Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Simple Argument For Intelligent Design

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

When I come across a new idea, I like to see if there are any relatively simple and obvious arguments that can be levied for or against it.  When I first came across ID, this is the simple argument I used that validated it – IMO – as a real phenomenon and a valid scientific concept.

Simply put, I know intelligent design exists – humans (at least, if not other animals) employ it.  I use it directly.   I know that intelligent design as humans employ it can (but not always) generate phenomena that are easily discernible as products of intelligent design.  Anyone who argues that a battleship’s combination of directed specificity and/or complexity is not discernible from the complexity found in the materials after an avalanche is either committing intellectual dishonesty or willful self-delusion – even if the avalanche was deliberately caused, and even if the rocks were afterward deliberately rearranged to maintain their haphazard distribution.

Some have argued that we only “recognize” human design, and that such recognition may not translate to the intelligent design of non-human intelligence.  The easy answer to that is that first, we do not always recognize the product of human design. In fact, we often design things to have a natural appearance. That we may not recognize all intelligent design is a given and simply skirts the issue of that which we can recognize.

Second, it is again either delusion or dishonesty to ignore a simple hypothetical exercise: in some cases, were we to find certain kinds of objects/phenomena [edited for clarity] on distant,  uninhabited and otherwise desolate planets, would we be able to infer that such  were most likely specifically designed by intelligent creatures of some sort for some purpose?

Again, the obvious answer to this except in cases of delusion or or dishonesty is “yes”.   Then the question becomes: without a scientifically valid means of making such a determination, how would one be made? Intuition? Common sense? Is the recognizable difference between such artifacts and those that appear to be natural not a quantifiable commodity? If not, how do we go about making the case that something we find on such a planet is not a naturally-occurring phenomena, especially in cases that are not so obvious?  There must be some scientifically-acceptable means of making such a determination – after all, resources committed to research depend upon a proper categorical determination; it would quite wasteful attempting to explain a derelict alien spacecraft in terms of natural processes – time and money better spent trying to reverse engineer the design for practical use and attempting to discern the purpose of its features.

Thus, after we make the determination that said object/phenomenon is the product of intelligent design, our investigatory heuristic is different from what it would be were we to assume the artifact is not intelligently designed.  A scientific, categorical distinction is obviously important in future research.

The idea that there is no discernible or quantifiable difference between some products of ID and what nature produces without it, or that such a determination is irrelevant, is absurd. One might argue that the method by which ID proponents make the differential evaluation between natural and product of ID (FSCI, dFSCI, Irreducible Complexity, Semiotic System) is incorrect or insufficient, but one can hardly argue such a difference doesn’t exist or is not quantifiable in some way, nor can they argue that it makes no difference to the investigation.  One can hardly argue, IMO, that those attempts to scientifically describe that difference are unreasonable, because they obviously point at least in spirit to that which obviously marks the difference.  IMO, the argument cannot be against ID in spirit, but rather only about the best way to scientifically account for the obvious difference between some cases of ID and otherwise naturally-occurring phenomena, whether or not that “best accounting” indicts some phenomena as “product of design” that many would prefer not to be the case.

The only intellectually honest position is to admit ID exists; that there is some way to describe the differential in a scientific sense to make useful categorical distinctions (as “best explanation”), and then to accept without ideological preference when that differential is used to make such a determination.  If the best explanation for biological life is that it was intelligently designed, then so be it; this should be of no more concern to any true scientist than if a determination is made that some object found on a distant planet was intelligently designed, or if a feature on Mars is best explained as the product of water erosion.  To categorically deny ID as a valid, scientific explanatory category (arrowheads?  geometric patterns found via Google Earth? battleships? crop circles? space shuttle? potential alien artifacts?) is ideological absurdity.

Comments
Gregory:
The ‘teleological argument’ (read: teleological language) of human-made things is well worth noting as an example of small-id or just ‘normal’ or ‘mainstream’ design theory/thinking.
There is no need of a teleological argument for human-made things. It's no wonder that teleological arguments are made with respect to the natural world and not human constructed artifacts.
But that’s simply not in the scope of natural scientistic revolution-seeking Big-ID theory as it is currently framed to focus on non-naturalistic origins of life, biological information and human origins.
You left out the origin of the universe and the fine-tuned constants, which are considered fine tuned just because of their relationship to the possibility of life. Talk about non-naturalistic origins!Mung
February 13, 2013
February
02
Feb
13
13
2013
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
I think we all sometimes forget that according to his own word Gregory is decades ahead of the rest of us. A little humility on our part couldn't hurt.Mung
February 13, 2013
February
02
Feb
13
13
2013
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Peter and Stephen: I'm reluctantly forced to agree. I don't think Gregory can be rational when it comes to ID. He has a bee in his bonnet about it, and it's not the normal bee that the atheists and TEs have in their bonnet. Unlike Ken Miller, Eugenie Scott, Larry Moran, Jeffrey Shallit, P. Z. Myers, Richard Dawkins, Francisco Ayala, Dennis Venema, Darrel Falk, Francis Collins, etc., Gregory couldn't care less, it seems, about the rightness or wrongness of arguments over the flagellum, probability theory, information theory, or the like. He's just deeply offended by the whole ID concept. But why? It seems to have *something* to do with the summer course he took at the Discovery Institute several years ago. He has referred to that course many times here, and always in a negative tone. But, as he refuses to describe his experience there -- beyond alluding to several occasions on which he argued with a number of DI leading personnel (whether he told them as bluntly as he's told us here how much smarter he was than they were, I don't know) -- I can't tell what it was that irked him. I could understand his hostility if, at midnight on the final evening of the course, they took him, along with all the other students, to a secret room underground and made him sign, on a cross-shaped altar, the Wedge Document in his own blood, and swear to fight to the death for the establishment of a creationist theocracy. But there's no reason to think anything like that happened. It's too bad, because Gregory has the kind of mind which, coupled with a more moderate temperament and a less combative personality, could do really creative and constructive work. He has broad interests and he desires to achieve a synthesis that goes beyond narrow specialization. He is also not afraid to rock the academic boat, holding unpopular opinions. All of these are traits I admire, and traits that ID supporters would like to see found in greater quantity among modern biologists, biochemists, philosophers, etc. Were they combined with a truly open mind about ID, and a careful study of ID theoretical writings, they might lead Gregory on to great things. In the meantime, my concrete suggestion is that we boycott all of Gregory's posts in which he discusses "Big-ID" and "small-id," by simply refusing to reply to them, even for the purpose of refuting them. That way, Gregory will have only two choices: (a) write about something else; (b) give up posting here out of sheer boredom, from lack of replies. If he writes about something else, he may say something interesting and useful that we can learn from; and if he gives up posting here, the irritation of his continual quarrels over capital letters and labels will be ended. Thus, it's a win-win strategy. Thanks to all for their kind words of support for me, during the time that I've been subjected to a barrage of charges against my motives and character unlike anything I've ever encountered on the internet. From the sheer force of the repetitions, I was almost starting to believe that I was a coward, a hypocrite, a deceptive rhetorician, a political manipulator, an incompetent academic, and a willing tool of American creationists. The faith that other have shown in me has been very strengthening. Best wishes to all.Timaeus
February 13, 2013
February
02
Feb
13
13
2013
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT
Timaeus, I am giving up on Gregory. His latest rant is just too personal and too vicious. Everyone knows that a true professional welcomes scrutiny and does not run away from questions. It seems that Gregory just doesn't grasp basic design principles well enough to carry on an in-depth discussion with an informed ID proponent, especially someone like yourself, whose in depth knowledge of the key issues surpasses his by several orders of magnitude. Among other things, he knows absolutely nothing about natural theology, a deficiency that is always bleeding through his uniformed rants about Big ID and small id. He reminds me of the rookie who walks into a pool hall and challenges the house champion. After losing every game and a few hundred dollars, he informs onlookers that he recently won the world nine-ball championship--as if they didn’t know that pool skills are transferable—as if they didn’t know that a world champion doesn’t miscue or scratch on every other shot. There are some things that you just can’t fake. The sad thing about this whole episode is that he blew a golden opportunity to grow professionally. Why he didn’t take advantage of it is a mystery.StephenB
February 13, 2013
February
02
Feb
13
13
2013
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT
Timaeus Again I appluad your patience on this matter. You have had to put up with attacks from Gregory, sometimes on a very personal level, and yet I find you trying to engage him with total civility, with the aim of hopefully making some progress. I do however believe, as I'm sure you must too, that you are wasting your time with him. A number of posts back I eventually had to try and at least make some sense of it too, and I engaged him as best I could, but it was no use at all. His argument is just plain silly, and perhaps it's time to simply ignore this rubbish and let's all move on. Gregory has a blog with a post on this very subject, one in which you are mentioned Timaeus, but with only '1 like' and 'no comments' Gregory still hasn't got the message lol. Gregory, it's time to grow up and move on.PeterJ
February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT
Gregory, How would you respond to my comments @8 (rover on mars) and @17 (threads becoming woven cloth), which KN agreed at @18 would be understood as purposely transformed. [Will the response be along the lines of WJM @3?] thank youes58
February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT
I call upon the readers here to witness that in #437 above, I asked Gregory, without rancor, to clarify some statements made in his previous post (#430), and that he has responded, in #439, with belligerence. For a moment, in the semi-cooperative tone and contents of his post #430, I saw a tiny window of opportunity -- a hint that Gregory might be willing discuss the question of design in nature without his usual culture-war posturing, if I asked politely enough. But the window closed abruptly, and the old Gregory is back. It is evident that Gregory prefers to talk about the labels of things rather than the realities that the labels only crudely signify. The rest of us here want to talk about the realities rather than the labels. So we are at an impasse. There is no point in even trying to defend myself from the rantings and ravings in #439. Everyone here will recognize the complete misfit between the charges levelled at me and my actual behavior. I would, however, offer one factual correction: the notion of "design detection" -- if not the exact phrase -- long predates the Discovery Institute. Paley's book -- another of the books which Gregory has apparently not read, and apparently has no intention of reading -- is about "design detection," and Paley died over 200 years ago. And arguments for design in nature of course go back to ancient times. One more comment, on this passage: "What I mean by small-id, as in non-Big-ID theory, is that the identity of the designer does not need to be bracketed out. The identity of the designer is embraced." [And Gregory goes on to indicate that it is the Abrahamic God specifically that is embraced.] If this is what Gregory means by small-id, it is not at all what I would mean by small-id, if I thought it worth using the term. What I would mean by small-id would be the attempt, over the ages, to discern design in nature using human reason. (And what I would mean by Big-ID, if I used the distinction, would be the activities of the Discovery Institute and allied bodies and people from about 1994 to the present.) And the attempt to discern design in nature does not require embracing any particular designer. Thus, *if I were to employ* what I consider to be a non-helpful distinction, I would say that Big-ID is a subset of small-id, and that small-id therefore includes Behe, Dembski, Meyer, etc., and also people like Paley, Aquinas, ancient Greek philosophers, and others. Further, *a belief in design that rests on revelation, I would not call ID or id at all*, because such an affirmation of design would ultimately be mere assent to authority rather than a result of human reasoning activity. For me, the essence of both ID and id (were I to make the distinction) rests in the assumption that the human mind can recognize design when it sees it, even if the designer is unknown. If someone is simply going to rest content with accepting the Bible's word for it that nature is designed, such a person is not, to me, an ID or id thinker at all. I conclude, from the fragments of Gregory's heated and unclear reply that make some sort of sense, that he believes that human reason cannot establish the fact of design in nature, by any means whatsoever. And I gather that for him this inability is not merely temporary, i.e., not merely because the design arguments we have at present aren't good enough; I gather that he thinks design arguments regarding nature are wrong-headed from the start. This means that he rejects the very possibility of ID or id (using my definitions of those terms) from the outset, and that we are all wasting our breath trying to convince him by particular ID arguments. He has made up his mind, and does not want to be confused by the facts -- the facts that nature presents to us daily. Gregory's sheer "revelationism" puts him in the anti-natural-theology camp of Barth and others. It thus puts him against the historical mainstream of Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and Reformed theology, and lines him up with the neo-Reformed (Barthians), and the various Pietists, Lutherans (though not all Lutherans), liberal Wesleyans, etc. who litter the American religious landscape. Odd company, for a man who indicates so much hatred for American Protestant Christianity and claims so much affinity with the Orthodox East.Timaeus
February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
The 'teleological argument' (read: teleological language) of human-made things is well worth noting as an example of small-id or just 'normal' or 'mainstream' design theory/thinking. But that's simply not in the scope of natural scientistic revolution-seeking Big-ID theory as it is currently framed to focus on non-naturalistic origins of life, biological information and human origins.Gregory
February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
'I suppose you think design in nature is so blazingly obvious that it doesn’t need “detecting.”'
Lack of curiosity has wed credulity and produced offspring that care neither about quantifying the apparent, nor questioning the inexplicable.Chance Ratcliff
February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
The teleological argument from Fine-Tuning clearly and unequivocally falls within Gregory's definition of "small-id" intelligent design. And yet the values of the fine-tuning constants and their intricate interrelationships and co-dependencies had to be "detected" in order for them to be employed in the Fine-Tuning argument. Design Detection.Mung
February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
Gregory:
The phrase ‘design detection’ comes from the modern IDM (1980s – ?).
So?
The language of ‘detecting design in nature’ is a peculiar feature of Big-ID theory, not small-id.
More silly word games. I suppose you think design in nature is so blazingly obvious that it doesn't need "detecting."Mung
February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
If you are not as highly, academically accredited as Greg, Timaeus, you are simply not grand enough to insist on his answering particular questions you pose. It is the height of presumption. Indeed, compared to Greg, you are evidently a relative interloper on this forum. Let's have a little more humility when addressing the Maister, shall we? Greg is TIRED, TIRED, TIRED of your 'must knows!!! Behave yourself, there's a good chap. He reminds one of that ditty about the Cabots, doesn't he?Axel
February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
The language of 'detecting design in nature' is a peculiar feature of Big-ID theory, not small-id. The phrase ‘design detection’ comes from the modern IDM (1980s - ?). Others don’t use it and Timaeus shouldn’t be trying to force it upon them/us. If Timaeus can find that particular language of ‘detecting design in nature’ by *any* non-Big-IDist, he might have a case. I highly doubt he will find or even search for such evidence. <Does Timaeus have evidence to show that non-IDM folks speak of 'design detection in nature'? Otherwise enter Bejan, who has still not been faced here at UD. “with the question of the identity of the designer — God or someone else — bracketed out.” - Timaeus That’s the big key. What I mean by small-id, as in non-Big-ID theory, is that the identity of the designer does not need to be bracketed out. The identity of the designer is embraced. 1) Abrahamic believers accept that God, Allah or Yahweh is the ‘Designer/Creator/Maker’ re: origins of life, biological origins or human origins - in whatever their language; 2) Real, normal, credible ‘design theorists’ or 'design thinkers', i.e. those who don’t need to call their theory small-id ‘intelligent design,’ bracket-in the designer(s), that is, they study human designs, human designers and processes human beings are involved in designing. Timaeus’ personal [Big-]ID theory fails on both of these levels. As said above, he avoids humanity in the most dehumanising ways possible. Likewise, he won't admit that a triadic conversation between science, philosophy and theology/worldview is the appropriate meaning for the concept duo 'Intelligent Design,' because that would mean it fails to be 'natural science-only.' “I believe that even if we had no assurance *from revelation* that there is design in nature, we could *infer* design in nature from the facts of nature.” - Timaeus What do you mean by ‘assurance?’ Is that objective natural scientific proof, reflexive natural theology or just an intuitive subjective personal inference, or something else? Please supply content to this supposed ‘assurance,’ since it is flying in the face of *from revelation* in your statement. The anti-theology or non-theology of Big-ID theory (not even yours, but the IDM's) seems to tie your hands from giving a clear answer. Timaeus’ questions 1) and 2) in #437 are simply bunk that I won’t dignify to address; dripping with sickly Big-ID language – “arose due to a blind process” - this is not worth answering. I've already long-ago cracked this out-dated dichotomy by idenitfying purposeful processes = human-made things. Don't go hiding in the distant past of 'historical sciences,' IDologists, when we can study 'designing processes' by actual and identifiable small-d 'designers' today. “I am *not* asking you to call the inference “scientific.” – Timaeus That, in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen is 'Timaeusean'-ID. “I am *not* asking you to call the inference “scientific.” – Timaeus Perhaps I will go out on that. Time is short. “I am *not* asking you to call the inference “scientific.” – Timaeus The IDM, home of Big-ID theory *is* asking us "to call the inference 'scientific.' I've met vegetables more courageous than 'Timaeus,' who simply won't stand all the way up for this natural scientificity feature of Big-ID theory. Timaeus, to me, is not ‘reliable.’ So what does a ‘reliable inference’ mean, if not simply to avoid the question of Big-ID's supposed natural scientificity? “I am asking you only if we could infer such if we had no revelation” - Timaeus But do we not, in your heart of hearts, have any revelation, dear, frightened, old-school Timaeus? Once you admit that, the tables turn. You might even be able to prove you're a human again. It’s like the difference between ‘neutral’ religious studies and confessional theology. One of them must needs take a stand on what it really believes, while the other can simply flip-flop, in the same manner that you have displayed here at UD re: small-id and Big-ID. The time is nigh: I've had enough of your demanding ‘must knows’ and 'once I haves,' masked Timaeus. Your astonishingly proud sense of entitlement in a democratic on-line forum where answers are normally volunteered rather than forced by threat is running far ahead of what your intellect or experience can cash.Gregory
February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
Gregory:
No, that’s a utopian fantasy. Anyone who’s studied even a basic level of HPSS knows this quite well.
Then why are you appealing to the pure 'objectivity' of science in your argument against ID? What is "purely objective 'natural science'"?
Once you or I or anyone else personally admits there is a drawer/Drawer of nature/Nature, then they’ve stepped outside of purely objective ‘natural science’ and injected their reflexive personhood into their answer.
Mung
February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
I'm surprised to see that Gregory has even made an effort toward answering my question. His answer is still cluttered up with material which is confusing, but I give him credit for making a small effort in the direction of a substantive conversation about design. Gregory continues to confuse things with his odd applications of his ID/id distinction. Look at this passage: Gregory: ' You wrote: “I was an ‘id’ supporter long before I had even heard of ‘ID’.” Gregory: ' Of course, that means you believed in God before you’d heard of Big-ID (scientistic) theory or the (political) IDM. The same is true with me. ' In the words attributed to me (which I don't recall writing, but I might well have said something like that, in order to play along with Gregory's language of ID/id), I would not have meant by "id" that I "believed in God." I would have meant by "id" the detection of design in nature, period, with the question of the identity of the designer -- God or someone else -- bracketed out. But never mind what I would have meant, if I wrote the words that Gregory quoted. I'll restate what I mean now, so that there can be no doubt about my position: I believe that even if we had no assurance *from revelation* that there is design in nature, we could *infer* design in nature from the facts of nature. Now Gregory appears not to believe this, though his answer is so cluttered up with ID/id language and other material that I am not sure, so I am qoing to have to ask him for clarification. 1. Gregory, do you believe that the wonders of the cardiovascular system arose due to a blind process of random mutations, horizontal gene transfers, natural selection, etc., without any guidance, steering, front-loading, planning, etc. by any intelligent agent of any kind? Or do you believe that the cardiovascular system exists because it was planned for, and that causes sufficient to generate it (whether natural, supernatural, or a combination) were made available to realize that plan? You don't need to speak of ID or id to answer this question. It's in plain English and you know what you believe, so just state what you believe. 2. Next question. Gregory, do you believe that if we had no religious revelation, i.e., if God had not spoken through the Bible, the Church, etc., we could *infer* the existence of a designer of the cardiovascular system from the facts of nature? I am *not* asking you to call the inference "scientific." I am asking you if we could make a *reliable* inference, however that inference might be classed (scientific, philosophical, logical, whatever). Note also that I am *not* asking you if we could infer such things if there were no God. I am asking you only if we could infer such if we had no revelation, i.e., no direct, supernaturally revealed knowledge of God, through holy books, churches, traditions, revelatory dreams, etc. In other words, suppose for the sake of argument that God exists, but that He has never directly informed human beings of his existence. Could we infer the design of the cardiovascular system in such a case, from the internal evidence presented by the system itself and its connections with other parts of nature? Again, you do not need to discuss ID versus id to answer this question. The question is in plain English, and you know what you believe, and can state what you believe. As for the rest of your answer, it is either is obviously true and therefore not something I would disagree with (*of course* we can detect design when humans are the designers -- no ID supporter has ever questioned that), or else it is just personal flak which has no intellectual substance, so I will ignore it. So, Gregory, even though you have, in your mind, answered the questions, would you please answer them in a more precise way, in accord with my formulation above? I must know *exactly* what you think, and if you use my formulation of the question above, and answer in accord with it, I *will* know exactly what you think. And if you wish a real intellectual discussion, you should be concerned that I know exactly what you think. My two questions should be answerable in two concise sentences of no more than about ten to twenty words each. Once I have your answers, I will respond in an appropriate way.Timaeus
February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
"Isn’t that the way science works?" No, that's a utopian fantasy. Anyone who's studied even a basic level of HPSS knows this quite well.Gregory
February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
This, coming from the man who simply refuses to engage ID arguments.
There's a presumption in that statement that some might query. ;)Alan Fox
February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
That does nothing to add to the conversation. Such gutter-level comments show why you people are losing and your numbers in decline.
This, coming from the man who simply refuses to engage ID arguments.Upright BiPed
February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
That’s a theological/worldview presupposition that cannot be ‘natural scientifically’ proven.
As if natural science is about proofs.
‘Just the facts,’ no subjectivity
Isn't that the way science works?Mung
February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
That does nothing to add to the conversation. Such gutter-level comments show why you people are losing and your numbers in decline.Gregory
February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Gregory, you have a case of rather bitter incontinence. Are you sure there is nothing you can do about it?Upright BiPed
February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
"Me, me, me, we!" - Timaeus' baritone UD song The distinction between Big-ID and small-id is a valid, important and relevant one, even in you've chosen to waffle on it and encouraged others to follow you. Anyone who 'follows the evidence where it leads' can see this is your tactic. You wrote: "I was an 'id' supporter long before I had even heard of 'ID'." Of course, that means you believed in God before you'd heard of Big-ID (scientistic) theory or the (political) IDM. The same is true with me. "The relevant question is: can design be inferred from the facts of nature, without any aid from revelation?" - Timaeus Do you mean 'Design' or 'design?' Big-D 'Design' can be 'inferred' only 'with aid from revelation.' As far as I understand it, that is the orthodox view. Otoh, small-id 'design' doesn't require revelation since human beings 'design' quite often and the who, when, where and how of their/our small-d 'designing processes' can be studied in real time or with the aid of testimonies, documents, and other artefacts. Surely you're not contesting this rather basic view, Timaeus? Previously at UD, Timaeus outright refused to discuss 'designing processes' saying he didn't even know what it meant. That's the stuff of avoiders and double-talkers. That's the stuff of the UD provocateur who goes by the pseudonym 'Timaeus.' "Do you believe that design would be inferable from nature, even if none of the “Abrahamic” religions had ever come into existence, and even if we had no comparable revelation from any other source?" - Timaeus Again, Big-D 'Design' no, it would not be 'inferable' "if none of the 'Abrahamic' religions had ever come into existence." We would not even be here on this blog discussing the question if your hypothetical vacuum scenario were the case. That's the trouble with Big-ID's 'thought experiements'; they stray too far from reality to have practical use. I design, you design, we design; that has nothing to do with the Origins of Life (unless you admit a theological linkage like using univocal predication via the imago Dei)! Why do you run away from revelation wrt your personal 'Intelligent Design' theory, Timaeus? You know as well as I do that you actually consider 'ID' as a science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation, not altogether differently than I do. The meaning of 'ID' for you is not merely a 'natural-science-only' concept duo, due to its historical linkages with religious thought, i.e. the so-called 'design argument' (which for purpose of clarity here, I would call a 'Design argument'). You've accused me relentlessly of avoiding your questions, yet I've answered them so many times that its obviously been a waste. No, neither you nor I nor anyone here can "reliably infer the [small-d] 'design' of nature" using natural science. Adrian Bejan simply assumes it because he believes nature is 'drawn,' without a 'drawer.' Once you or I or anyone else personally admits there is a drawer/Drawer of nature/Nature, then they've stepped outside of purely objective 'natural science' and injected their reflexive personhood into their answer. That's why the topic is properly understood as not just 'science-only,' but as a triadic conversation between major spheres, none of which completely dominates or outshines the others. But you, Timaeus, appear to be amongst the least reflexive persons involved in these discussions, along with Mike Gene (though he has made improvements, still hiding behind his on-line mask). You absolutely avoid humanity in the most dehumanising ways possible. 'Just the facts,' no subjectivity - the character 'Timaeus' at UD is simply a non-person because of this! Of course, YES, we can see, research, discover, 'detect,' find, explore, analyse, and even simply 'infer' design/creation by human beings. But not scientifically 'in NATURE,' Timaeus. That's a theological/worldview presupposition that cannot be 'natural scientifically' proven. When W.J. Murray wrote: "I know intelligent design exists – humans (at least, if not other animals) employ it. I use it directly." That has *nothing* to do with Big-ID theory qua natural scientific theory, and you know that - you stubborn man! - even if you won't admit it here publically.Gregory
February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
I thought this thread had died after January 29th! The only way to get Gregory to stop talking about Big-ID and small-id is for everyone here to stop replying to any posts in which he employs the distinction. As long as we reply -- even to criticize the distinction, or explain to him why it's irrelevant -- he will keep writing more of the same repetitive material. The *relevant* question is not whether ID theory is "Big" or "small." The relevant question is: can design be inferred from the facts of nature, without any aid from revelation? And it doesn't matter whether the inference is scientific or philosophical. This is the question which Gregory has never answered. So Gregory: Do you believe that design would be inferable from nature, even if none of the "Abrahamic" religions had ever come into existence, and even if we had no comparable revelation from any other source? And please note, the question is not whether the inference would be *scientific* in some special sense that "scientific" has for you; the question is whether the inference would be *reliable*. So, Gregory, can we reliably infer the design of (some or all of) nature from the facts of nature? Make no reference to ID, id, Discovery, summer schools, culture wars, fundamentalism, creationism, social science, human extension, etc. in your answer. Just tell us whether or not we can infer design. And explain why or why not.Timaeus
February 12, 2013
February
02
Feb
12
12
2013
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
Onlookers: In absence of actual ability to answer on the merits, Gregory is resorting to the Alinsky nihilistic tactics:
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." . . . . 13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. [NB: Notice the evil counsel to find a way to attack the man, not the issue. The easiest way to do that, is to use the trifecta stratagem: distract, distort, demonise.] In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...' "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other."
This tells us a lot about both his failure on the merits, and, unfortunately, about his failing a character test. Obviously, he has nothing cogent to say on the merits but hopes to annoy or insult to get a reaction that can be played up rhetorically. Let us take due note. KFkairosfocus
February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
F/N 47: Though surely KF's 3-d model is cutting edge... There's a rather obscure applied physics theory out there about how M-D space models relate through surface-level choices by human beings based on isosceles triangles and trapezoids that validates why the Uzbekistani government 'intelligently designed' its educational system using manure instead of electricity. KF is on the inside track and will share this Big-ID theory here soon. A 'scientific' article about it is almost ready to be published in the journal Nature, which KF tells us is forthcoming in either 2013 or 2014 or perhaps in 2026. The key thing is that the theory really is 'revolutionary'! ;) But so what, it's 'fun' for most people!Gregory
February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
F/N 3: Observe, here, how the same framework is used to create 3-d digital models through creating surface facets based on triangles . . . as in, a triplet of points stipulates a three-sided planar surface that can be assigned values that affect how light interacts with it. Put a few millions together in a specific, controlled way and we have a 3-d model. KFkairosfocus
February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
F/N 2: Observe very carefully in this context, Wicken's use of the term "wiring diagram," which is a prototypical nodes and arcs structure. KFkairosfocus
February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
F/N: To see what G is trying to dismiss by personalities, cf, here on, reading down to Fig I.2 on through Fig I.3 on. KFkairosfocus
February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
Gregory: You have yet again -- it is now predictable -- resorted to snide personalities in an attempt to evade addressing matters on the merits. This, sadly, is beginning to go to character now. As for quantifying info in human made things, have you observed AutoCAD or a similar program? They code the functionally specific organisation as designed by engineers. They do so by taking the nodes and arcs framework and encoding this in structured strings. FYI, computer memories are just that, structured strings. And the resultant files are measured in bits or clusters thereof known as bytes [an eight bit cluster that stores about one ASCII character's worth of info]. KFkairosfocus
February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
W.J. Murray #410 wrote: "I wonder if there is a “Big R” theory of relativity, and a “little r” theory that is only applicable to humans? Maybe a Big Q and Little Q quantum theory? Big T and little T thermodynamics?" Note to self: if one wants to defend a theory that involves the concept of 'intelligence/Intelligence' then one better be ready to explain the source/Source of that so-named 'intelligence/Intelligence.' Otherwise they would have no 'theory' and no explanatory power for their 'simple argument.' You're an intelligent guy, William, to whatever degree, as am I. That is not to be doubted and I respect that; we already accept this as a 'social contract' in conversing/chatting on the internet. I don't think you are a robot and you don't think I am either. We are both people (cf. human beings) and that matters. See here for more. Correction: People would see no need to speak of ‘small-id’ if it weren’t for the Big-ID movement which they oppose, for a variety of reasons. p.s. PeterJ, if you're going to take the liberty to quote my words, at least have the communicative courtesy to use quotations marks or the 'blockquote' feature. Otherwise you invite confusion, as obviously you are having a coherency difficulty with your remarks. Thanks. p.p.s. an 'applied physicist' feigning expertise for quantifying information in 'human-made things.' That would make a good Saturday Night Live skit!Gregory
February 10, 2013
February
02
Feb
10
10
2013
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
1 2 3 16

Leave a Reply