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

Khan - "can you name any for the intelligence postulated by ID" 1) The ability to assign meanings to symbolic codes 2) The ability to solve tasks which require reasoning through open-ended, cyclical processes. 3) The ability to construct an object through non-functional intermediate stages with a planned goaljohnnyb_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Stephen,
The human mind, by definition, cannot be measured.
and what is that definition?Khan_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

At the end of the essay it said "How can science know when it is investigating a supernatural phenomena rather than a natural one? Bacon wrestled with this problem. What does Forrest have to say?" Does anyone here know what Bacon had to say about it? I would be very curious to know.johnnyb_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Scott, here are a few ways that the effects of human intelligence can be quantified. a) # of problems correctly solved b) time to navigate to a given location c) # of terms correctly memorized can you name any for the intelligence postulated by ID?Khan_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

---khan: "and was obviously snarky because intelligence can be measured, however imperfectly. when you start talking about the “mind”, is that different than intelligence? because things like heart rate and breathing are controlled by “the mind (aka the brain)” and are clearly measurable. and so is intelligence. can you clarify?" Nice try, but your efforts at obfuscation are not working. The human mind, by definition, cannot be measured. If the word "intelligence" in that context confuses you in that context, then throw it out. Is the human mind, which by definition is non-material and therefore cannot be measured, a supernatural entity?StephenB_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews:
We don’t know how our brains solve problems
No, thank you, for admitting that the problem-solver is the material brain and not some immaterial "mind."David Kellogg_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Well, I never said it was a good definition. :-) For my part, I think every major person in ID thinks the designer is God, but they focus on these issues to obscure the point.David Kellogg_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
For “result,” you can read “effects” — so the effects can be quantified. Ergo, it is not supernatural by the stipulated definition.
Thank you for skipping to the main point. So in the hypothesis that life was designed, the designer's intelligence needn't be supernatural either, as the effects would be quantifiable.ScottAndrews_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

StevenB:
I answer questions only after I get answers to my questions. Darwinists think that they can cross examine all day long while refusing to submit to the questions that are being asked of them.
As someone who wishes to supplant a major portion of the modern biology, you are strangely unwilling to defend your proposition to skeptical scrutiny unless you questioners jump through the hoops that you set up. You should welcome this opportunity to go through the peer-review process interactively.crater_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

Stephen, that was in response to this:
Human intelligence can’t be quantified (IQ doesn’t count.) So does that make our intelligence supernatural?
and was obviously snarky because intelligence can be measured, however imperfectly. when you start talking about the "mind", is that different than intelligence? because things like heart rate and breathing are controlled by "the mind (aka the brain)" and are clearly measurable. and so is intelligence. can you clarify?Khan_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews:
We don’t know how our brains solve problems. All we can see is the result.
For "result," you can read "effects" -- so the effects can be quantified. Ergo, it is not supernatural by the stipulated definition.David Kellogg_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

Can't the effects of the mind be measured quantitatively? (Disclosure: The "mind" itself seems to me a name we give to a collection of processes viewed as a unity rather than to a unity as such.)David Kellogg_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

----Khan: "oh, and in answer to the question on the table, how about “if a thing or the effects of that thing can not be measured quantitatively, then it is supernatural.” To which I respond, "Would that include a non-material human mind? ---khan: "we can’t measure distance (rulers don’t count). so is distance supernatural?" I notice that, one again, you evade the question and ask another question. I am not the one who claims to know the boundary between natural and supernatural, you are. So, what about it? Is a human mind, which cannot be qunatitatively measured, a supernatural entity?StephenB_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Actually any measure of intelligence would be a lot like a measure of temperature, since both would be averages. The amount of kinetic energy in any specific area of a body -- even a liquid body -- may be quite different from the temperature. I'm not saying IQ is a good measure, but the idea that intelligence, if it exists, is not measurable is ridiculous. (One could say that intelligence as such does not really exist but is a conflation of several different things, but each of those should in principle be measurable.)David Kellogg_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Nnoel: Oh no wait, there is no proper science being done by creationists is there. Anything they produce is deceiptful ‘research’ that displays their ability to quotemine and not provide all the information. The logical fallacy you are using here is ad hominem coupled with overgeneralization. Any information you can provide to prove this assertation? Others have posted pro-ID papers being (or which have been) published in reputable science journals. So often I’ve read an ID/Creationist’s ‘rebuttal’ to the ToE (attacking whichever part they thought of while eating their cereal that morning), and any qualified scientist in that field can poke a million holes in why they are wrong. And again, ad hominem coupled with overgeneralization. Again, prove your assertation. Provide an example of an ID rebuttal with a scientist’s own rebuttal poking holes in the ID theory. Never do I see a revision, or an apology, Nor do I see scientists apologizing for Piltdown man, Archaeoraptor, or whatever dubious fossil claims (“Look! The missing link! For real this time!”) are made and then published to fawning reviews. ID literature is not designed to convince scientists, it’s written to convince the lay person that elitist scientists are trying to convince their kids that there isn’t a god. Pathetic! But I may be wrong… And how. This type of ignorance-based, uninformed, hyperbolic, pro-evolutionary post is typical of what I see on Fark.com. You don’t have a Fark handle, do you?Barb_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
That’s hilarious. Why wouldn’t IQ count? Why do you say that human intelligence can’t be quantified?
What is the difference between an IQ of 100 and 101? What does one IQ point equal? We don't know how our brains solve problems. All we can see is the result. And each of us are so complex that other factors affect that output. I'm not discounting IQ a way to gauge intelligence, but it's not like degrees of temperature. Yes, that is quite hilarious. It can't be quantified. Is it supernatural?ScottAndrews_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Stephen, we can't measure distance (rulers don't count). so is distance supernatural?Khan_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

---khan: "also, there is no need to threaten me with moderation, Stephen. I was on topic. but, following the Cornelius method, I just flipped the topic horizontally and pixelated it I kid bc I love." You were not on topic, but you will be happy to know that I do not have the power to moderate or even to censure in any official capacity.StephenB_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

PaV,
My thoughts here turn to the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Here is an image that clearly had a ‘designer’, yet which is part of our world, meaning it can be tested. As such, what does science have to say about this image after having tested it? Well, science tells us that they have no explanation whatsoever for how the image was formed.
That's a great example of how ID works. If science cannot reduce the image to chance, matter, necessity, and energy, then we have to conclude it had supernatural origin.herb_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

---khan: "all I want is a straightforward answer. I don’t need you to hold my hand while explaining your answer to me. just kindly provide one and if I don’t understand I will say so and ask for clarification. I will even summarize your answer in my own words to make sure I understand. and, since you will be giving me a generalized method I can then apply this method to other examples and see how it works. then everyone wins. answer me on whatever thread you want." I answer questions only after I get answers to my questions. Darwinists think that they can cross examine all day long while refusing to submit to the questions that are being asked of them. I framed my question about CSI the way I did for a reason, and that includes the location which scandalized you so much. ----"oh, and in answer to the question on the table, how about “if a thing or the effects of that thing can not be measured quantitatively, then it is supernatural.” Would that include a non-material human mind?StephenB_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Human intelligence can’t be quantified (IQ doesn’t count.)
That's hilarious. Why wouldn't IQ count? Why do you say that human intelligence can't be quantified?David Kellogg_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

Khan @28: Human intelligence can't be quantified (IQ doesn't count.) So does that make our intelligence supernatural?ScottAndrews_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

Scott,
If everything with observable effects is natural, what does that leave to be supernatural?
since the effects of intelligence can not be quantitatively measured, I guess that means the "intelligent forces" postulated by ID are supernatural. that's the only example I can think of right now.
Khan_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Khan:
if a thing or the effects of that thing can not be measured quantitatively, then it is supernatural.
If anyone were to claim the existence of something supernatural, it would most likely be the result of some measurable physical manifestation. (Otherwise they're just seeing pink elephants.) If everything with observable effects is natural, what does that leave to be supernatural?ScottAndrews_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

also, there is no need to threaten me with moderation, Stephen. I was on topic. but, following the Cornelius method, I just flipped the topic horizontally and pixelated it ;) I kid bc I love.Khan_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

My thoughts here turn to the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Here is an image that clearly had a 'designer', yet which is part of our world, meaning it can be tested. As such, what does science have to say about this image after having tested it? Well, science tells us that they have no explanation whatsoever for how the image was formed. OTOH, we have human witnesses that tell us, basically, that the image is of divine, or heavenly, origins. Is this the boundary that Forrest is speaking about, one that keeps naturalistic methodology apart from the supernatural? It seems to me that the whole question of this image of Our Lady of Guadalupe puts the entire ID vs. the naturalistic methodology of Darwinism into proper focus. Both the cell, and its genetic system, and the image of Guadalupe speak to us of design, a design that is clear-cut in the case of the image of Guadalupe and mathematically probable in the case of the cell, yet a design that science is unable, let us say, to 'detect'. The question now becomes: is 'science' ready to accept the supernatural origin of the 'design' found in the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe? If it is, then it should be willing to accept the likelihood of design in the case of the cell/genome. If it is not, then we have a very clear case of "actual" supernatural design---a 'design' that takes place within the natural dimensions of our world and which is still a part of this natural world---that 'science' is simply choosing to deny, or to ignore. The dilemna this poses to 'science', however, is that in denying this clear-cut evidence of a Designer at work in our world, science is then undercutting any argument it might like to make regarding the distinction between 'natural' agency and 'supernatural' agency. IOW, science cannot assert that 'supernatural' design cannot be detected using scientific methods since we 'don't know' anything about such a Designer and the methods such a Designer might employ, and, at the same time, maintain that a clearly designed object is NOT the product of human agency. Obviously, design can enter our world other than through 'natural agency', and, obviously, we can all 'see' that it is designed. The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe cannot be explained using the 'laws of nature', and the complexity of the animal cell cannot be explained by the 'laws of probability'. Both, then, point to a Designer. If science cannot 'detect' Design, then, why does it, a priori rule it out? Darwin proposed an hypothesis. Does it really matter what the hypothesis is? Isn't what really matters how well such an hypothesis explains reality? Isn't this Steven Meyers argument: that the 'design hypothesis' has more 'explanatory power' than Darwin's hypothesis? Thus, what is more intellectually satisfying: nature appears to be designed, but it isn't (a la Dawkins, et al.), or, nature appears designed because it is (the ID position)? But, the Darwinists scream, "If you say that nature is 'designed', this is a science stopper." Really, I have, in my backyard, a spaceship that has crashed here from some unearthly home. I can see that it is designed. Am I really going to leave it alone simply because I know that is was designed?PaV_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

Of course that would rule out most of Darwin, since virtually all of the wonderful observations about nature found in his books were used for the expressed purpose of getting God out of nature.
Incorrect. It is an attempt to figure out how life actually works other than "poof!"SingBlueSilver_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Darwin’s goal of using nature to construct a purely natural account of origins cannot be found in nature itself. Nature for its own sake tells us nothing about origins. Darwin’s theory is based entirely on inference.
Two pointss: 1. All science is inferential. 2. Darwin never published on the origin of life.David Kellogg_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Stephen, all I want is a straightforward answer. I don't need you to hold my hand while explaining your answer to me. just kindly provide one and if I don't understand I will say so and ask for clarification. I will even summarize your answer in my own words to make sure I understand. and, since you will be giving me a generalized method I can then apply this method to other examples and see how it works. then everyone wins. answer me on whatever thread you want. oh, and in answer to the question on the table, how about "if a thing or the effects of that thing can not be measured quantitatively, then it is supernatural."Khan_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

Khan,
aside from all this, i am still unclear on what basis you make your hypothesis in part 1).. is it really “if it looks complex nature couldn’t have made it”? this is why I continue to ask how you calculate the effects of intelligence using a biological example. this at least would provide some quantitative way to make hypotheses and test predictions.
But does it even matter how a particular hypothesis was arrived at? The only important thing is whether or not it survives attempts to falsify it. As an example, I've heard that the mathematician Ramanujan could not explain how he came up with some of his formulas (which only later were found to be true).herb_{June 16, 2009
June
06
Jun
16
16
2009
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 16 17 18 19 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply