Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Expelled at Biola — Ben Stein Receives the Phillip Johnson Award

Categories
Expelled
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Last evening I attended a big Expelled event at Biola University in La Mirada, California. Presenters included Ben Stein, Walt Ruloff, Caroline Crocker, Guillermo Gonzalez, Stephen Meyer, and Biola faculty.

Expelled executive producer Walt Ruloff began with a short presentation. He talked about his background in computer technology and how he founded a logistics-optimization software company in his early 20s that became spectacularly successful, primarily, according to Walt, because they thought outside the box and questioned everything.

After Walt sold his company he became involved with the biological research and technology world, and discovered that the exact opposite was the case: people in this field were and are not allowed to ask questions. Walt was totally shocked when it was revealed to him by one of the leading genomic researchers in the U.S., who gets all his funding from the NIH and NSF, that the only way to get funding is to pretend to believe in Darwinian orthodoxy. Even more horrifyingly, this leading genomic researcher (whose face is blacked out and voice disguised in the movie, to protect him from the destruction of his life and career by Darwinists) said that as much as 30% of the research in his field is shelved and never published because it might provide ammunition for “creationists.” In order to stand any chance of being published, interpretations of biological research must be artificially force-fit into the Darwinian paradigm, regardless of the evidence.

Walt decided to do something about it.

Ben Stein talked about his early years in the civil-rights movement, and how he and others in that movement were spat upon, denigrated and vilified, because they dared to challenge the reigning racist orthodoxy.

Caroline Crocker talked about how she was blacklisted in academia for daring to suggest that there might be problems with orthodox Darwinism, even though her students could not detect what her personal opinions were.

Guillermo gave a timeline about his expulsion from academia, for daring to suggest that there might be evidence of design in the universe.

The main thing that struck me about Caroline and Guillermo was that they displayed no hostility or vitriol toward their persecutors. Think about this, and what it indicates about personal character on both sides.

At the end of the evening Ben was presented with the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth, to a thunderous standing ovation.

While accepting the award, Ben commented that in the end ID will win, because the truth is on our side. He also commented that Americans don’t like to be bullied and told what to think — by anyone.

I paraphrase Ben: “People don’t like to be told that what is obviously true is false.”

Amen to that.

Gil

Comments
Atom 66- Whatever I did, it was so subtle I didn't even notice it myself.:)
In the same way, current human intelligence provides plausibility for the idea of ancient intelligence (by at least showing that intelligent agents can exist and build machines), but we are at the wrong place at the wrong time. We weren’t the designers.
I don't have any problem with the possibility of ancient (Pre-Cambrian ancient) intelligence. If intelligence is defined to include (alone or among other possibilities) the activity of an omnipotent deity, then it is possible that it could have occurred in pre-Cambrian times, or last Thursday, or both.
But the ancient artifacts provide the evidence that some designer was there. That is, unless you can demonstrate your proposed cause capable of producing objects of the type in question. As far as has been empirically demonstrated, only intelligent agents can produce those kinds of objects. Therefore, those kinds of objects serve as positive evidence for the presence of intelligent agents.
So I have to demonstrate my proposed cause is capable of producing objects of the type in question? But you don't have to provide evidence that your cause existed at the time and place it did the work (the cause of which is at issue), except for the evidence that the work was done? That still doesn't seem quite fair to me.:) My proposed cause is non-directed evolution. But I don't see a way to distinguish between that and directed evolution. So I don't think it's possible to demonstrate that my proposed cause ever did anything if the possibility of intervention by an omnipotent designer is always on the table. How could I prove that any particular variation was the result of random occurrences rather than the intervention of the designer?congregate
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT
-----congregate: "Are you pointing out that the cave men are evidence for intelligent design? I would disagree with that, of course." Yes, of course. That would be evidence of intelligent design. What is your argument against it? Are you suggesting that the writing on the cave wall could reasonably be attributed to law and chance? You are not going to hearken back to the "multiple cause" argument again, are you?StephenB
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
Atom 64 (I'm falling behind!) I'm not sure whether we are on the same page here regarding some of our terms. When I said:
I still think that you have to deal with the fact that your mechanism (intelligence) has not been shown to exist, in a form that can interact with matter, apart from relatively modern animals.
By "relatively modern animals" I meant early and modern humans and the various other animals that may arguably demonstrate intelligence, as distinguished from whatever intelligence may have done designing at the time of, for example, the Pre-Cambrian Explosion. What do you mean by "ancient"? Continuing on, you asked:
What would qualify as evidence that ancient intelligences existed, if not artifacts? (Don’t say bones, because bones only demonstrate physicality, not intelligence.)
Well, bones of something that looked closely related to modern humans would be evidence for the existence of intelligence, but I'm assuming by "ancient" we mean before the earliest such population. Beyond that, I guess artifacts would by definition be the only possible evidence. I still am not convinced that anything in biology is likely to be an artifact of a designer. As to your final paragraph there:
For example, how do we know that ancient tool-makers existed in other parts of the world at that time? Did not the tools themselves establish the presence of Old World tool-makers?
I don't know how we "officially" know that tool makers existed. I presume there are the tools and other artifacts as well: fire pits, trash heaps, art, etc. The tools establish that these organisms were in fact tool makers. How do we know that they were humans, or the ancestors or cousins of modern humans? Might they have been time travelling humans, aliens, or gods?congregate
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
StephenB at 67: I'm still not sure where you are going with this. The tools are evidence for the existence of intelligent designers, which I believe the cavemen to be. Are you pointing out that the cave men are evidence for intelligent design? I would disagree with that, of course.congregate
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
"I said (or thought I said) that design is detectable in your sharpened stone, hunting club, etc. I think that is design that is a result of the acts of an intelligent agent (a human). I have conceded that there is evidence imaginable which would be compelling evidence of nonhuman design." OK: fair enough. I guess I thought you were arguing that multiple causes compromise design detection. -----“I happen to believe in a materialistic paradigm at the moment, not because of a prior commitment to it, but because I have not seen any credible evidence for nonmaterialistic entities.” What about the intelligent agencies (cave men) that we just discussed. Wouldn’t you call that evidence?StephenB
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
congregate, There was something in what you wrote that I miessed commenting on. Please allow me to do so. You wrote:
...but there was already agreed upon evidence of humans in the Old World at the disputed time, right? Whereas there is currently no generally agreed upon evidence for any nonhuman intelligent agent acting anywhere ever?
Now, your remark subtly (maybe slyly) glosses over the obvious fact: though there were tool-making humans in the Old World at that time, it wasn't Old World humans that made the tools in question. We had no evidence of New World humans at that time; no designers to be found, if you will. So while the existence of Old World humans made the existence of ancient Americans more plausible, it didn't provide evidence of ancient Americans. It was the tools (artifacts) which did that. In short, the Old World humans were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They weren't the designers. In the same way, current human intelligence provides plausibility for the idea of ancient intelligence (by at least showing that intelligent agents can exist and build machines), but we are at the wrong place at the wrong time. We weren't the designers. But the ancient artifacts provide the evidence that some designer was there. That is, unless you can demonstrate your proposed cause capable of producing objects of the type in question. As far as has been empirically demonstrated, only intelligent agents can produce those kinds of objects. Therefore, those kinds of objects serve as positive evidence for the presence of intelligent agents.Atom
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
StephenB 63: I'm not sure I follow your line of argument here. I said (or thought I said) that design is detectable in your sharpened stone, hunting club, etc. I think that is design that is a result of the acts of an intelligent agent (a human). I have conceded that there is evidence imaginable which would be compelling evidence of nonhuman design. But the evidence of information codes and patterns in self-replicating organisms does not yet strike me as a convincing case. I don't know what you mean by a mechanistic paradigm. Do you mean materialistic paradigm? A materialistic paradigm, as I understand it, rules out nonmaterialistic sources of design. I happen to believe in a materialistic paradigm at the moment, not because of a prior commitment to it, but because I have not seen any credible evidence for nonmaterialistic entities.congregate
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
congregate wrote:
I still think that you have to deal with the fact that your mechanism (intelligence) has not been shown to exist, in a form that can interact with matter, apart from relatively modern animals.
What would qualify as evidence that ancient intelligences existed, if not artifacts? (Don't say bones, because bones only demonstrate physicality, not intelligence.) For example, how do we know that ancient tool-makers existed in other parts of the world at that time? Did not the tools themselves establish the presence of Old World tool-makers?Atom
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
-----congregage: "If we grant that intelligence is necessary for the creation of complexity, then all those things you describe are indeed the basis for an inference of intelligent agency. However, intelligence is not sufficient to create them. A goldfish with the intelligence of Einstein would not be able to create a sharpened stone. At least by my definition of intelligence." congregate, the fact that intelligence is only one of a many causes doesn't change the fact that design is present and detectable. You are assuming that all explanations must conform to the mechanistic paradigm, but that is precisely where the problem is. Intelligent design isn’t looking for mechanisms; it is looking for information codes, patterns, intelligence, or as we like to say, “design.” By definition, it is impossible to discern any of these things from the mechanistic paradigm, because that model rules them out apriori. Because you have a prior commitment to that methodology, no amount of evidence can change your mind. For you, everything MUST occur as a result of law and chance, therefore, nothing CAN occur as a result of intelligent agency. All of these (excuse me, please) irrelevant objections about multiple causes are mere extensions of your commitment to methodological naturalism.StephenB
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Atom re 60: I still think that you have to deal with the fact that your mechanism (intelligence) has not been shown to exist, in a form that can interact with matter, apart from relatively modern animals. You might as well say interaction with matter is the mechanism for creation of complexity. It's not a satisfying answer from a scientific point of view.congregate
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
Regarding 1491- There was no agreed upon evidence of humans in North America, but there was already agreed upon evidence of humans in the Old World at the disputed time, right? Whereas there is currently no generally agreed upon evidence for any nonhuman intelligent agent acting anywhere ever? (Ignoring the stick-using chimps and fruit-washing baboons for the moment). I see that as a significant distinction. Which do you think would get bigger headlines in the newspapers, evidence that the first human presence in North America was twice as old as previously thought, or evidence that non-human intelligent agents exist anywhere in the universe? I vote for the latter. The expected difference reflects that there is a different level of surprise (and importance too, I grant) generated by the two hypothetical findings. The story is a positive one about science, isn't it, though. Even if the leading expert of the time refuses to change his mind, presentation of actual evidence will outweigh pronouncements from on high. The ID field researchers just need to figure out the most likely locations for the factories or workshops in which those digital carbon-based copying machines were made, or where the spec sheets were filed, and then start digging. That's what the tiktaalik guys did, they figured out where a transitional fossil was likely to be, and went digging in that spot, and eventually they found something like what they were expecting. Personally I don't think sitting in the faculty office at the seminary stroking your beard, or taking part in debates before undergraduate members of the Campus Crusade for Christ is going to get it done.congregate
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
If we know something is a spearhead, we can infer a historical intelligent agent from its existence.
Agreed. So artifacts establish historical presence, as long as their classification being "artifacts" is the best current explanation. Therefore, you would not pull a Hrdlicka and say "What spearhead? That cannot be a spearhead; spearheads come form humans, and we have no evidence that there was anyone around to construct it." The object itself is the evidence of historical presence. My original point is therefore established. congregate wrote:
But if the item is a self-replicating organism, we don’t need to infer an intelligent agent. We know they come from their parents. Who come from their parents, and so on. And at some point there was a first self-replicating organism but that is so far back in the mists of prehistory that it is not yet determinable how it happened.
The digital copying machines come from other digital copying machines. Great. But digital copying machines did not always exist on earth, so the turtles only extend so far down. They came from somewhere. I have direct evidence for the capabilities of my hypothesized mechanism (Intelligence), as you also conceded. Therefore, it looks like my mechanism (being the only directly demonstrated capable cause thus far) is the best explanation at this point and therefore these machines provide evidence for an intelligent historical presence, by the method we already established.Atom
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Sorry, I thought you were using "ancient carbon-based digital copying machine" to refer to a biological organism. Did I misunderstand? If we know something is a spearhead, we can infer a historical intelligent agent from its existence. Indeed, we can go farther and infer a human as far as I'm concerned. But if the item is a self-replicating organism, we don't need to infer an intelligent agent. We know they come from their parents. Who come from their parents, and so on. And at some point there was a first self-replicating organism but that is so far back in the mists of prehistory that it is not yet determinable how it happened. So, I see the capability for self-replication as a material difference between the case of the spear head (or iPod) and the biological organism. If you see a sparrow in your backyard, do you infer an intelligent agent designed it (that particular sparrow)? I guess most ID proponents are skeptical of the power of self-replication (with heritable variation) to arrive at various levels of complexity. But I've never seen a step-by-step analysis of a particular feature showing where the design was added in.congregate
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Fruthermore, congregate wrote:
I think the pre-1927 lack of evidence for pleistocene humans in North America is of a different magnitude than the current lack of evidence for pre-500,000 years ago intellligence.
How is this so? There was a complete lack of evidence for humans on the North American continent during that time, according to the scientific consensus of that day. Indeed, anyone who disagreed was labelled a "crank" and would have their career in anthropology/archeology ruined. From "1491", p. 164:
Hrdlicka regarded himself as the conscience of physical anthropology and made it his business to set boundaries. So thoroughly did he discredit all purported findings of ancient indians that a later director of the Bureau of American Ethnology admitted that for decades it was a career-killer for an archeologist to claim to have "discovered indications of a respectable antiquity for the Indian. In Europe, every "favorable cave" showed evidence "of some ancient man." Hrdlicka proclaimed in March 1928. And the evidence they found in those caves was "not a single implement or whatnot," but of artifacts in "such large numbers that already they clog some of the museums in Europe." Not in the Americas, though. "Where are such things in America?" he taunted the amateurs.
Hrdlicka and all the other professional anthropologists of his day were as convinced of the absence of evidence concerning Pleistocene Americans as you are concerning ancient Carbon-Machine builders. You both purport(ed) that there was/is no evidence for the existence of either. As a side note, Hrdlicka never changed his mind, even after the Folsom findings. He remained firm in his conviction that there simply could not be any ancient Americans to the end. Others were not as stubborn.Atom
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
congregate wrote:
The presence of an iPod would probably establish the existence of an intelligent agent though
Again, I appreciate your frankness in agreeing that any "true" artifact is sufficient evidence to establish the historical prescence of an intelligent agent. You say that an iPod would do it. So the general point must be valid. I wrote:
Then ask yourself if the object I am describing is a spear point found in Pleistocene strata in North America, or an ancient carbon-based digital copying machine.
and you responded:
Well, you said it’s rare, so it can’t be an ancient carbon-based digital copying machine; those are all over the place. You don’t want to see the ones in the back of my refrigerator.
Rare is a relative term; I ment rare in terms of physical objects; I think you would concede that machines and tools are not the most common types of objects in the cosmos. But let's not get stuck on an unimportant word. Please remove "rare" from my scenario. Revised:
I present an object. It is a type of object of which we have other, known, examples. We know from experience that intelligent agents such as humans (and theoretically other types of non-human intelligences, if they exist) can produce these types of objects at will. Moreover, we have no direct evidence that any other cause is capable of producing this type of object. Without knowing where or when this object came from, we tentatively conclude that intelligent agents are the most likely cause for this object. We then learn that it was found in a time and place where we have no other evidence for human (or non-human) intelligence being present. Now, either this object validly establishes the historical presence of an intelligent agent, or it does not. Please answer this question to yourself, does it or does it not? Then ask yourself if the object I am describing is a spear point found in Pleistocene strata in North America, or an ancient carbon-based digital copying machine.
You still don't know which type of object I'm referring to. Earlier, you learned and conceded that if I was discussing a spear head, it is rationally valid to infer the historical presence of an intelligent agent from such object. But if the object is an ancient digital carbon-based copying machine, which is a perfectly acceptable reading of the above, then suddenly it is not rationally valid to infer the historical presence of an intelligent agent from such object, even though described in exactly the same terms in the scenario. You problem appears to not with the method, but with the implications.Atom
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
StephenB at 54: I didn't make myself clear, I guess. I meant just the opposite of what you took from my quoted statement. If we grant that intelligence is necessary for the creation of complexity, then all those things you describe are indeed the basis for an inference of intelligent agency. However, intelligence is not sufficient to create them. A goldfish with the intelligence of Einstein would not be able to create a sharpened stone. At least by my definition of intelligence.congregate
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
Atom-
But please, define a method for how we could distinguish a true artifact from merely an apparent artifact. (You have concluded that carbon-based machines are not ture artifacts, so you must have at least a general method.)
That is the central goal of ID theory, so I don't feel too bad about not having a good answer. I guess my conclusion is that it is not possible to distinguish a true artifact from an apparent artifact based solely on the object itself. It can only be done with knowledge of the context of the object. Maybe this is where one of StephenB's self-evident truths should come in, but is failing to make itself evident to me. :)
Now, either this object validly establishes the historical presence of an intelligent agent, or it does not. Please answer this question to yourself, does it or does it not?
For me, a single apparent spear point found in billion year old rock would be an interesting discovery and spur a search for more, but would not by itself validly establish the presence of an intelligent agent. It might suggest the presence of a previously unknown natural process. The presence of an iPod would probably establish the existence of an intelligent agent though. Maybe I don't know enough about how reliably spear points are identified.
Then ask yourself if the object I am describing is a spear point found in Pleistocene strata in North America, or an ancient carbon-based digital copying machine.
Well, you said it's rare, so it can't be an ancient carbon-based digital copying machine; those are all over the place. You don't want to see the ones in the back of my refrigerator. I think the pre-1927 lack of evidence for pleistocene humans in North America is of a different magnitude than the current lack of evidence for pre-500,000 years ago intellligence. Given the evidence now in existence, and the nature of the searches that have been made so far, I think it is a lot more likely that new (old) human settlements will be discovered than that new (Earth-affecting) intelligences will be discovered. But that likelihood has not been scientifically determined by me, in either case. Regarding the necessary attributes for an agent to create complex machinery, it may be stating the obvious, but the only one I can think of to add to intelligence and sufficient ability to interact with matter is existence.congregate
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
-----congregate: "Intelligence may be a necessary ingredient in complexity-making (that necessity is a key part of the basic argument of ID), but it is not sufficient. If those intelligent humans did not have opposable thumbs, or the cpaacity to interact with matter, they would not have been able to create the tools. So I don’tthink intelligence is the only thing that is important causally." Intelligence is a necessary but insufficient explanation for the cave man's first hunting club, his handy sharpened-stone, and his all-purpose skinning and killing tool. Intelligence is a necessary but insufficient explanation for the scratched pictures on the walls of the cave dwelling, or for the symbols that represented words and sentences. By your standards, we cannot draw inferences about intelligent agency from these artifacts.StephenB
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
StephenB- Thanks for a fair answer. I think the point of an ID blog is to provide information about what ID is, and what the arguments for it are to those who are curious about it. So I'm not surprised that ID critics here behave the way you describe, nor do I think it is inappropriate. Darwinism may indeed be a perfectly legitimate term, but it is also one about which there is some controversy. Many mainstream biologists seem to feel it is not appropriate for various reasons, particularly when it is used by a nonmember of the group. As you define it, I guess I'm a Darwinist, since I think the evidence indicates that evolution is a non-directed process. As for self-evident truths and the possibility of rationality, that's beyond the level of my thinking on this issue. I have not studied the question but it is not evident to me how the existence or nonexistence of design relates to the truths that make rationality possible, whatever they may be.congregate
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
congregate, Thank you for your kind words. congregate wrote:
With regard to the 1491 argument, as I said I don’t believe that ID proponents have yet uncovered the equivalent of that unambiguous stone artifact.
Point taken. Implicit in this admission is agreement with the general point of my example: a true artifact is sufficient to establish the historical presence of an intelligent being. You disagree about whether or not the artifacts I present are "true" artifacts, but at least you are open enough to admit that the general point I made was valid. But please, define a method for how we could distinguish a true artifact from merely an apparent artifact. (You have concluded that carbon-based machines are not ture artifacts, so you must have at least a general method.) congregate wrote:
Regarding the most likely explanation for complexity, I’ll repeat myself from that other thread: you are convinced it’s more likely the work of an unarguably capable agent for which there is no evidence of its existence, while I am more impressed with the agent that is only arguably capable, but definitely exists.
When we analyze this further, we see that you are subtly begging the question. I present an object. It is a rare type of object, but one with which we have other examples. We know from experience that intelligent agents such as humans (and theoretically other types of non-human intelligences, if they exist) can produce these types of objects at will. Moreover, we have no direct evidence that any other cause is capable of producing this type of object. Without knowing where or when this object came from, we tentatively conclude that intelligent agents are the most likely cause for this object. We then learn that it was found in a time and place where we have no other evidence for human (or non-human) intelligence being present. Now, either this object validly establishes the historical presence of an intelligent agent, or it does not. Please answer this question to yourself, does it or does it not? Then ask yourself if the object I am describing is a spear point found in Pleistocene strata in North America, or an ancient carbon-based digital copying machine. ... congregate wrote:
Intelligence may be a necessary ingredient in complexity-making (that necessity is a key part of the basic argument of ID), but it is not sufficient.
I'll agree with you. I meant it is the most important aspect, not the only necessary one. You can add thumbs to your list if you like, but non-human, thumbless intelligent agents are not an absurd idea. Non-carbon based intelligences are also a theoretical possibility. So if we want to remain as general as possible, but not too general, we can possibly settle on necessary attributes for constructing complex machinery as: 1) Intelligence 2) Sufficient ability to interact with matter Humans can do both. Theoretical aliens could possibly do both. Matrix-style AI robots may one day be able to do both. So I think those are two necessary attributes for any machine-making agent. Would you like to add others?Atom
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
-----congregate: "StephenB-I’ve noticed you asking other people to state their worldview. Why are you asking?" That’s a fair question and it deserves a fair answer. I have found ID critics are much more disposed to solicit information than to disclose it. My perception is that many of them love to scrutinize but they hate being scrutinized, meaning that they prefer to pounce from the shadows. If an ID critic is going to grill me or someone else about the design inference, I also want to grill him about what often turns out to be an irrational rejection of a self evident truth. One aspect of the failure to disclose is the tendency to dismiss basic terms as irrelevant. Darwinism, for example, is a perfectly legitimate term to mark those who believe in a non-directed evolutionary process, as opposed to someone like Behe, who believes in a God-directed process. For some reason, Darwinists bristle at the prospect of being accurately characterized, which, to me at least, is another indication that they would prefer not to be held accountable. As a general rule, Darwinists are hyper-skeptics, by which I mean that they reject not only intelligent design but also the self evident truths that make rationality possible in the first place. Quite often, they reject the scientific justification for a design inference not because the evidence isn’t there, but because they doubt the minds capacity to apprehend general knowledge at any level. Under the circumstances, their proclivity to reject ID is a special case of a more general problem, hyper-skepticism. In other cases, critics have decided in advance to reject the ID arguments no matter what, as is indicated when they keep posing the same objections over and over again without even bothering to consider the answers. It is part of their "no consession policy." Equally important, it is helpful to know the precise nature of a critic’s biases and prejudices. We all have them, but not everyone is open to revealing them. It helps me to know, for example, whether someone is a theistic evolutionist or, as I assume in your case (you have not yet disclosed it), an atheist Darwinist. Put another way, I prefer to answer questions in the context the questioner’s scientific/philosophical world view as opposed to volleying back and forth without any communicative framework at all. It seems fair to me.StephenB
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
Atom- I agree with kf, well stated. With regard to the 1491 argument, as I said I don't believe that ID proponents have yet uncovered the equivalent of that unambiguous stone artifact. Regarding the most likely explanation for complexity, I'll repeat myself from that other thread: you are convinced it's more likely the work of an unarguably capable agent for which there is no evidence of its existence, while I am more impressed with the agent that is only arguably capable, but definitely exists. Intelligence may be a necessary ingredient in complexity-making (that necessity is a key part of the basic argument of ID), but it is not sufficient. If those intelligent humans did not have opposable thumbs, or the cpaacity to interact with matter, they would not have been able to create the tools. So I don'tthink intelligence is the only thing that is important causally.congregate
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, you said "that NDT serves a very “practical” purpose: it rhetorically underpins a worldview — evolutionary materialism" While true, it also serves another practical purpose and that it explains nearly all the origins of current world species. Just how many is certainly up for debate but the percentage of species whose origin is due to Darwinian process is very high. (I understand the debate on just what a species is can be contentious) So when one discusses this with someone who supports modern evolutionary theory, it should be recognized that this is where they are coming from. Supporters of ID focus on the many anomalies, while supporters of Darwinian processes focus on the large number of examples of it working. So when we disparage things such as neo Darwinism, we should also recognize its relevance to origin of the variety of life forms on the planet. We tend not to here as the modus operandi is to disparage just as it is on the pro Darwin sites to disparage ID.jerry
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
Always good to hear from you.kairosfocus
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Thanks GEM.Atom
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
Atom: Excellent. (I couldn't resist remarking!) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
DS: Well argued. I would, however make a tongue-in-cheek note, i.e. that NDT serves a very "practical" purpose: it rhetorically underpins a worldview -- evolutionary materialism -- used to justify many policy, cultural and lifestyle agendas that would otherwise be much more questionable. Admittedly, that is not a technical, wealth-generating applicability, but it is a most potent "practical" use. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
Thank you congregate for your response. congregate wrote:
The stone hunting tools you mention are indeed evidence for humans, but in large part because we know that humans existed at that time and had the ability to create similar things. We know that because of multiple lines of evidence.
I don't know if I set up the context clearly enough, but my point was that we didn't know that humans were around at that time (in that part of the world at least.) Let me give you an excerpt from "1491" (p.166) to show the proper historical context:
Indeed, he was now claiming that the artifacts were half a million years old. Half a million years! One can imagine Hrdlicka's disgust -- Homo Sapiens itself wasn't thought to be half a million years old. By asking Figgins to unearth any new "discoveries" only in the presence of the scientific elite, Hrdlicka hoped to eliminate the next round of quackery before it could take hold. In August 1927 Figgins's team at Folsom came across a spear point stuck between two bison ribs. He sent out telegrams. Three renowned scientists promptly traveled to New Mexico and watched Figgins's team brush away the dirt from the point and extract it from the gully. All three agreed, as they quickly informed Hrdlicka, that the discovery admitted only one possible explanation: thousands of years ago, a Pleistocene hunter had speared a bison. After that, Meltzer told me, "the whole fourty-year battle was essetntially over. [One of the experts, A.V.] Kidder said, 'This site is real,' and that was it."
There was a fourty-year argument over whether or not humans were there on the continent at that time. Established science ("the experts" in the book) said NO, NO, NO! Up to that point, there was no evidence of their presence, direct or indirect. But the discovery of a single stone artifact settled the argument was over and established the historical presence of intelligent Pleistocene humans. Tools (and machines) are sufficient evidence of the historical presence of intelligent agents. congregate wrote:
I guess our difference is that what you call carbon-based artifacts, I call biological phenomena. I don’t think there is any evidence that those phenomena are artifacts, merely an intuition that they sure are complicated. I’m not yet convinced by the vague mathematics and information theory that intelligent design proponents find so compellingly preclusive of the possibility of unintelligent origins.
It is fine if you feel that way, but again, we have direct evidence that intelligent agents can create machinery of that type but lack a corresponding level of evidence that unguided mechanisms can do so. So intelligent agents are at this point the most likely explanation.
As an aside, I would say the most likely explanation for the tools was humans, rather than intelligent agency. Do you think the first archeologist who found some said “hmm, I bet an intelligent agency created this!”
It is the intelligence of the humans that allow them to make sophisticated tools. This is how we know that ancient humans were intelligent in the first place: by their tools and art. So Intelligence is the important causal factor, not their "humanity". Indeed, one can imagine alien (non-human) life forms creating similar machines, using the same causal mechanism, Intelligence. So forgive me if I cut to the chase and point out what is important causally.Atom
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
Congregate: Re 24:
Actually you have one source for contingency that exists and is arguably inadequate, and one that is adequate and arguably nonexistent. There is as yet no undisputed positive evidence for (non-human, unless-time-traveller) intelligence acting at any particular time and place in the history of life or the universe (before modern, non-timetravelling humans). The fact that nobody has explained yet exactly how any particular bit of contingency came about by natural processes is not evidence that intelligence did it.
Really? a --> We know that the state of our cosmos is such that intelligent agents may EXIST. For [as DS pointed out] we instantiate such agents. (Nor do we have any good reason to infer that we exhaust the possible nature or configuration of such agents.) b --> We have an observed pattern, of causal factors tracing to chance, necessity and agency; associated with observed, reliable markers: contingency, complexity, specificity. c --> We know that natural regularities trace to mechanical necessity, as the fire example at 19 illustrates, and as the way a die sits on a table [cf 19] illustrates. d --> By contrast, which of its six faces is uppermost is a contingent phenomenon, calling for different causal factors. And, we know that agency and/or chance could account for this. e --> Further, when we have sufficiently complex and specifically functional contingency -- e.g. if we were to have a string of about 400 dice expressing in a six state code, information that guides an algorithmic process or is a message in a language or the like -- such reliably traces to agency. f --> We have an empirically based reliable sign of agency, on the strength of which we may infer to agency [which is possible] in cases where we do not observe the agents at work. g --> In the case of DNA and increments in DNA for body plan level biodiversity, we have FSCI well beyond the relevant complexity bound. h --> We thus have excellent reason -- absent a priori commitments that reflect worldview assumptions rather than evidence -- to infer that DNA etc are artifacts of agency. (In effect SETI has spoken, but in a chemical signal we have known about for 55 years or so.) Atom has spoken well on this also. GEM of TKI PS: Clarence at 21 -- where, when did we have a certain specific and unique; globally transforming, self-sustaining, accelerating phenomenon often called the Scientific Revolution? What was its historical, cultural and philosophical/ worldviews context?kairosfocus
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
con And have we found any signs yet? Indirect evidence, yes. We have discovered incredibly complex nanomolecular machinery and abstractly coded specifications for their construction in all living cells. The only demonstrable way that codes and machines are created in nature is through intelligent agency. If there exists any other means of origination of codes and machines it has not yet been demonstrated. Until such a demonstration can be made there is only one explanation left standing. You and I exist in the present. How much would you invest in the search for signs of prehistoric DaveScot and congregate? Not much unless there is some potential for practical use of the knowledge. I can see no practical potential. What practical purpose is there in knowing, for example, whether birds descended from dinosaurs or not and how the modifications were acheived in that hypothetical line of descent? Evolution writ large is of no practical consequence. If it works at all it works too slowly to worry about the malaria parasite evolving into something substantially different from a malaria parasite. Historical biology is academically interesting but practically useless. All the good stuff flows from experimental biology - the study of living tissues - not from the study of imprints left in rocks.DaveScot
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply