Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Question for Barbara Forrest

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
Pacino, dragged in, again: 1. I provided the evidence on Johnson and linked to a pro-ID site which you called an anti-ID slander. You have not corrected that error either. 2. Where does Behe say that the component parts of an IC system had different functions in earlier older organisms?David Kellogg
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
William J. Murray: I’m not claiming that deliberate agency doesn’t require CSI to operate, I’ve just never heard that argument. Since you have claimed that IDers make that argument, perhaps you can direct me to it? They make it frequently, if inadvertently, by pointing out examples of intelligent designers and their designs. In every single case, CSI is a prerequisite for the existence of the designers used to demonstrate the argument (us and other animals). ...then we are left with two possible answers; either nature caused its own existence, or something supernatural (i.e., inexplicable via natural law & chance) created nature. Caused? Created? Where time = 0? When I say that we don't currently know how the universe expanded, or its ultimate origins, I mean exactly what I say. Look up the word "unknown" and you will not find "regression" or "supernatural" in any of the definitions. There are many different supernatural "explanations" for the origins of the universe from many different cultures, but we naturalists can't see outside spacetime at present, or figure out what the nature and laws of zero time would be. There is no contradiction in this and our naturalistic theory of biology, which was what I was thinking of when I mentioned the natural evolution of intelligence. Am I not right in suggesting that I.D. claims that something highly complex like intelligence can exist without requiring an intelligent designer, but that a relatively simple self-replicator cannot? And am I not right in saying that that implies the supernatural? Surely you're not suggesting that the intelligent designers of bacterial flagella contain less FSCI than it does?iconofid
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
@495 should read: [From Ron Numbers] "Behe assumes that the component parts of an irreducibly complex system never had other functions in older organisms." Disinterested historian? That, by the way, is also Ken Miller's perennial and obstinate error.StephenB
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
----David Kellogg: ...."Ronald Numbers, probably the most eminent historian on anti-evolutionism alive.)” You are bluffing again. Ronald Numbers long ago gave up his role as objective observer and joined the Darwinist team. Not that long ago, he wrote a piece called, “Defending science education against intelligent design.” In it he misrepresents Behe by stating, “Behe assumes that the component parts of an irreducibly complex systems never had other functions in order organisms.” By the way, this is the kind of evidence that I asked you for concerning Philip Johnson. Do you understand the difference now between getting it right and just shooting from the hip?StephenB
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
---David: "I’m swearing off UD for several weeks. (I was trying not to respond to you until your ridiculous attack on Ronald Numbers, probably the most eminent historian on anti-evolutionism alive.)" Good historians get their facts straight and don't harmonize their interpretations of those facts with the sensibilities of their audience. It's a small world, though. I was going to take a vacation right before you defamed Philip Johnson. In any case, even when I offer you a straight up proposition as a road to peace, you can't provide a simple answer to a simple question.StephenB
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
Iconofid stated: "It’s an I.D. claim that complex specified information cannot exist without intelligent design, and CSI is a prerequisite for intelligence." The first portion of his claim is not true, that I know of, and I have never heard it argued that CSI is a "prerequisite" for deliberate agency. It might be considered evidence of deliberate agency. Obviously, deliberate agency can generate CSI - humans do it all the time.William J. Murray
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Who said intelligence was "comprised of" CSI? The question was whether intelligence was a "prerequisite" for it (as in "required to produce").David Kellogg
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
Kellogg, I understand that Dembski argues that intelligence is required to produce CSI; I'm not aware of any argument that "intelligence", or agency, must be comprised of CSI. I mean, gravity can produce planets; must gravity also then be comprised of planets? I'm not saying that it is not so, I'm just stating that I've never heard that argument.William J. Murray
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
Iconofid states: "The natural evolution of natural intelligence requires no such regression." How would you know this, since later in the same post you state: "We do not know what caused the expansion of the universe and what state it was in before, and we do not know what cause and effect would mean at a point where time=0." If you do not know what caused the big bang, how do you know it was natural? Iconofid states:Don’t confuse the unknown with the supernatural, which may well just be a product of the human tendency to do exactly that, and to make up magic things to explain gaps in our knowledge. Your confusion stems from the inability of challengers such as yourself to define what "supernatural" means, and where the line between it and "the natural" falls. I am not confused, nor am I making anything up. This is a fairly straightforward logical problem. If we define "natur" as "the set of laws and parameters that govern our universe", and if we define "the supernatural" as anything that is "not explicable via the natural", then we are left with two possible answers; either nature caused its own existence, or something supernatural (i.e., inexplicable via natural law & chance) created nature. Iconofid states: "What I’m pointing out is that it’s the current arguments of the I.D. movement which require intelligent designers who are exempt from those arguments, and therefore supernatural." I.D. doesn't require that any designer is ultimately supernatural to any degree, or by any known definition, other than the same fundamental assumption any such regression of cause must face, natural or supernatural. If you argue that something natural caused the big bang, how do you define "natural", then? As far as I know, "natural" means that something obeys law and chance as we know it to exist in this universe; do you posit an exterior "nature" that could have genereated this universe's "nature"? If so, then I can posit that my "intelligent designer" regression extends to that realm as well. And so on. Unless one posits that intelligence is necessarily "supernatural", then it succeeds as a postulate wherever natural postulates succeed, onward and ever backward and into and through whatever super-realms of "nature" one includes in their explanatory history. Postulating intelligence as a potential explanatory device is no more necessarily "supernatural" than any other postulate. Indeed, it seems the term "supernatural" cannot even be deined successfully by the challengers. Perhaps we should just get on with calling a spade a spade; the "supernatural" which mainstream, materialist science wishes not to have a foot in the door, is any inference that might be reasonably construed as a "god", even if it means collapsing into definitional and logical incoherence.William J. Murray
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
I feel like Pacino in Godfather III. They keep pulling me back in! William J. Murray, I would remind you that the subtitle of Dr. Dembski's No Free Lunch is Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence. The whole book is an argument "that CSI is a prerequisite for intelligence in the sense that the term “intelligence” is applied - i.e., “agency” or “intentionality”."David Kellogg
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
Iconofid: Certainly. It’s an I.D. claim that complex specified information cannot exist without intelligent design, and CSI is a prerequisite for intelligence. Don’t you agree? No. ID makes no such claim, that I'm aware of. ID claims that at least in some cases of complex, specified information (that which sufficiently exceeds a reasonable cause by law and chance), that ID is the better explanation - not that it couldn't have happened with out I.D. Anything is remotely possible, as long as it doesn't violate any rule of logic. I have not heard any ID theorist claim that CSI is a prerequisite for intelligence in the sense that the term "intelligence" is applied - i.e., "agency" or "intentionality". Intentionality or deliberate agency is what is meant by the use of the term "intelligent" in "intelligent design", to discern it from the agencies of law and chance. I'm not claiming that deliberate agency doesn't require CSI to operate, I've just never heard that argument. Since you have claimed that IDers make that argument, perhaps you can direct me to it?William J. Murray
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
One final note:
I gather that you have not yet read the science “standards” for the Kansas City school system.
I've read all the versions, and it's the State of Kansas, not Kansas City.David Kellogg
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
William J. Murray: "Iconofid, Your argument about eventual regression of intelligence to the supernatural is irrelevent." Not so much my argument, but the inevitable implications of I.D. arguments. The natural evolution of natural intelligence requires no such regression. Unless you can express a natural cause of the big bang, all regressions of cause eventually lead to “the supernatural” because a thing cannot cause itself to exist; nature cannot cause itself to exist. We do not know what caused the expansion of the universe and what state it was in before, and we do not know what cause and effect would mean at a point where time=0. Don't confuse the unknown with the supernatural, which may well just be a product of the human tendency to do exactly that, and to make up magic things to explain gaps in our knowledge. It is no more an appeal to the supernatural to posit intelligence as a possible candidate for the description of a phenomena than it is to posit gravity or the strong nuclear force. Just because one cannot describe where, ultimately, anyting “came from” or how, doesn’t mean we should just fold up our tent and go home. We're not actually disagreeing on this. What I'm pointing out is that it's the current arguments of the I.D. movement which require intelligent designers who are exempt from those arguments, and therefore supernatural. If the arguments go that a bacteria cannot be formed by non-intelligent natural processes, then intelligent designers can't be by the same arguments.iconofid
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
I'm swearing off UD for several weeks. (I was trying not to respond to you until your ridiculous attack on Ronald Numbers, probably the most eminent historian on anti-evolutionism alive.) Do tell me if ARN is a slanderous anti-ID website. I won't respond.David Kellogg
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
---David: "It was in 1983 that the Methodological Naturalism Society was first provided with powder and musket." I gather that you have not yet read the science "standards" for the Kansas City school system.StephenB
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
Person A: "Blacks had no history of freedom until 1965." Person B: "What about the Emancipation Proclamation, the 14th Amendment, etc.?" Person A: "I mean Blacks in the American South, under Jim Crow, and I mean a denial of voting rights through poll taxes, and literacy tests, etc. The Voting Rights act changed all that." Person B: "Well, even that statement is a bit broad. But perhaps you should revise your first statement?" Person A: "No. Blacks had no history of freedom until 1965. What's wrong with that?"David Kellogg
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
----David K: And in [471], StephenB distorts several claims by (among other things) putting quotes around things that are not quotes, converting statements from third to first person, and so forth." I may have missed a phrase or two, but I think I captured the spirit of the defamation. ----"DavidK: "Also: Slander. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." If you prefer the genus {defamation] over the species [slander] I can go along with that. On the other hand, I have another suggestion. Recently, I recommended that we form a social contract. I think this website will improve if you and I agree to simply stop communicating with each other and about each other [and each other's comments] at least until the end of the year. Are you up for that?StephenB
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
It was in 1983 that the Methodological Naturalism Society was first provided with powder and musket.David Kellogg
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
I see why the concept of equivocation seems confusing.David Kellogg
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
----David Kellogg: "Version 1: “methodological naturalism has no history prior to 1983.” Version 2: “1983 is the date that MN was enforced.” No contradiction here. That is correct. Enforced methodological naturalism has no history prior to 1983. Thank you for getting it.StephenB
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
William J. Murray: "Iconofid said: “Intelligence is full of attributes which the I.D. movement claims cannot come about without intelligent design.” Please support this assertion. Certainly. It's an I.D. claim that complex specified information cannot exist without intelligent design, and CSI is a prerequisite for intelligence. Don't you agree?iconofid
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Version 1: "methodological naturalism has no history prior to 1983." Version 2: "1983 is the date that MN was enforced." No contradiction here.David Kellogg
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
StephenB [447] "responds" to my citation of Johnson:
That is no example, that is just another slanderous charge from an another anti-ID website.
Au contraire, StephenB, that's a link to Johnson's writings on the pro-ID Access Research Network. Also: Slander. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. And in [471], StephenB distorts several claims by (among other things) putting quotes around things that are not quotes, converting statements from third to first person, and so forth. Note that I have only wondered about your philosophical and academic training after you claimed that you were an "academic" with excellent training in philosophy. I only mentioned that kairosfocus was not a physicist after someone made claims for him as a "well-respected physicist" or something like that. I only claimed that Denyse was a bad writer after having read it.David Kellogg
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Iconofid, Your argument about eventual regression of intelligence to the supernatural is irrelevent. Unless you can express a natural cause of the big bang, all regressions of cause eventually lead to "the supernatural" because a thing cannot cause itself to exist; nature cannot cause itself to exist. What does that leave? It is no more an appeal to the supernatural to posit intelligence as a possible candidate for the description of a phenomena than it is to posit gravity or the strong nuclear force. Just because one cannot describe where, ultimately, anyting "came from" or how, doesn't mean we should just fold up our tent and go home.William J. Murray
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus quotes iconofid: "You can’t claim that the natural universe cannot produce a relatively simple self-replicator or a bacterial flagellum and argue that it can produce inter-stellar travelling little green men in flying saucers, surely?" And then proceeds to make a lengthy post in which he makes it clear that he does not understand the phrase "relatively simple", that he thinks that the adjective "simple" was applied to "bacterial flagellum" in the sentence he quoted, and he doesn't understand the point of the post he was replying to. That was about the nature of I.D. arguments which would rule out the existence of complex intelligent aliens, unless those aliens themselves were products of intelligent design, implying, ultimately, the supernatural.iconofid
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Iconofid said: "Intelligence is full of attributes which the I.D. movement claims cannot come about without intelligent design." Please support this assertion.William J. Murray
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
Correction: Lives by slander and defamation.StephenB
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
David Kellogg: I am still waiting for you to justify you slandering of Philip Johnson. Each time you lose an argument, and you have clearly lost this one, your resort to character assassination. Just for the record, you do not have enough demographic information on me to check on my record. [You think you do, but you don't.] I would never trust one such as you with that kind of data. So, we will deal with your slander on my reutation at another time. So, let's look at the record. From David Kellogg: "You are not a philosopher" {Me) "You are not a real physicist" (Kairosfocus) "You are a terrible writer" (Denyse) "You don't know science from 'shinola'" (Clive) "You are a deceiver" (Philip Johnson) "You are not what you claim to be" (Me) Does everyone get the pattern here. David Kellogg lives by slander and demamation. It is his stock and trade. On the other hand, I don't recall one instance in which he ever provided a reasoned argument for anything. He simply questions, lampoons, and sneers at the arguments of others. If he couldn't feed off those arguments, he would have nothing to say at all. How sad it must be to live a life like that. On the other hand, I am holding him accountable for the slander of Philip Johnson. He made claims that he has not yet supported with evidence. I want him to produce that evidence or submit his apology.StephenB
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
William J. Murray: "Humans intelligently design things all the time. Unless that is considered a supernatural or religious occupation, then there is no meaningful argument to be presented against the validity of ID as a scientific theory." You seem to have missed my point. If the observations being presented as evidence for an I.D. theory were the remains of ancient space craft, and the workshops of aliens, your point is correct, and that should be clear in my post above, in which I said that intelligence is certainly not "necessarily supernatural" (your phrase). Indeed, if we go by observation, all known intelligence is completely natural. But the I.D. theory we're concerned with here makes arguments that would mean naturalistic intelligence is itself dependent on intelligent design. Intelligence is full of attributes which the I.D. movement claims cannot come about without intelligent design. In order to take out the obvious contradictions, the intelligence concerned has to be exempt from those arguments, and therefore cannot be natural. To put it another way, if FSCI cannot come about by unintelligent natural processes, as I.D.ers claim, then intelligence, which is chock-a-block full of FSCI by any definition, must have supernatural origins according to the current I.D. arguments.iconofid
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
PS: Mr Kellogg, reliably, when he has no serious response on the merits, lamentably predictably resorts to the ad hominem (as he has done just above to both SB and myself). I have remarked above to alert onlookers to the gaps in his case. remember, appeals to the emotions [including to hostility or contempt] or to modesty in the face of alleged authority [including institutional authority] can ground no claims that are not rooted in true facts representative of the truth, and good reasoning tied to those facts. So, to the merits, to the merits, to the merits we must go . . .kairosfocus
June 22, 2009
June
06
Jun
22
22
2009
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 19

Leave a Reply