A Question for Barbara Forrest

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 16, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

In her recent paper, The Non-epistemology of Intelligent Design: Its Implications for Public Policy, evolutionary philosopher Barbara Forrest states that science must be restricted to natural phenomena. In its investigations, science must restrict itself to a naturalistic methodology, where explanations must be strictly naturalistic, dealing with phenomena that are strictly natural. Aside from rare exceptions this is the consensus position of evolutionists. And in typical fashion, Forrest uses this criteria to exclude origins explanations that allow for the supernatural. Only evolutionary explanations, in one form or another, are allowed.

Continue reading here.

Comments

Onlookers: A note re Icon, 556: Saying “strawman” is meaningless. My point stands. Von Neumann’s machines are not the first chemical self-replicator on earth, and you do not know how much information that required. Of course, the OBSERVED cell is a metabolic system that incorporates code-based, algorithmic systems. And, Von Neumann laid out the mathematically general conditions for a self-replicating automaton. Blueprint, replicating machinery (and of course procesees to carry out same). We see these in observed cells and the evidence is that once knockouts take us below about 600 k bits of information, auto-destruction ensues. this is 600 times the reasonable threshold beyond which a code based system cannot credibly be accounted for on chance + necessity, on even the most generous terms. A hypothetical molecule that self-catalyses its replication in an idealised lab environment is utterly irrelvant to that OBSERVED reality. As to the reiterated demand on info content of a nuke reactor [and of course this is as we build them, and ore bodies in Gabon have nothing to do with this . . . as in I know the red herring, Icon]: note that Icon was already given adequate response above [shelves full of documents, including sheaves of complex drawings], but has chosen to ignore it. Just the exec summary of one volume or one drawing of one serious part will already give us more than 143 7-bit ascii characters worth of info, on letters and numbers alone. That should tell us a lot. Again: cell based life is characterised by complex organisation and related information rich structures and algorithmic, code based operations. THAT is what materialists need to account for, and red herrings led out to strawman rhertoric and ad hominems on Gabonese ore bodies or on hypotehtical self-replicating molecule in the end underscore just how wanting their preferred account of origins is. (Those interested in the related thermodynamics and claimed spontaneous information origination issues are invited to read here: and here, in my always linked. In short, serious level more detailed answers are just one click away at all times.) Not to mention, all of this is still distractive from the main issue: THE POINT OF THE THREAD IS THAT MATERIALISTS AND FELLOW TRAVELLERS HAVE NO GOOD REASON TO INSIST THAT THE ONLY AVAILABLE CONTRAST TO NATURAL IS “SUPERNATURAL,” AS ARTIFICIAL (THUS INTELLIGENT) IS AN OBVIOUS AND EASILY OBSERVED CONTRAST. That they resort to such rhetorical tactics, which amount to a strawman laced with issues on the long cultivated hostility to "the supernatural" [a hostility that is largely ill-informed and biased based on a parade of one-sided litanies of the real and imagined sins of Christendom; without a fair assessment of its many contributions to progress across many centuries] is itself telling on their want of a solid case on the merits. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT}

es58, Scott, William and others: all points I'd like to discuss, but I was just thinking of making the the same point as es58 above, because the thread took ages to load. Maybe 500 posts should be the limit; we're sure to cover similar ground elsewhere.iconofid_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

Iconfid: I had asked: Q) if it expanded, do you imply it always existed? and you responded: > It could have always existed in its pre-expanded state, I'm sorry if I was unclear, but my question actually intended to refer to existing in any number of varying states, including expanded/contracted etc, whatsoever, so long as "always" was attached to it. > although what “always” would mean if there’s a time = 0 point, I don’t know. so, since you say "if", it seems there's 2 possibilities: There was a time == 0 point or there was no such point; [if I'm missing a possibility, please point it out.] If there was a time == 0 point, it would seem that we have absolutely no words to describe what was "before" that, because even the word "before" becomes meaningless in that context; This seems to point at a state that is as close as it can come, given our current knowledge, to being termed "supernatural". Would you agree? and, if there was NO time == 0 point: Then, my original question stands, which is, did the universe always exist, leading to an infinite regression, etc. Thank you aside to Clive, if you haven't already done so, I would request a follow on thread because load time is getting long, and it's crashed a number of times, thankses58_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

iconfid:
That is a weaker inductive argument, because not all known codes are known to be intelligently designed, whereas I’m on 100% of observed intelligent designers requiring FSCI/codes.
This logic negates inductive reasoning altogether. If we could observe the cause of every code, what would there be to infer? Imagine a medical examiner in an autopsy saying, "Every round hole with powder burns comes from a gunshot. Except I didn't see what caused this one. Faced with that unknown, I can no longer infer the cause." That unknown is exactly what such an inference is for.ScottAndrews_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: Strawman. I have pointed out the Von Neumann requisite for a self-replicating device: that it will have to incorporate its blueprint and machinery to replicate itself. Any experienced micro system designer will tell you that will put you well north of 1,000 bits of information., Saying "strawman" is meaningless. My point stands. Von Neumann's machines are not the first chemical self-replicator on earth, and you do not know how much information that required. So, what about a nuclear reactor? More than 1000 bits? Would all nuclear reactors require design, in your opinion? I.D. is, I'm told, the study of design detection. Icon of course first fails to show that FSCI is credibly a prerequisite for intelligent designers, i.e. he begs a question. Really? It's an inductive inference, and, as I pointed out with my swans example, far from conclusive. It's there to highlight I.D. arguments like "whenever we know the source of FSCI, it's designed, therefore we can infer design in DNA, the cell, whatever. You can't make those arguments and reject mine.iconofid_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

:)Upright BiPed_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Icon, Not to worry...I think everybody understands you. That it is you that says what you say is often the clearest thing about what you've said.Upright BiPed_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

Sorry, last post a bit unclear as to who was saying what! Joseph: iconofid: “That is a weaker inductive argument, because not all known codes are known to be intelligently designed, whereas I’m on 100% of observed intelligent designers requiring FSCI/codes." Joe: What code or codes are known not to be the result of intelligent design? Joseph, “not all codes are known to be intelligently designed” does not mean that there are codes that are known not to be intelligently designed. Think about it.iconofid_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

Joseph: iconofid: "That is a weaker inductive argument, because not all known codes are known to be intelligently designed, whereas I’m on 100% of observed intelligent designers requiring FSCI/codes. What code or codes are known not to be the result of intelligent design? Joseph: "not all codes are known to be intelligently designed" does not mean that there are codes that are known not to be intelligently designed. Think about it.iconofid_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Nakashima:
BTW, do you totally discount fossil evidence as scientific evidence?
It's evidence but what type of evidence depends on the observer. I don't think fossil evidence can be used to determine evolution. Only genetics can do that IMHO. But anyway you say there is genetic evidence for the transformation. Which paper or papers were you referring to?Joseph_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Mr Joseph, Looking at the Wiki page on the evolution of the mammalian ear bones, there are references to genetic, embryological, and fossil evidence. BTW, do you totally discount fossil evidence as scientific evidence?Nakashima_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Now on further claims by Icon: 1] As for a 1000 bit example of FSCI, I need more guidance on calculating it . . . Of course, any string of ASCII text in English that makes linguistic sense of at least 143 characters, or a string of source code of similar length, would be a clear example. Icon is here just trying to turn around an unmet burden of proof. Selective hyperskepticism, in short. 2] You’re asserting some minimum information requirement for the first chemical self-replicator on earth before anyone knows what that was. I’d of thought that impossible. Strawman. I have pointed out the Von Neumann requisite for a self-replicating device: that it will have to incorporate its blueprint and machinery to replicate itself. Any experienced micro system designer will tell you that will put you well north of 1,000 bits of information. As will the actual cases of independent microorganisms which knockout studies show will auto-destruct below 300 - 500 k bases; or, 600 k bits. And, that is am OBSERVED case of self-replicating automata, without speculations on what might be. (Notice how a lot of evolutionary materialist speculation is smuggled into Icon's assertions.) Similarly, anyone who has had to look at he information required to design and build a house will understand that the requites for a nuke plant by far exceed 1,000 bits. [The design books for such come in multivolume, multishelf sets. [Just the exec summary to one of those volumes will be beyond the range of 143 ASCII characters, much less one of the drawings.] 3] I’m going to make an observation based law, and ask you for a counter-example.“FSCI is a prerequisite for intelligent designers”. . . . . A counter-example to all these would be just one intelligent designer for whom FSCI is not a prerequisite. Icon of course first fails to show that FSCI is credibly a prerequisite for intelligent designers, i.e. he begs a question. (Contrast how I have pointed out that the alternatives are on observation and related calculation, utterly lacking in relevant capacity on the gamut of the observed universe. that is there is a full inference to best, empirically anchored explanation at work.) Next, he studiously ignores -- a la Wilson in the Arte of Rhetorique -- the chain of evidence and reasoning that points to a credible case of a designer beyond our cosmos as the best explanation for its observed fine-tuning. That is, we have no good reason to grant the claim in the first instance [do we KNOW per empirical evidence that all OBSERVED designers themselves reflect FSCI and that FSCI is a component of the intelligence? or, is this not simply yet another form of smuggled in materialistic metaphysics?], and we have already in hand a case where the best explanation for our observed cosmos is an intelligence beyond our cosmos. ++++++++++ But, going beyond the specifics of icon's latest wave of objections, let us observe that all this is on a side-track. THE POINT OF THE THREAD IS THAT WE HAVE NO GOOD REASON TO INSIST THAT HE ONLY CONTRAST TO NATURAL IS "SUPERNATURAL," AS ARTIFICIAL (THUS INTELLIGENT) IS AN OBVIOUS AND EASILY OBSERVED CONTRAST. We need only notice that signs of intelligence are empirically observable, in the context that we ourselves are intelligent. What intelligence is, is another question, one that we may in part investigate by exploring cases of its traces. When we see that the very cells in our bodies show such traces, then we have reason to believe we are the products of another intelligence that obviously predates life on this planet. Then, when we see that the cosmos in which we live has signs of intelligence also, then that is a sign that it too is an artifact. And if that is so, we have good reason to conclude that intelligence is ontologically before the physical cosmos in which we live and seems to have created [note the small-c sense] it. So, on consistent scientific principles, we have reason to believe life on this planet is an artifact of intelligence, and that it exists in a cosmos that itself shows signs that it is an artifact. Observed nature is credibly an artifact, a product of intelligence, and so is life within it as we experience and observe it in our surroundings. So, if the price tag of excluding such empirically anchored chains of inference from the table is to impose censorship on science that -- in the name of methodological naturalism -- censors science form following the empirical evidence towards credible truth, then that price tag is plainly too high. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

Iconofid, Your argument is exactly the same as the "all swans are white" argument; it is an argument from ignorance. First, your argument that a disembodied intelligence must not have FSCI is specious and unwarranted; all that matter is, is ordered energy. For all we know, energy can be sufficiently ordered without the matter perspective, and I suggest that the point of least entropy (the beginning of the universe) is the most liely time that any intelligence would be formed; indeed, it seems to me that as time progresses, it is more and more unlikely that any intelligences spontaneously arises from an increasingly entropic system without help. Also, your assertion that no "disebmodied intelligences" are known to exist is an appeal to authority, because there is much research that evidences exactly that.William J. Murray_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

iconofid:
That is a weaker inductive argument, because not all known codes are known to be intelligently designed, whereas I’m on 100% of observed intelligent designers requiring FSCI/codes.
What code or codes are known not to be the result of intelligent design? Also ID is not about the designer so your "point" is moot. But I am sure that will not stop you from continuing to use it.Joseph_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

If, as Iconofid desires, we establish a limit not to precede the big bang, but work only forward, it appears his argument is that because we have no evidence of "diembodied intelligence", we can conclude it doesn't exist; this is an argument from ignorance. Recent NDE research published in the Lancet indicates that "disembodied intlligence" might well exist, so his perspective that there is no evidence for that is in error. There is also much research that has not been published in mainstream journals; but, beginning with William Crookes experiments, published in the Journal of Science, there is in fact evidence that "disembodied intelligence" exists. IF FSCI is required for intelligence, then perhaps that FSCI is accomplished through a medium as-yet undiscovered by science. Or, perhaps FSCI is not required for intelligent intentionality. Now, if we move back to our time limit, we find ever-decreasing entropy back to the origin point; the time of least entropy (theoretically) is that point (as far back as we are willing to go). This would be the "time" where there is the most chance of FSCI existing in whatever medium other than common mass it can exist in (if the NDE and other research is correct). It's hardly a leap of logic to theorized that at this point of least entropy and most order, that Intelligence was born as a fundamental aspect of existence, in contrast to chance. Intelligent order from chaos. Is any of that sueprnatural by definition? Not any more so than the fundamental forces of nature being generated ex nihilio at the same time. Also, it makes more logical sense that those forces were ordered by intelligence than that they were randomly set, because we see that they are finely tuned for life, and life-based intelligence, to exist.William J. Murray_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

Hi, William. You say: I’m not sure what your argument here is; perhaps you are claiming that ID is self-referential? That it must cause itself to exist? No, not exactly. It's an inference of the "all observed swans are white, therefore all swans are white" kind, which was, of course, disproved by the discovery of the Australian black swan. There's no "black swan" for mine, though. I.D.ers frequently point to the DNA code, and make a similar argument (all the codes we know the source of are intelligently designed). That is a weaker inductive argument, because not all known codes are known to be intelligently designed, whereas I'm on 100% of observed intelligent designers requiring FSCI/codes. It essentially neutralizes that particular I.D. argument.iconofid_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

iconofid:
When I.D.ers mention SETI and our own designs, these relate to the output of natural intelligences produced within the universe, and acting within it.
It's only a "natural intelligence" if nature, operating freely produced it. And if you can demonstrate such a thing then ID would be in deep trouble. Once again: ID is based on observation and experience. It can be tested. Now what part of that don't you understand and what else does ID need to be considered scientific?Joseph_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

DATCG: Iconofid, “What we should avoid, IMO, is the constant human tendency to make up supernatural beings to stick in the gaps of our knowledge, from weather controlling gods to universe creating gods.” Why do you insist on making up strawman arguments? ID and Design Theory is about detecting design patterns in nature. It is no different than SETI. So I'm told. So, on the detection so far, what in nature definitely isn't designed? (Iconofid) “Making up things does not advance our knowledge, but it’s certainly a human tendency!” (DATCG) When you do not know the answer, you cannot rule out a prior a possible answer. One possible answer is our universe is designed. Goelel’s Incompleteness Theorem is consistent with the fact we cannot know every detail about our universe unless we exist outside of it as well. You advise me, then quote me saying: “That’s not an opinion that there couldn’t have been a creation of the universe…” Well, exactly! Stop right here Iconofid. Be honest. If you agree the Universe might be designed, then it does not matter “who” did the designing. The other fluff you metion are distractions about theology. Has it not occurred to you that, if you're in a designed universe, a science detecting the designs of its designers would be redundant. When I.D.ers mention SETI and our own designs, these relate to the output of natural intelligences produced within the universe, and acting within it. ID does not make up any gods or goddesses or fairy tales. It merely advances the inference that Design can be detected, that is all. Animal activity, including that of animals who intelligently design, can certainly be detected in various ways. If as you say, You truly do NOT know, then you must honestly admit Design is possible. Again, you quoted me saying that it's not impossible, so why do you keep on in this way? 25 dimensions are possible, and elves are possible. What more do you want? Stop worrying about supernatural or past history, or current theology. And stick to facts. I'm not a natural worrier, and an interesting fact is that FSCI is a prerequisite for all known intelligent designers. Since none of us know for sure how we arrived in this exixtence, the best any of us can do is to proceed by logic, science and best inferences. That's two things we agree on now! My opinion is design exist in the cells and in the cosmos. But I admit it is an opinion, not a fact. Meanwhile, evolutionist and materialist insist on reporting they are the intellecutals and only factual science. Not true. The Darwinist theory has completely failed with to many failed predictions now to repeat. We need a new theory to explain DNA, regulatory genes, signals, repair, error detection and networking, redundancy, etc., that is considered the best software computer system ever seen(Bill Gates). We are only just now beginning to apprehend the exquisite computational design of cellular life. And we still have limited understanding of intelligence, a phenomenon more complex than all of the above, but also apparently dependent on the above. Research is popping up everwhere now treating Biological entities like programs. This is evidence that the Design Paradigm of Information BioComputation is the future of Biology. We cannot procedd to understand life by the failed Darwinist Paradigm. Its foundation cannot provide a good research hueristic for productive research. Only story telling about some perceived past. Real Engineering of life will proceed at the Design level. Therefore, supernatural or not, agency is the answer for the future understanding. Would there actually be understanding if the agent, her purpose, her tastes and her means of construction weren't understood? Iconofid, Darwin is every bit a god as Zeus, or a high priestess. Why else celebrate him in religious places? Thanks for making me smile. Presumably this is about some story of some theistic evolutionists celebrating Darwin in religious places? (I haven't heard it, but I wouldn't be surprised). But Darwin can't qualify as one of the gods that religious humans invent, because the fact that he really existed would disqualify him. :)iconofid_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

Iconofid: “FSCI is a prerequisite for intelligent designers”. and then: "From my law, we can infer that intelligence cannot be a prerequisite for FSCI. This would be called a strong inductive argument." I'm not sure what your argument here is; perhaps you are claiming that ID is self-referential? That it must cause itself to exist? If that is your argument, then naturalism is similarly disqualified, because it claims to have caused itself to exist - or, at least it begs the same question as ID. If you can plead "no contest" at point of the big bang for nature, we can similarly plead "no contest" at that point as well. Nature "just exists"; Intelligence "just exists". Or, if we are allowed to point beyond the veil, as kairos points out, ID at least has evidence of intelligence (or intentionality) existing beyond that point; where is the evidence that nature (as we know it) can exist beyond that point?William J. Murray_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 526 Moderators: At 511, sparc has violated my privacy, in a comment with no substantial relevance, other than being an ad hominem-laced comment. GEM of TKI Well, don't look at your blog. http://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_archive.html "About Me Name: Gordon" If you're trying to keep your first name private, it's too late.djmullen_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

Nakashima, What is the genetic evidence for the transformation of ear bones? What gene, genes and/ or DNA sequence(s) were involved? The point being without that data you don't have a scientific inference.Joseph_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

iconofid, ID is about the DESIGN, not the designer. Your attempts at forcing ID to be designer-centric proves that you do not understand science.Joseph_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

Iconofid said: "Good. Then you could tell your fellow I.D.ers to stop using CSI requiring humans and their designs as analogies for the “designs” of disembodied, non-CSI requiring “natural” intentionality." Unlike Ms. Forrest, I don't issue thought-police edicts. I find the issue enriched by varying and dissimilar perspectives and arguments, not threatened. Iconofid said: "No. It’s yours. You were talking about cause and creation outside space time." I asked you to answer a question, which you have refused. Did nature cause itself? Is nature uncaused? Or, did something we cannot identify as nature generate nature? You've pleaded "no contest". As such, you've opened the door to a similar pleading on my part of "no contest" when it comes to intentionality extraneous to our known universe, which is fine for our debate. Iconofid said: "It’s not just the cause. It’s the existence of your concept that is unknown." Intentionality as a concept is certainly not "unknown"; intentionality as a disembodied force in the universe was at the heart of science for hundreds of years and helped produce the scientific method and find the foundational laws of physics. Iconofid said: "Embodied intelligences, like ours, require SCI in order to exist. Disembodied intelligence is not known to exist." I didn't claim disembodied intentionality was known to exist. Tell me, does disembodied gravity exist? If there is no mass, does whatever generates gravity effects still exist in an area? Or, if as the theory has it, that gravity is an effect of the curvature of space-time, can you please point that out to me? Also, will you point out entropy and time, or do they also exist as disembodied entities, revealed to us only by the interaction of material phenomena? That such a fundamental force distinct from other natural laws or chance exists and product of it can be identified is the nature of ID theory, whether individual IDers view ID as "always" manifest in organic beings or not, just as gravity isn't theorized to only exist where mass is present, but is a fundamental commodity of the universe that mass reveals. ID can be seen as (1) another natural law, or (2) a fundamental principle that, like chance, seems to thwart the machine-like operation of natural laws, but is chance's counterpart. In either case, it need not be taken as a necessarily supernatural phenomena, unless one defines all intentionality and intelligence as "supernatural". As to your definitions: "1) of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal." Unfortunately, sufficiently abnormal accumulations or effects of chance would also be inexplicable by natural law. Also, the existence of DNA is inexplicable (currently) by natural law. This definition skewers your own position. "2)of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity." I'm not postulating a god in this debate. "3)of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult." I'm not postulating these. "1)Of or relating to existence outside the natural world." We've agreed not to go there. '2)Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces." This definition at first appears promising, but if we adopt it, it defines any new natural forces or phenomena we find as "supernatural", and would be a science stopper. For instance, if there is a natural medium by which consciousness exists beyond that of the physical body, and we just haven't discovered it, we can't have science precluding our research into it just because we it seems to violate, or go beyond known natural forces. Iconofid said: "I think that disembodied intentionality fits a few of those." It does, but unfortunately, as I have said, any definition of supernatural appears to skewer the naturalist position as well. Iconofid said:"My postulate is that natural phenomena, like life, have natural causes." You cannot claim on the one hand that natural phenomena have natural causes, and then refuse to answer the question of where the natural phenomena gravity came from, and assert that you didn't say it was caused. Is gravity a natural phenomena? If so, you claim it has a natural cause. What is its natural cause? You don't know? Then it meets some of the definitions of "supernatural" above. Your definitions of "supernatural" fail to provide the required distinction between "natural" and "intentional" causation theories without similarly indicting the naturalist position. You have provided no meaningful definition which precludes "intentionality" from being accepted as a part of the natural order of things in this world, albeit on that hasn't been sufficiently described yet.William J. Murray_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

Following up: re Icon: By your arguments, all observed intelligences “show signs of intelligence”. Certainly, without exception, all observed intelligences have FSCI as a prerequisite, however you define “FSCI”. Again, a side track. Let's pull it back on focus: 1 --> I have used the abbreviation FSCI because you used it earlier. Cf UD's Glossary for its meaning. (In short, onlookers: there is not any real controversy about what FSCI means.) 2 --> Now, too, we commonly observe bodies in action. In some cases, those bodies show behaviour that on reflection on our own inner life, we recognise as intelligent. 3 --> We make no assumptions or assertions on the nature of intelligence itself, only that it exists. And indeed, its existence is the premise of all intellectual life, including science. 4 --> On close observation and investigation, we see that certain signs of intelligence are strongly and reliably empirically distinguishable from those tracing to chance and/or necessity. (Reasons for that may be perused in the always linked, and typical rebuttal attempts are corrected in the correctives above RH column.) 5 --> Now, such signs of intelligence happen to include functionally specific complex information, which happens to be a marked characteristic of cell based life. So, we humans can be seen to be: [1] intelligent, and [2] also showing signs that our origins lie in onward intelligence. 6 --> But equally -- and noteice how Icon does not seriously address this -- the cosmos as a whole shows itself contingent and to be reflective of signs of intelligence. So, we have reason on inference to best explanation, to infer to intelligence beyond our observed cosmos, as its most credible cause. 7 --> That -- at minimum -- means that it is possible (and perhaps even credible) that intelligence is not bound up to configurations of matter, though it may be manifest in such and/or interact with such. 8 --> Thus functionally specific complex information as expressed in organisation of material objects is not a necessary condition of intelligence. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

Is no one going to offer analysis of what the results of the Harvard Intercessory Prayer Study say about the role of the supernatural in the world?specs_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

Mr DATCG, On the subject of ear bone evolution, a quick Google reveals an article on the subject that may interest you. There should be 100-1000, maybe even 10,000 times as many transition fossils in the major branches as there are fossils we have today. An interesting assertion. Why do you feel this way? Do you have a background in taphonomy that has been hitherto unrevealed?Nakashima_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

Mr DATCG, From my understanding of Behe’s point, if you remove any one “whole” part from the flagella, it fails. You'll have to clarify for me the distinctioin you are trying to make. How is the hook not a "whole" part? How is the tip not a "whole" part? If you look at the illustration at the top of every UD page, you can see the hook quite clearly. It is the elbow bend. I haven't made any points about Matzke's hypothesis. You will have to take that up elsewhere, or begin by asking my opinion. Nicely.Nakashima_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: It should be clear that ID is about: SIGNS OF INTELLIGENCE. That some observed intelligences themselves show signs of intelligence [e.g. in our cells] and therefore may tghermselves be designed has no relevance to whether or not there are empirically reliable signs of intelligence. We are credibly secondary intelligences; which does not entail that we are not intelligences, nor that we cannot identify signs of intelligence nor that primary intelligences of a different order may not exist. That is there are no “contradictions” at work as icon also alleges. Some observed intelligences? By your arguments, all observed intelligences "show signs of intelligence". Certainly, without exception, all observed intelligences have FSCI as a prerequisite, however you define "FSCI". Moreover, Icon has yet to show a known counter-example, of say a 1,000 bit example of FSCI that on reliable observation, has come about by lucky noise. (So, he diverts from a clear point of empirical test, only to end up in the unproductive rhetoric of atmosphere poisoning.) Two things here. You're asserting some minimum information requirement for the first chemical self-replicator on earth before anyone knows what that was. I'd of thought that impossible. As for a 1000 bit example of FSCI, I need more guidance on calculating it. What's your rough estimate of the minimum amount of FSCI required to produce a nuclear reactor, for example (I know I can't expect you to be precise, but just guess at an absolute minimum)? It would have been beyond the scope of the world's most information rich intelligent designers (us) to make one 100 years ago, so I should imagine it's not a trivial quantity. Now I'm going to make an observation based law, and ask you for a counter-example. "FSCI is a prerequisite for intelligent designers". This is based on the observation of billions of intelligent designers, and there is no exception to the law. A counter-example to all these would be just one intelligent designer for whom FSCI is not a prerequisite. From my law, we can infer that intelligence cannot be a prerequisite for FSCI. This would be called a strong inductive argument.iconofid_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

Iconofid, Darwin is every bit a god as Zeus, or a high priestess. Why else celebrate him in religious places?DATCG_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT}

Nakashima, "Why is there an assumption that there is a single function that is stable over time for any phenotypic products?" Why is there an assumption any TOL is stable at all for scientific research to state they know the truth to anyone? Dino-bird theory Mr. Nakashima? I agre with you. Its a big guessing game. But if designed, then function does work as a sound basis for research, not some mythical storying telling about past possible events. Instead of focusing on morphology, focus on specific function. If evolutionist had done this with the anatomy of Dinosaurs and Birds, 200 years would not have been wasted in teaching a fictional fairy tale. "There are bones in the ear that used to be part of the jaw" Is this another dino-bird fact? An unproven conjecture based upon consensus thinking of evolutionary macro materialist fairy tales? I ask it sincerely with the admission that I'm not against it as FrontLoading may be at work. But is there actual scientific evidence that stands up to repeated experimental test results? Wen statements like these are made I am always aware that what use to be fact to evolutionist and taught in school for 30 years ends up being a great big fools gold guess. Former students wake up one day realizing that what they studied for years, tested on, were meaningless stories and belonged more in science fiction literature classes than in real science classes. I mean, if we have faith in your assertion about the ear. You'd have to explain why reptiles who could hear just fine, would morph the ear into a different system. Not only that, how did the three jaw bones change over time for the mammalian ear without messing up subsequent uses of the jaw for feeding purposes? All of the assumptions made on the part of evolutionist are worse than design. They say, "It Dit It." What is "it"? An unguided accidental system of gradualistic mechanisms made up by a man who failed in math. We don't even know how or why the current mechanisms for "macro" change exist. We've only discovered that the mechanisms exist. Yet we've never actually seen them create any new macro changes to existing species. Only micro evolution is observable. You are left with one big guessing game story. In the end, it is not Behe that must prove his hypothesis about IC. His budget is limited and the ruling paradigm today has billions. Yet they have failed so far to rebut him. The pressure is on the existing establishment of Macro-Evolutionist Darwinist to show how anything theorized like they say through unguided processes can deliver a flagellum or an ear that the best engineering scientist in the world will us for future technology. Future technology as in right now we cannot duplicate the nano-technology present. You act as if moving through a transition from reptile to mamal is trivial. But its not. The ear is just one small example. How did the transitional generations survive with changes to the jaw bone structure? And where are all the transitions? Again, what I see are assertions, failed TOL theory, lack of transitional records for all the gradual changes. There should be 100-1000, maybe even 10,000 times as many transition fossils in the major branches as there are fossils we have today. Where are they Mr. Nakashima? Please tell me, how many generations did it take for a reptile-to-mamal ear transition? How many transitional fossils survived? And how many failures? Where is the evidence of these small gradual changes?DATCG_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 19 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply