligent agent to carry out or at least initiate such work. But in fact we find that it is necessary, and has always been.johnnyb
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
nostrowski: "How would knots occur without the reposition of peripherals? Let’s say you hooked everything up with all the cables straight and never touched the peripherals again. How would these chance knots occur? Magic?"
By a random, natural event that repositions the peripherals. Let's say the house comes apart in an earthquake and one component goes one way and another another, and so on. The gaggle of cables that's holding everything together will end up intertwined in knots, and the knots would be the result of a natural, chance process without anyone designing or implementing them.
nostrowski: "And for the record, I’ve never looked at a knot in a cable and assumed it was intelligently designed. Nor do I know anyone who has."
Well, but it looks intelligently designed, doesn't it? My point is simply that the appearance of design does not necessarily imply a designer, and there are things that give the appearance of design but are not designed.
nostrowski: "Newsflash: You ARE boorish, pedantic, and condescending."
Fine. I'm all of these things. And more. If it makes you feel better, call me whatever you want. No problem.Aris
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
"It seems to me that intellectual suicide is really when someone gives up on natural explanations for phenomena and hence on science itself. Since the ancient Greeks and the death of the first attempt at scientific inquiry  when the ideas of the pre-Socratics about a natural world were discarded for Plato’s and Pythagoras’s fantastical realm of perfect forms  intellectual, as well as technological, progress pretty much came to a standstill. Talk about intellectual suicide! It took another 2 millennia for science to flourish again."
Aris, you are still dodging my question. Furthermore, the ancient Greeks never saw the inner workings of a cell, or the expanse of the universe with its vast galaxies, and its glorious complexities. They didn't know Big Bang cosmology or the importance of the rate of expansion. They didn't know the importance of the weight of an atom or the rate at which helium must collide to produce a carbon-12 nucleus (three-alpha process). They didn't know about irreducible complexity, or had any idea about future design theories. Their work was peripheral in the area of design detection. Perhaps you ought to pick up one of Dembski's books.Mario A. Lopez
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
aris- please, at least try to be honest about your motives. don't claim you're here to simply ask honest questions to see why someone sees things the way they do. you're here to belittle and attack.
your first comment was an attack. you then kept saying creationist (as opposed to ID theorists), you attacked ID theory as nonsense that is equal to saying "i don't know how this could have happened, so it must have been designed", when i'm fairly sure you know that's not what the theory says at all.
you say that one group relies on science while the other side relies on fairy tales and magic tricks, which is just arrogant and silly- you do realize that when you belittle the so-called fairy tale side, you're attacking the very scientists who created the scientific method, right? if you look at the history of science, you'll see that science only started and only flourished in religious nations (actually solely christian nations, and all the founders of the modern scientific method were devout christians- that side who went with the supernatural as opposed to science as you "explained" to us).
you complain that we (people in general) have matured since the days of greek philosophical thought, so anyone who buys into any of those ideas must be immature. you also attack and say that "creationists" (on an ID site no less) don't seem to be capable of complex thought- that REALLY sounds like an honest question to get honest answers. uh huh.
you oddly compare a knot tied in a cord to the complex factories with different machines inside of all cells. that comparison is just absurd- a knot is not a random process as would have to be the case with darwinian evolution (chance and random mutations- only in darwinian thought is chance and randomness accepted as the cause for complexity!)...a knot is caused by an outside intelligent being acting on the cable or cord (like a designer would act upon living things). unless you know of knots that tie themselves without someone acting on the object. and, as i mentioned, a knot cannot be compared to the design features that even hardened naturalists are in awe of inside all cells. show me a knot that can be compared to the wonder of a bird being able to fly, and even then you can't make the comparison. it's like comparing apples and car parts.
the fact is- you're hear to attack those who don't agree with your views on the world and belittle anyone who doesn't see things your way. that's your choice, you can do whatever you want, but at least be honest and don't try to claim you're merely asking thoughtful questions to see why people believe what they do, or that you're a wise teacher on the side of science and you're here to teach us. maybe i'm too dumb to understand tho. i mean, in your last comment you told us all that you were trying to "help" us "understand the difference" (thanks, because we're too stupid, and we need your oh-so-wise teaching) and that the others here who have replied to you need to pay attention to the content of your explanations (now, i guess we're bad children who have interrupted the teacher too many times, and we're due for detention after school?jboze3131
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
And for the record, I've never looked at a knot in a cable and assumed it was intelligently designed. Nor do I know anyone who has.nostrowski
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
Oh my, right back. My point is this. I am also talking of "gaggles" of cables. They do not get intertwined into knots by chance. Is an unintended circumstance a random act? If you reposition peripherals without disconnecting cables are you not tying unintended knots? How would knots occur without the reposition of peripherals? Let's say you hooked everything up with all the cables straight and never touched the peripherals again. How would these chance knots occur? Magic?nostrowski
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
nostrowski: "Regarding Aris’ knot nonsense: Cables or ropes or lines of any kind do not tie themselves into knots."
This is what you understood from my discussion of knots? That I argued that cables tie themselves? Oh my...
I thought it was obvious that I was talking of gaggles of cables. Gaggles of cables, wires, etc. that get intertwined into knots that seem designed. Gaggles, not individual cables. That's why I talked of the cables behind your computer or HT system. Those are the places where gaggles of wires are most often found.
Now, most of these gaggles of cables are dropped on the floor haphazardly. There's no design, no attempt by an intelligent agent to tie them into knots. Yet, if you try to untangle them you'll find them tangled, very often in nice looking knots. My point is simply this: You see a knot and you assume it was intelligently, purposefully designed. But there are knots that are the product of chance -- the way the cables where dropped, their particular characteristics, the slope of the floor, etc. If you actually pull on the cables, you will in all probability entangle them even more, despite the fact that that was not your design at all. Your pulling is design, as haphazard as the way the cables were dropped on the floor. So, you end up with a "designed" artifact that was not designed at all but was the product of chance processes -- all natural processes.Aris
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
Newsflash: You ARE boorish, pedantic, and condescending. Note your latest example:
Science on the other hand has nothing to do with unembodied entities, whether they’re designers or just go bump in the night. All I’m trying to do is help you understand the difference.nostrowski
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
Why don’t you instead pay attention to the content of my explanations?
We did and you singularly refuse to engage when questioned further.nostrowski
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
In a rather revealing trend, you are ducking my questions again. You will respond to the presumption of design not being a hindrance to investigation/analysis?nostrowski
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
For those of you following along, I reference this Aris quote:
I think we can all agree that most knots are the products of directed processes. However, if you get behind your computer or home theater system and try to untangle the gaggle of cables and wires that reside there, you’ll always find some that have tied *themselves* in often elaborate ways.
Asterisks mine.nostrowski
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
nostrowski: "CAVEAT: In you response, try not to condescend with references to magic tricks, fairy tales, and gobbledygook."
Why not? I see no difference between arguing for the existence of magic, ghosts or goblins, and unembodied designers. They all belong to a supernatural realm that's beyond our abilities to probe it or even to establish the fact of its existence.
Look guys, you can believe whatever you want to believe in. But there's mysticism on one side and science on the other. Mysticism is very accommodating to belief in supernatural realms, intelligences, etc. Science on the other hand has nothing to do with unembodied entities, whether they're designers or just go bump in the night. All I'm trying to do is help you understand the difference. And for my trouble you call me boorish, pedantic and condescending. Why don't you instead pay attention to the content of my explanations?Aris
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
Regarding Aris' knot nonsense: Cables or ropes or lines of any kind do not tie themselves into knots. If Aris truly believes this, she/he is out on a longer limb than most. Nor, are they knots formed by chance. Cables or ropes or lines are designed for flexibility - a rigid cable does little good in applications where mobility is preferable. Neither are the actions that DO result in the knots a result of chance, but intended movements of the computer or entertainment center user such as the repositioning of various peripherals during installation. Note that knots in cables cannot form if both ends of the cables are installed. This eliminates any opportunity for chance to have it's say. An unintended knot is not the same as a knot formed by chance. To believe so is to believe an unintended sun burn is strictly random and not the result of reclining unprotected on the beach. This example of Aris', far from confirming the intellectual station she/he wishes to hold, is not only childish, but incoherent. Surely, Aris can do better than this. Her presumed audience is, after all, yokels in thrall with magic tricks. Given this, it is ironic that Aris is the first person I've met in this forum who believes that rope ties itself.nostrowski
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Mario: "Considering what we know about our universe (e.g. fine tuning, “apparent†design, etc) to dismiss the “idea†of an unembodied designer is to commit intellectual suicide."
It seems to me that intellectual suicide is really when someone gives up on natural explanations for phenomena and hence on science itself. Since the ancient Greeks and the death of the first attempt at scientific inquiry -- when the ideas of the pre-Socratics about a natural world were discarded for Plato's and Pythagoras's fantastical realm of perfect forms -- intellectual, as well as technological, progress pretty much came to a standstill. Talk about intellectual suicide! It took another 2 millennia for science to flourish again.Aris
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
Well said.Mario A. Lopez
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
Mario, you are welcome. As for intellectual suicide, these people gladly commit it for the promises of elitism, the comfort of conformity, and the fear of being accountable.nostrowski
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
Aris, do you actually think for one second that everything you just wrote I have never encountered before? You suffer from a stunning lack of originality. And, really, please try harder not to talk down to people. It is, in a word, boorish. But, let me respond. The presumption of design does not choke off investigation or analysis. If anything, it enhances it. Is a computer not designed? Has the improvement of the computer not continued apace all the same? Or did we ignore it and pile it in the closet because it didn't occur naturally?
CAVEAT: In you response, try not to condescend with references to magic tricks, fairy tales, and gobbledygook.nostrowski
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
Thank you, nostrowski, for pointing out Aris' contradiction.
"You’re presupposing, a priori, the existence of an unembodied designer. I do not, since I see no evidence for the existence of a supernatural realm that’s beyond my senses (with unembodied designers as inhabitants). Such a realm may indeed exist, but since I have no way of experiencing it, it is not rational to assume it does."
Considering what we know about our universe (e.g. fine tuning, "apparent" design, etc) to dismiss the "idea" of an unembodied designer is to commit intellectual suicide.
Have you thought of the law of inertia long enough?Mario A. Lopez
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
nostrowski, if you don't like questions, I'll be happy give you the answer as to why it is more reasonable to accept natural rather than supernatural explanations of life, the universe, and everything, rather than the reverse:
Anyone who posts here does so using a computer. I trust that we can agree that computers are not the product of prayer, or the creation of exorcising priests, or of any supernatural entity of any sort. They are merely the product of a process that started a few hundred years ago. Obviously that process is science.
Bottom line: Science works, unlike all the supernatural gobbleygook and fairy tales that passed for explanations of life, the universe, and everything for millennia. And it works precisely because it presupposes that every phenomenon has a natural explanation.
If you presuppose that there's a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon, you're closing off any opportunity for investigating, analyzing and understanding the phenomenon and its causes. A supernatural explanation cannot be examined, tested, or anything else since it is beyond nature -- and therefore our ability to examine it.
However, if you approach every phenomenon with the assumption that there's a natural explanation, you allow the possibility of actually investigating it. Some phenomena may not be easy to investigate, and some we may never be able to investigate or even understand. However, if we don't assume that each phenomenon has a natural explanation, we will never, ever get the chance to even try investigating.
That's why presupposing natural rather than supernatural explanations of life, the universe, and everything is not an arbitrary position but the only position that has the evident advantage of allowing for progress. The reverse position, the acceptance of supernatural explanations, was dominant for most of humanity's existence and there was no progress in explaining anything, and therefore no technological progress since technology is based on natural explanations of phenomena.
To put it simply, it's like watching a magic trick. You start off baffled, and if it's a really good trick in awe. Now, if your type of "awe" is to assert that this trick is so incredible that it must be due to magic, you will never figure out how the trick was done. However, if you're of a scientific mentality and "awe" means to you, "This is great, I want to find out how it was done" then you will investigate, analyze, test, etc. and chances are you'll eventually figure it out.Aris
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
Why are you the only one who gets to ask the questions? You are trying to understand why some people believe what they believe, yet when questioned as to your beliefs, we find that they are arbitrary. The need to sweep off ones own porch comes to mind. And, if this is just one big scholastic lovefest, maybe you'd want to keep the pedantic and condescending references to what you learned in highschool in check. You think? Lastly, you accuse me of epistemological relativism while you engage in idle oneupsmanship? We, at least, have begun to understand you.nostrowski
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
nostrowski: "I didn’t say it wasn’t arbitrary. I am as free and as correct (or incorrect) to choose an arbitrary explanation as you."
You're indeed as free as anyone to say whatever you want and to take any position you want. But if we were to agree that both of our positions are equally arbitrary, then what are the criteria for deciding which position is valid and which one is not? This is truly epistemological relativism at its worse.
Look, the reason I'm posting here is to try to understand why some people believe what they believe. I am trying to have a fruitful discussion, which I hope may prove educational for all of those who participate (including me).Aris
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
You see what you WANT to see and then belittle others for not seeing it. Convenient.nostrowski
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
I didn't say it wasn't arbitrary. I am as free and as correct (or incorrect) to choose an arbitrary explanation as you. The difference is, I (meaning we) didn't come looking for you to inform you that you were wrong. Therefore, I am fully justified in bringing your arbitrary preferences to light.nostrowski
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
nostrowski, all your postings about my supposed contradictions and what not, pretty much amount to the same thing: You're accusing me of arbitrarily deciding that it's more reasonable to accept natural rather than supernatural explanations of life, the universe, and everything.
But if my decision is indeed arbitrary, then why isn't your decision to accept supernatural rather than natural explanations equally arbitrary?
I would love an explanation.Aris
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
You answer questions with questions? Odd for such a pedant.nostrowski
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
nostrowski: "Is the beginning of life within your senses? Can you experience it? Can you see it, touch it, taste it, feel it? No? Then how is it rational to assume it had natural causes?"
Why is it rational to assume it didn't? Pray tell...Aris
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
I’m quite familiar with the cosmological argument for the existence of God, as articulated by Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and others. It is an argument that I didn’t find particularly impressive when I first encountered it  in high school. It’s been debunked repeatedly over the last few centuries, and, honestly, it’s really not a very sophisticated syllogism. To debunk it, one only has to reject it’s first premise, that “All things are caused,†and the syllogism collapses.
A personal choice to reject a premise debunks nothing.nostrowski
