“A Seat at the Table”

_{Eric Hedin

October 10, 2022

Intelligent Design}

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

A recent comment to one of the posts on Uncommon Descent states that nothing like an atheistic censorship committee exists to unfairly block out scientific arguments for ID. The comment maintains that ID simply needs to produce a sufficiently compelling argument in order to earn “a seat at the table.”

Let’s run with this a little. Imagine a school cafeteria, with one of those big, long tables where all the popular kids sit for lunch. If you didn’t belong to that crowd, you probably can immediately feel the unspoken barriers that make your attempt to sit at the table most unwelcome.

Now, in the scientific community, the rules are not unspoken. As stated in my book, Canceled Science: What Some Atheists Don’t Want You to See, (p. 51) the rules are spelled out in bullet-point format. The first one states: “Modern science seeks explanation for observed phenomena that rely solely on natural causes.” As one who has made a career as a physicist for several decades, I would of course concur with this, in general. But what if the observed phenomenon is not consistent with natural causes?

Back to the table…

Would the popular kids (mainstream scientific academies) be open to even considering a conclusion that doesn’t “rely solely on natural causes”? These days, the evidence says, “No.”

Comments

Jerry: there would be a forensic trail through the genomes of history to support any hypothesis How are we supposed to get the 'genomes of history'? And a similar argument is made but based on a combination of fossils, morphology, geographic distributions and what genomes we do have access to. Let's get back to something else you asserted: do you think ID accepts miracles?JVL_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

Seversky: Would this mean God is Maradona? Wasn't that the hand of God?JVL_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

Cosmology tells us the universe is expanding and the James Webb telescope images show us how things were in the early universe
Great, ID agrees 100%, good stuff.
Biology explains how complex organisms evolved from the earliest life forms
No, it doesn’t. If it did, there would be a forensic trail through the genomes of history to support any hypothesis. The line would stretch for miles with people eager to share the evidence. There is no evidence that supports any hypothesis thus no line of people anywhere. Aside: Maradona is their best hope. Not any research. The replies are all inane, all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn’t do it. What better proof could one ask for?jerry_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Seversky at 23, No.relatd_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Would this mean God is Maradona?Seversky_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox: Analysis of the replay will clearly demonstrate the momentary departure from the laws of physics. Unless the divine intervention was to 'help' a certain player turn their foot at just the right angle. This is the problem: no one has a hypothesis!! "God intervenes, we know God intervenes!" "How? When?" "We KNOW God intervenes!!" Faith is good, faith is supportive and uplifting and really helps some people deal with their trials and tribulations. But it's not science. It's faith.JVL_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Regarding the divine foot... If there were a divine intervention it would be measurable and demonstrable. Say God intervenes in a soccer match. His divine foot picks up the cross ball and fires it into the net. Analysis of the replay will clearly demonstrate the momentary departure from the laws of physics. Everyone has a smart phone these days. Can only be a matter of time...Alan Fox_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

As of the present there is no evidence for how the universe, our solar system, life or complex life came into existence. Until such evidence is forthcoming, hypothesis for one time events by an immense intelligence is a viable option.
Sure there is no theory of everything but science has partial explanations. Cosmology tells us the universe is expanding and the James Webb telescope images show us how things were in the early univers. Biology explains how complex organisms evolved from the earliest life forms. Knowledge is not fixed: it evolves.Alan Fox_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Sir Giles/8 touché ;-)chuckdarwin_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Support for such is much different than support for of a process that is ongoing or was ongoing at one time. So far no one has demonstrated a natural ongoing process that can account for things like OOL or the origin of complex life systems. So the evidence for these two phenomena are missing.
Nobody on Earth can explain how life got started here. There are many ideas and many hypotheses but, as yet, no way to test them. But efforts to find evidence continue, most encouragingly, elsewhere than Earth.Alan Fox_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

JVL points out in another thread that Jerry is talking about ID with reference to hypothesis testing. Let's see what he says.
ID is based on a one time event or a limited number of individual one time events.
These would be what? Do they involve deviations from the second law? Such events would eminently testable.
There is no possible way of testing how or when such events happened or by whom.
Why not? If an event can be identified as such, it can be studied.
Proof that they happened are supported by different forms of evidence.
And... What different forms of evidence?Alan Fox_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

Jerry at 13, You must have missed the memo sent to the pro-Evolution troops stationed here: 'Comrades, 'You must repeat evolution good always. Ignore all criticism.'relatd_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

CD at 4, Quit yer whinin'.relatd_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Jerry: ID is based on a one time event or a limited number of individual one time events. There is no possible way of testing how or when such events happened. So, unlike physics or chemistry, ID is not subject to the normal hypothesis testing science? Doesn't that mean that ID accepts miracles? That also cannot be tested or subject to experimentation. No credible natural explanation. If an intelligence can create the fine tuning, that intelligence or even a lesser intelligence could certainly create life and complex life. This intelligence could use on going processes guided by initial conditions or individual events. Just because (you think) there is no plausible unguided explanation that doesn't give you guided. It just means we haven't figured out all the rules and processes. ID has to stand on it's own base and not be a default when some other paradigm falls short. Surely that's clear. As of the presence there is no evidence for how the universe, our solar system, life or complex life came into existence. Until such evidence is forthcoming, hypothesis for one time events by an immense intelligence is a viable option. IF such an intelligence exists. You claim the evidence for such a being is the fine tuning but if there is no such being then your fine-tuning inference is incorrect. Which is why you need to provide some kind of testable hypothesis instead or making circular arguments. Instead we get false arguments that OOL and the origin of complex life happened by natural processes without any proof. Well, I don't think you'll find any false arguments in the academic publications. What some people say outside of that doesn't really count does it?JVL_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

ID is based on a one time event or a limited number of individual one time events. There is no possible way of testing how or when such events happened or by whom. Proof that they happened are supported by different forms of evidence. Support for such is much different than support for of a process that is ongoing or was ongoing at one time. So far no one has demonstrated a natural ongoing process that can account for things like OOL or the origin of complex life systems. So the evidence for these two phenomena are missing. Proof of fine tuning is overwhelming. How did this happen? No credible natural explanation. If an intelligence can create the fine tuning, that intelligence or even a lesser intelligence could certainly create life and complex life. This intelligence could use on going processes guided by initial conditions or individual events. As of the present there is no evidence for how the universe, our solar system, life or complex life came into existence. Until such evidence is forthcoming, hypothesis for one time events by an immense intelligence is a viable option. Instead we get false arguments that OOL and the origin of complex life happened by natural processes without any proof. Why the necessity for all the fake arguments? Why the obfuscation? We all know the answers. I continue to say the most interesting question is why some have to be so phony about these questions? Why not just admit it?jerry_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Relatd: Do you have a hypothesis that can be tested with a repeatable, observer independent test with clear measures of success?JVL_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

https://www.discovery.org/a/sixfold-evidence-for-intelligent-design/relatd_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: (quoting) for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door Well, how would you propose testing a divine foot in a laboratory setting? What hypothesis would you proffer? And how would you check that hypothesis via experimentation? the cell has in it complex coded algorithms Could you give an example of one of the cells' complex coded algorithms?JVL_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

AF, long since discussed, remember this includes ool and cosmology too. But then you tried to deny that the cell has in it complex coded algorithms. I have declared knowledge independence. We are now using the adapted JoHari window to discuss what happens when ideologues break the knowledge commons. KFkairosfocus_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

KF: PS, there are now dozens of ID supportive articles in the literature.
Thereby debunking the claim made in the OP.Sir Giles_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

PS, there are now dozens of ID supportive articles in the literature.
In that case, why not take the best example and base an OP on it. Should be a revelation for us all.Alan Fox_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

PS, there are now dozens of ID supportive articles in the literature.kairosfocus_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

The Evolutionary Materialist scientism censorship never stops . . .
[Lewontin:] . . . to put a correct [--> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people's heads
[==> as in, "we" the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . where of course "view" is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]
we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [--> "explanations of the world" is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised "demon[ic]" "supernatural" being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
kairosfocus_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

The ID whining never stops……chuckdarwin_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

Would the popular kids (mainstream scientific academies) be open to even considering a conclusion that doesn’t “rely solely on natural causes”? These days, the evidence says, “No.” I disagree. Consider the case of things like ESP, dowsing, etc. Many scientists have had a go at checking to see first if there is something there. (I had a professor at university who tested the notion that a razor blade will stay sharp if stored inside a pyramid. We all thought he was bonkers but no one kicked him out of the department.). The way it usually works is someone makes a claim or a hypothesis and then a repeatable, observer independent test with clear statements about 'success' is devised and run. The idea being that even if you don't know the cause or source of some phenomena you can confidently say: if you run this test you will see this or that. You will have started getting at some cause and effect effect. So, my questions for you are: What are you claiming? And How do we test that claim?JVL_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT}

Of course it exists. Not just in academia, but science magazines as well. If Darwinists were only interested in following evidence; which is what science is really about, Darwin and evolution would have been abandoned long ago due to lack of evidence. For a hypothesis to become a theory, something must be witnessed and replicated. That is how science works. When a hypothesis, like evolution, is not witnessed by anyone, including the lack of a single positive mutation, the hypothesis is wrong. What explains what evolution cannot? Intelligent design. Intelligent design explain why the laws of physics exist, as well as getting life from no life, and everything that has ever lived. It explains the complexity of the cell, and order that exists in the universe. Without design, nothing can exist due to chaos creating an impossible place for any living thing to exist. Has intelligent design been witnessed? Yes, by every scientist who sees order in their fields. Intelligent design requires a highly intelligent being that lives outside the physical universe. The laws of physics limit anything in the physical universe, including man. Since all matter must follow the laws of physics, things like creating something from nothing, creating energy, and getting life from no life are impossible. Outside the physical universe, nothing is impossible. A being outside the physical universe can create the laws of physics, create something from nothing, and get life from no life. Does any other hypothesis explain the evidence? No.BobRyan_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT}

"But what if the observed phenomenon is not consistent with natural causes?" Then we need to change our understanding of what counts as a natural cause. Your argument seems to assume that we have a fixed definition for "natural cause". But we don't. What it means is what happens in nature. And new discoveries can change our understanding of that.Neil Rickert_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply