Jonathan McLatchie vs. Keith Fox: Has ID stood the test of time?

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 24, 2018

Design inference, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity}

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

Saturday 24th February 2018 – 02:30 pm

Seems to be up now in EST. Audio:Premier Christian Radio:

A bacterial flagellum acts as the outboard motor on a bacteria. But is the complex arrangement of parts that enable it to do its job a result of design or evolution? Michael Behe first opened the debate on the ‘irreducible complexity’ of biochemical machines in his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box.

Intelligent Design proponent Jonathan McLatchie and theistic evolutionist Keith Fox debate whether Behe’s theory has stood the test of time, the bacterial flagellum and whether ID is a science stopper or theologically helpful. More.

Comment: Given that most traditional science greats believed that they lived in a meaningful universe that showed evidence of design, the idea obviously isn’t a science stopper. By contrast, Darwin’s horrid doubt, that our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth, will destroy science by enabling the post-modern war on measurement.

See also: Live webinar with Robert Marks, Baylor U, on artificial intelligence and human exceptionalism (with Jonathan McLatchie)

Comments

"That claim doesn’t say anything about anything being designed by intelligence. " The claim we are discussing is the one that says biological entities don't need to be designed by intelligence because chance and nature can create the specified complexity that they exhibit.tribune7_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

"The claim"? What claim? That claim doesn't say anything about anything being designed by intelligence. And finding CSI being generated wouldn't disprove ID either - presumably a designer could make something that mimicked what could be produced by evolution.Bob O'H_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Bob, The claim is that nature and chance can't create complex specified information and science prohibits a resort to "supernatural" explanations. Observing in realtime the creation of complex specified information solely via acts of nature would -- ostensibly -- disprove ID.tribune7_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped @ 72 -
Experimental evidence demonstrated (decades ago) that the gene is a symbol system using a genuine reading-frame code; very nicely fulfilling a logical prediction about such systems.
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain that. Firstly, what do you mean by "a symbol system using a genuine reading-frame code"? And also, how does that relate to ID? Barry @ 74 - I'm sorry, I don't get your point. If you know how to test the “the Designer just zapped in a new function” theory (and I mean specifically test that theory, not another one), then I'd be fascinated to hear more. t7 @ 75 -
Or consider this: Suppose we tested ID by setting up cameras in some vacant wasteland to record whether complex specified information could arise by chance and nature, and our cameras record a huge earthquake, followed by a huge windstorm followed by another earthquake, and when all is stable we see the rocks spelled out very clearly “Dembski is right you idiots”. Well, under the ground rules of the experiment you have just disproved ID.
Eh? How do you come to that conclusion?Bob O'H_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

Barry, great minds :-)tribune7_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Bob, James Randi has stopped his very wise and good paranormal challenge due to his age but consider this: Suppose someone beat it? Would that prove the paranormal or would that just mean someone managed to fool him? Or consider this: Suppose we tested ID by setting up cameras in some vacant wasteland to record whether complex specified information could arise by chance and nature, and our cameras record a huge earthquake, followed by a huge windstorm followed by another earthquake, and when all is stable we see the rocks spelled out very clearly "Dembski is right you idiots". Well, under the ground rules of the experiment you have just disproved ID. So, so much for the powers of natural science :-) What I would suggest though by way of a testable experiment is to find something of known design, a page of writing, or a paragraph, or even an average-length sentence, quantify for the characteristics of design, see if those quantifications hold for other objects of known design and then apply the quantifications to some biological entity. That would be potentially falsifiable at a least two points -- whether the quantifications are accurate and whether the biological entity has them.tribune7_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Bob at 71. Suppose someone were trying to determine whether your post at 71 was random letters generated by a computer or an actual message in English. Now suppose someone concluded based on the fact that the text has meaning within a code that it was in fact the product of intelligent design. Would the following be a valid objection: You are just saying Bob zapped that text right into the combox. That's untestable; your conclusion is invalid. You would think that objection is idiotic. And you would be right.Barry Arrington_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Come to think of it, Bob, here again is the question I asked you a few months ago (which you ignored): At the point in earth history that the first ever aaRS was successfully constructed from genetic memory, how many of the other aaRS had to be in place?Upright BiPed_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

Bob, you are playing a game of pure rhetoric. Experimental evidence demonstrated (decades ago) that the gene is a symbol system using a genuine reading-frame code; very nicely fulfilling a logical prediction about such systems. The evidence supporting ID has only multiplied since that point. Hello? You’ve been on this blog for years, Bob, always playing the deadpan game. Does it really never get old for you? Moreover, is the “no evidence” shtick (in any of its various forms) really the best you’ve got at this point in the year 2018?Upright BiPed_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

t7 - I don't know. I think it would depend on a model for how the design was done. For example, front-loading might be testable as it assumes that there is code in the DNA that is not yet functional, so it might be possible to detect that, and even turn it on. For other models of ID, I've no idea: I suspect the "the Designer just zapped in a new function" could be un-testable, although there might be some information in phylogenies to test it.Bob O'H_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

Bob I would honestly like to see some evident that ID researchers have done experiments to specifically test the hypothesis that some biological structure was designed. If you were going to design a test for the hypothesis how would you do it?tribune7_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

J-mac @ 60: That's exactly the response I expected, a/mat. Stop faking. Embrace your nihilism.Truth Will Set You Free_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Well Bob, I really don’t care what ‘the illusion of you’ denies.
If you think people are an illusion, then you have bigger problems. I don't think I'm an illusion. I don't understand consciousness (although I suspect it's an emergent property of our brains), but I don't deny it.Bob O'H_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

Well Bob, I really don't care what 'the illusion of you' denies. I could cite many quotes from leading atheists establishing my position, but what is the point. You will just deny it anyway. Oh well, for the sake of readers, a few more from Einstein and Rosenberg:
Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4 Paper: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SvgUc2xn5reoofYWQtb2kpgoP5HoxloffFg48qtf2ZY/edit "The neural circuits in our brain manage the beautifully coordinated and smoothly appropriate behavior of our body. They also produce the entrancing introspective illusion that thoughts really are about stuff in the world. This powerful illusion has been with humanity since language kicked in, as we’ll see. It is the source of at least two other profound myths: that we have purposes that give our actions and lives meaning and that there is a person “in there” steering the body, so to speak." [A.Rosenberg, The Atheist's Guide To Reality, Ch.9]
To reiterate, I stand by my posts, and the evidence presented therein thus far, and am more than happy to let readers decide for themselves. The last word is all yours. Might I suggest some, any, empirical evidence that sophisticated molecular machines can evolve into existence from mindless processes, instead of just your usual subjective opinion as to whether you personally think the inference to ID is warranted or not, especially since "you", according to atheistic materialism, really don't exist as a real person?bornagain77_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

J-Mac as to: "people or religions trying to support their preconceived ideas at all cost…" Like for instance, I don't know, maybe someone citing evidence for Out of Body experiences as evidence against the validity of Near Death Experiences
In fact, both Drs. Greyson and Lommel cited stimulated OBE’s as supporting evidence for the reality of NDE’s, whilst Dr. Egnor himself cites Penfield overall body of work of stimulating various areas of the brain as supporting the immateriality of the mind and/or soul. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/my-thought-about-justice-is-not-justice-easy-for-id-a-deal-killer-for-materialism/#comment-651182 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/my-thought-about-justice-is-not-justice-easy-for-id-a-deal-killer-for-materialism/#comment-651153 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/my-thought-about-justice-is-not-justice-easy-for-id-a-deal-killer-for-materialism/#comment-651164
bornagain77_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

ba77 - I don't know any atheists who deny the existence of the self. We may not have a good explanation for consciousness, but we don't deny it exists. I honestly don't see that the "Darwinian worldview" (whatever that is) denies consciousness and identity.Bob O'H_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

@61 Bob O'H I’ll ask you again – please don’t mis-represent my views. Neither you or Barry understand what I think, and I think it’s arrogant (at best) for you to pretend otherwise. It's a "Christian" way of misrepresentation, so it can't be that bad...After all, it is for a good cause: the glorification of the "Christian truth", as they see it and not as it really is... Can you argue with this "logic"?J-Mac_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

Bob (and weave) O'Hara, since you constantly defend the Darwinian worldview, I will hold 'the illusion of you' to the precepts inherent in that worldview. It is not my duty to assign Theistic precepts of personhood to someone defending the atheistic worldview. If you differ from atheists in some fundamental way, "YOU" have to make the point clear. You have not. I think it disingenuous of you to suppose otherwise. But alas, it is yet more evidence for your disingenuous 'bob and weave' debate style ..bornagain77_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

@ 43 bornagain77 J-Mac at 41 and 42, funny that I’ve seen you attack Christianity on UD much more than I have seen you defend ID. The confusion with TWSYF, if any, is of your own making. It is clear that you have deep personal issues with Christianity, or more precisely the false beliefs you’ve believe about Christianity, that have severely clouded your judgment. I have a problem with falsehood; people or religions trying to support their preconceived ideas at all cost... If it is Christianity, ID or atheists, so be it... Truth should be able do defend itself...If it can't, God help it! Who appointed you the judge of me?J-Mac_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

ba77 @ 59 - No, I don't believe I'm an illusion. I don't think you are either. I'll ask you again - please don't mis-represent my views. Neither you or Barry understand what I think, and I think it's arrogant (at best) for you to pretend otherwise.Bob O'H_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

52 @ Truth Will Set You Free J-mac @ 41: Tell me more about your theism. Any specific religion? Yeah, when your Cowardliness Will Set You Free...J-Mac_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

I stand by my posts, and also stand by my claim, for which I also provided empirical evidence, that you are being personally disingenuous in your denial of the evidence presented. i.e. Studies establish that the design inference is 'knee jerk' inference that is built into everyone, especially including atheists, and that atheists have to mentally suppress the design inference!
Is Atheism a Delusion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o
Moreover, it is extremely ironic that you want your personal subjective opinion as to whether something is designed or not to carry so much weight when your Darwinian worldview itself holds that your personal subjective opinion is merely an illusion. Why should I give two hoots what an 'illusion's opinion is? (as if illusions could have opinions in the first place!),,, If the particles of your brain happened to spontaneously arrange themselves in some other pattern, 'the illusion of you' would be of the illusory opinion that the evidence for design was overwhelming, and there is nothing that 'you, as a illusory person,' could do to change that opinion. As Mr Arrington said in his thread, for the Darwinian materialist, "the category “particles and the impersonal natural forces that move them” exhausts the possible causes for all phenomena"
The materialist believes, by definition, that nothing exists but particles and the impersonal natural forces that move them. Therefore, the category “particles and the impersonal natural forces that move them” exhausts the possible causes for all phenomena. It follows that for any given action the collection of particles called “JVL” takes, that action was utterly determined by impersonal natural forces. Therefore, JVL has no free will. Again, all prominent materialists reach this conclusion (Dennett, Dawkins, Harris, etc.). https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/93459/#comment-652278
bornagain77_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

BTW, ba77, I do believe I exist. So please don't tell me that I don't. You don't understand my worldview: all of your statements about my worldview in 54 are false (well, except possibly the one about it being insane, but if it is insane then it's not for the reasons you state, as your reasons don't match with my worldview). Oh, and if you want to respond by telling me what I should believe based on my "Darwinian presuppositions", stop and think about whether your assumptions about my presuppositions might be wrong - your comments in 54 suggest to me that they are flat out wrong, I'm afraid.Bob O'H_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

ba77 - let's talk about disingenuous.
Final note, as to your repeated false claim that I have provided no empirical evidence for ID, I stand by my posts in 20, 21, 26, 27 and 36,
But that's not what I asked for, was it? I asked for something more specific. I'm aware that to build a case for a theory you need to pull in different sorts of evidence, and I was asking for one specific sort of evidence.Bob O'H_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Ok, so then why don’t we have a cure for cancer?
It looks like the researchers may not be so smart. If all cancerous cells use fermentation instead of respiration then it is clear what needs to be done- stop the fermentation process. Why hasn't anyone done so?ET_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
I would honestly like to see some evident that ID researchers have done experiments to specifically test the hypothesis that some biological structure was designed.
And we would honestly like to see some evident that evolutionary researchers have done experiments to specifically test the hypothesis that some biological structure evolved by means of blind and mindless processes. But we all know that ain't going to happen. Everything about all bacterial flagella scream intelligent design. They meet Dr Behe's criteria and no one has any idea how blind and mindless processes could have done it.ET_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

as to: "I find the “Bob (and weave) O’Hara” moniker irksome." But alas, your feeling of being 'irked' by my comment on your disingenuous 'bob and weave' debating style, much like your belief that you really exist as a real person, is just an illusion foisted off on you by the particles of your brain. i.e. According to your Darwinian presuppositions, there is only a illusion of 'you' having an illusion of being 'irked' by some illusion of objective morality being tresspassed. "You" really need to come to terms with just how insane your worldview is. But alas, for "you" to be able to come to terms with your insane worldview presupposes that there really is a "you" that really is in control of your thoughts. But alas, only particles are real, the rest is all just a dream within a dream for "you". There is no remedy for your insanity within Darwinism.
A Dream Within a Dream BY EDGAR ALLAN POE Take this kiss upon the brow! And, in parting from you now, Thus much let me avow — You are not wrong, who deem That my days have been a dream; Yet if hope has flown away In a night, or in a day, In a vision, or in none, Is it therefore the less gone? All that we see or seem Is but a dream within a dream. I stand amid the roar Of a surf-tormented shore, And I hold within my hand Grains of the golden sand — How few! yet how they creep Through my fingers to the deep, While I weep — while I weep! O God! Can I not grasp Them with a tighter clasp? O God! can I not save One from the pitiless wave? Is all that we see or seem But a dream within a dream?
Final note, as to your repeated false claim that I have provided no empirical evidence for ID, I stand by my posts in 20, 21, 26, 27 and 36, and particularly stand by my claim that you are either self-deluded or are telling a bald-face lie when you deny the design inference,,,, and furthermore, I am more than happy to let the readers decide for themselves who is being honest towards the evidence, and who is being disingenuous, even deceitful, towards the evidence.bornagain77_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

ba77 @ 50 - I find the "Bob (and weave) O’Hara" moniker irksome, especially as you are also accusing me of being disingenuous. You also claim no animosity. If there's no animosity then why not try treating people with respect? That might help to raise the tone of the discussion here. I would honestly like to see some evident that ID researchers have done experiments to specifically test the hypothesis that some biological structure was designed. I hope you appreciate that this is not the same thing as asking if it could have evolved, or even providing arguments for why something had to have been designed (essentially I'm asking for one or several parts of that argument: the building blocks of it).Bob O'H_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

J-mac @ 41: Tell me more about your theism. Any specific religion? BA77 @ 50: "I, with no personal animosity towards Bob, poked fun at Bob (and weave) O’Hara’s debating style." That's how I understood your comment. Levity is often good. The real offensive remarks on this site generally come from a/mats... and sometimes me.Truth Will Set You Free_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT}

as to: "I have rarely seen such hatred paranoia and venom on any web site. I almost feel sorry for whoever wrote that nonsense." For once we agree.bornagain77_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply