A Simple Argument For Intelligent Design

PJ: Good to hear your input (and pls see PS). The basic problem with the taxonomy put forward by G is that it is unfortunately loaded to the point of being tendentious. In part that reflects a largely successful but manifestly false accusation -- Barbara Forrest's "ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo" -- that has been embedded in conventional wisdom, in the teeth of facts and duties of care to the contrary. So, the options presented are creationism version A and version B, A being open and B being disguised. What is not being allowed is what ID is actually about as a scientific enterprise: asking, investigating on empirical and linked analytical grounds and answering the question as to whether, from evident features or aspects of an object etc, we may properly infer causal source in the context of chance, mechanical necessity and design as known causal factors. I have come tot he view that the problem is that ID, if left to its own devices, would succeed quite obviously, and that this would raise serious onward questions on the meaning of a world of life full of signs of design from the living cell on up, and a cosmos that is full of further signs that it was set up to host such life through a process of evidently highly purposeful, skillful and powerful fine tuning. The latter case has not been much in the headlines, but in the end it is more decisive in terms of consequences: even through multiverse speculations, we are left facing a necessary being to explain a contingent world, one that has the power to create at least one and up to a quasi-infinite number of cosmi including our own, with the intelligence and skill to pull off one that is as fine tuned for life as ours is, and more. That is why lifelong agnostic and Nobel equivalent prize holding astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle spoke of monkeying with physics, even when just initial stages of the evidence were apparent thirty years ago. Anyone raised in a culture where the Judaeo-Christian tradition has been familiar will instantly hear echoing in his mind, "the heavens declare . . . the firmament shows . . . " Strictly verboten!!!! Tut, tut! THAT shadow shall not be allowed to be on our doorstep! Then, when we turn to the world of life, what Crick and Watson have put on the table for sixty years now, since 1953 on, is digitally CODED, algorithms expressed in string data structures and with a complex chicken and egg cluster of associated executing machinery, all executed using carbon chemistry molecular nanotechnology operating in aqueous medium. Where -- shocker -- our cosmos is fine tuned to set up H, He, C and O (the key elements for this) as the first four most abundant elements. N is close to that level generally and IIRC is no 5 for our galaxy. H and He stars and the rest of the elements, via the resonance involved, C and O get us to organic chemistry, water and rocky planets once we add in other elements to make the oxide based ceramics that make so much of the crust of a terrestrial world. N gets us beyond fats and carbohydrates, oils etc to proteins (including the enzymes that make life chemistry work against the energy hill -- counterflow as Joe just cited from Ratzsch -- in such a controlled fashion). Sir Fred's ghost is twitting: Yet another put-up job! Once we are willing to look at the possibility of design and look at the empirically reliable signs, the world seems to be full of design, and in fact there is no good observational evidence out there for either a multiverse or for the idea that a stew of chemicals in a pond or the like would be able to get us to the living cell, or that once a cell based life is there, it can spontaneously develop into multiple body plans based on spontaneous injections of 10 - 100 Mb per new body plan by blind chance and necessity. But the fact is, that we know the routine and only observed source of FSCO/I -- remember, introduced by Wicken and Orgel in the 1970's -- design. Put all of that together, and we can see why there is a refusal to allow that unwelcome design foot in the door of the halls of naturalism-dominated science. And we can understand why sociology influenced by such attitudes, would in turn set up a taxonomy that simply will not allow the evidence to speak on empirically grounded inference to best explanation, projecting instead the poisonous insinuation that all of this is question begging driven by the agenda to push into science right wing, fascist, fundamentalist, theocratic religion. Horrors! Science itself is under threat from that fundy war on science that wants to take us back to the dark ages of inquisitions and torture racks! They will kill science! And, off in the corner we hear the further suggestion: God of the Gaps! Rubbish. Overblown rubbish rooted in specious talking points. 1 --> The plain evidence is that there has been an imposed a priori on science in recent years and with roots going back to the mid C19. Lewontin's summary in a NYRB article is a classic statement, one backed up by a much wider body of statements and attitudes summarised here on:

the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, 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, 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 . . ] that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, 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 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. {Cf the just linked for details that expose and correct he "that's quote mining" attempted dismissal, not least it is Judaeo- Christian theism that expects a world of order in which to stand out as signs (the root meaning) miracles MUST be rare, and in fact it is people operating in that theism as a worldview that founded modern science and lead its key initial breakthroughsthat established it as a dominant high status institution in our civilisation]

2 --> The obvious rejoinder to this, is that this ideological a priori materialism just summarised subverts science from freely seeking the truth on our world, especially the world in the past, in light of empirical evidence and related analysis and discussion. 3 --> So, we should not let all the rhetoric about hos it is self evident that science reveals truth mislead us, and in fact the root declaration or thought that science is the only begetter of truth is little more than a propagandistic, self-refuting ideological assertion that makes an epistemological -- grounding of knowledge -- claim, which is by definition a philosophical not a scientific claim. Oops. 4 --> As they say, if it succeeds, none dare call it treason. But the a priori, censoring imposition of materialism is obvious, and it is this controlling idea that locks out the strong evidence of design from being accepted at its obvious value. 5 --> The most poisonous feature of what is going on, is the obsession with projecting the accusation, enemies of freedom and knowledge on people who believe in -- or worse have come to know through living encounter -- God. 6 --> Yes, people and institutions acting with the word God in their mouths have oppressed and abused. But also it is true that in living memory people who overturned God as an a priori commitment in their worldviews and acting in the name of science -- as accepted by millions: scientific socialism, race hygiene science, eugenics etc etc etc -- have also oppressed and abused, as the ghosts of well past 100 million victims since 1917 and 1933 can tell us. 7 --> Historian Lord Acton provides the best explanation: power tends to corrupt, power without transparency and accountability corrupts without limit, great men by and large are bad men. And, sadly, that has the ring of truth about it. 8 --> So, a truer history of the rise of liberty, limited and accountable government, freedom, democratic representational government, etc, would recognise that the Hebrew Prophets and the early Apostles (at bitter cost) were the first major champions of freedom and accountability in our civilisation. Nathan's devastating prophetic parable and challenge to a king, "Thou art the man!" rings down though the ages in all halls of power, not just in David's shamed ears. To which we must add Jesus' "Go, tell that fox . . . " and the apostles' "We must obey God rather than man," with Paul's structure that the civil magistrate is God's servant to do us good, especially by upholding the civil peace of justice. Which is the context in which the Christian faith, in Ch 13 of its single most important foundational theological document [this is no obscure epistle as the then US presidential candidate Mr Obama tried to suggest in 2008 in a Town Hall meeting!], grounds the legitimate power and limit of taxation. 9 --> Further, once the Bible had been published in the language of the ordinary man and was widely disseminated -- creating pervasive moral accountability -- centuries of liberation struggle ensued [starting with the Reformation and especially the second generation that issued works like Duplessis-Mornay's Vindiciae in 1579 and the state paper known as the Dutch Declaration of Independence of 1581], leading to many key features of modern democracy. 10 --> That is why, when John Locke, in his pivotal second treatise on civil government, set out in Ch 2 to ground rights and liberty, the very context that so decisively shapes the US DOI of 1776 in its pivotal 2nd paragraph, this is the passage he cited as coming from "the judicious [Anglican Canon Richard] Hooker":

. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity, preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80]

11 --> Let us see, again, how that is developed in the US DOI of 1776, which so decisively shapes the emergence of modern democratic self government through the concept of freedom under God who underwrites rights and sets up government to guard justice thus rights so that here are rights of reformation and in the last resort revolution [the ballot box is an institutionalised regular opportunity for peaceful reform or revolution -- but is vulnerable to the manipulation warned against in the key historical example in Acts 27 . . . yet another key Biblical contribution to sustainable liberty and justice!], where government spoils into tyranny not mere incompetence or corruption:

When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27 and discussion in Locke], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

12 --> But, but, but it is that same Western Civilisation that is so steeped in the indelible guilt of the sins of Christendom. How dare you stand up to try to justify it! 13 --> Western Civ's gotta go! (Or, at least be radically transformed in light of current secularist thought and progressive agendas.) 14 --> As I have just linked, I am well aware of the sins of Christendom. After all, in my veins flows the blood of slaves and I am related to at least one unjustly hanged national hero of my homeland. Hanged through a kangaroo court at the behest of an incompetent governor. 15 --> But, I am also aware that a fairer, more informed view is necessary for us to have genuine reformation rather than fall victim to "the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming" [yet another Biblical counsel] and/or the sort of folly that Ac 27 so aptly demonstrates. That is why I draw our attention to the warning given by noted Oriental historian, Bernard Lewis (who speaks in a very gracious voice, as a Jewish intellectual) in his epochal 1990 essay on the roots of Muslim rage:

. . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty -- not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . . In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.

16 --> It is in that context, that I must yet again draw attention to the too often overlooked warning from Plato in The Laws, Bk X, c 360 BC, 2350 years ago, on the dangers of ideological materialism presented as the thinking man's view. Let us therefore listen as he speaks, with the example of Alcibiades before his eyes and with the ghost of Socrates whispering in his ear, in the voice of the Athenian Stranger:

Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors: (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them.

17 --> Ask yourself why this passage was not deeply embedded in the mind of every lad or lass in school, right next to "Thou art the man!" and the like, not to mention Hooker's grounding of morality and the pivotal second paragraph of the US DOI, as some of the challenging ideals that we must ever weigh ourselves again, lest we fall yet again into the follies and injustices that society is ever so prone to. 18 --> Then, also ask yourself why the following passage on the right use of argument, was not also burned deep into our collective consciousness, from Aristotle's The Rhetoric, Bk I ch 2:

Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos]; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logos]. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible . . . Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . . Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question . . .

19 --> And finally, when it comes to the grounding of science and its methods, I think we should all have at least a nodding acquaintance with this, from the closing Query 31 of Newton's Opticks:

All these things being consider'd, it seems probable to me, that God in the Beginning form'd Matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable Particles, of such Sizes and Figures, and with such other Properties, and in such Proportion to Space, as most conduced to the End for which he form'd them; and that these primitive Particles being Solids, are incomparably harder than any porous Bodies compounded of them; even so very hard, as never to wear or break in pieces; no ordinary Power being able to divide what God himself made one in the first Creation. While the Particles continue entire, they may compose Bodies of one and the same Nature and Texture in all Ages: But should they wear away, or break in pieces, the Nature of Things depending on them, would be changed. Water and Earth, composed of old worn Particles and Fragments of Particles, would not be of the same Nature and Texture now, with Water and Earth composed of entire Particles in the Beginning. And therefore, that Nature may be lasting, the Changes of corporeal Things are to be placed only in the various Separations and new Associations and Motions of these permanent Particles; compound Bodies being apt to break, not in the midst of solid Particles, but where those Particles are laid together, and only touch in a few Points. It seems to me farther, that these Particles have not only a Vis inertiae, accompanied with such passive Laws of Motion as naturally result from the Force, but also that they are moved by certain active Principles, such as is that of Gravity, and that which causes Fermentation, and the Cohesion of Bodies. These Principles I consider, not as occult Qualities, supposed to result from the specifick Forms of Things, but as general Laws of Nature, by which the Things themselves are form'd; their Truth appearing to us by Phaenomena, though their Causes be not yet discover'd . . . . Now by the help of these Principles, all material Things seem to have been composed of the hard and solid Particles above-mention'd, variously associated in the first Creation by the Counsel of an intelligent Agent. For it became him who created them to set them in order. And if he did so, it's unphilosophical to seek for any other Origin of the World, or to pretend that it might arise out of a Chaos by the mere Laws of Nature; though being once form'd, it may continue by those Laws for many Ages . . . . Also the first Contrivance [--> shades of Paley in 1804!] of those very artificial Parts of Animals, the Eyes, Ears, Brain, Muscles, Heart, Lungs, Midriff, Glands, Larynx, Hands, Wings, swimming Bladders, natural Spectacles, and other Organs of Sense and Motion; and the Instinct of Brutes and Insects, can be the effect of nothing else than the Wisdom and Skill of a powerful ever-living Agent, who being in all Places, is more able by his Will to move the Bodies within his boundless uniform Sensorium, and thereby to form and reform the Parts of our own Bodies . . . . As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover'd, and establish'd as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations.

_________ It is patent just what sort of view Newton held as he established science on its solid footing in our civilisation, by his great successes, not only in optics but moreso in mechanics and with the universal law of gravitation that forever bound the heavens above and the earth beneath in a coherent system of analysis. That the materialists cannot bring themselves to face the implications of that well documented but now largely forgotten history of the era that founded modern science, and instead have substituted rationalist myths of an eternal war of inherently theocratic, oppressive Religion against science that work to prop up a materialist view that otherwise falls of its own weight as irretrievably self referentially incoherent, speaks volumes. KF PS: Please contact me by email through my always linked onward contact info accessible through my handle.kairosfocus

January 26, 2013

January

01

Jan

26

26

2013

04:47 AM

4

04

47

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

“There simply is no Big-ID theory of human-made things!” – Gregory Likewise, there is no logically or coherently quantifiable FSCO/I of human-made things. KF’s failure is a case in point. Listen folks, if you have not yet closed your ears to reason! Discovery Institute agrees with the above claim. This is witnessed in dropping their previous Summer Program. They came to realise that positive Big-ID in small-id fields would destroy them. Why shouldn’t you? Yet here in this thread, Timaeus, PeterJ and William J. Murray seem to disagree amongst themselves and wish to promote ‘universal designism’ – because they cannot agree upon things that aren’t ‘designed/Designed’. If they did agree, then let them list those things here. No answer to this will be forthcoming - typical of Timaeus' gamesmanship. As it is, they have no actual support for their gigantic presupposition that Big-D and small-d Design/design are equivalent. They are thus living in a pseudo-theoretical illusion. The message is: Don’t let logic, reason or critical thinking get in your way if you defend Big-ID theory, as if *everything* is ‘Designed’ AND that this can be proven ‘scientificially’. “Like any Christian (and indeed any theist), I believe that the world has been created by God, and hence “intelligently designed.” The hallmark of intelligent design [read: Big-ID theory], however, is the claim that this can be shown scientifically; I’m dubious about that.” – A. Plantinga Why is Plantinga ‘dubious about that,’ i.e. about how “this [Big-ID] can be shown scientifically”? Surely even if you don’t respect me (because I oppose Big-ID at a Big-ID venue), you nevertheless almost all respect Plantinga. PeterJ acknowledges that he is not a scholar, and thus that he is not a Big-ID/IDM leader. The leaders of the Big-ID/IDM are scholars, professors, PhDs. Yet he seems so personally confident in his own interpretation that he would call ‘silly’ the Big-ID vs. small-id distinction made by many scholars who share his same worldview. Why? I doubt he has a reasonable answer for this from the margins. So, please tell: who are the Big-ID theorists of human-made things? What texts should we read to discover this ‘scientific revolution’ in the study of human-made things because of Big-ID theory? There aren’t any. Silence from the IDM, accepting the truth of the situation. That’s called an “inference to the best explanation” and provides an example of “follow the evidence where it leads.” In this case it shows that Big-ID theory is irrelevant and meaningless when it comes to human-made things. Who would beg to differ at UD?! (KF is still silent without numbers for three examples questioned above. He will likely rail again with text, but offer no specific number or quantification.) And this doesn’t have anything to do with whether a person believes in G-d or not; it has to do with how deceptive they are willing to be towards themselves and to others with respect to the ‘universe’ of knowledge. How insistent are they in trying to ‘get natural science in their corner,’ in trying to be ‘naturalistic’ for Big-ID? With regard to trying to make a fool of Timaeus, that isn’t really hard; one just needs to read his own self-contradictory words (which he of course will deny, even against the evidence). He is the John Kerry – Flip-Flopper – on the margins of the IDM! This has been adequately proven by his words linked above in this thread. He once supported distinguishing Big-ID from small-id and now incoherently rejects it, trying to trick the UD list with flowery rhetoric as rhetoricians typically do. Probably if he had actually read Gingerich and Bejan and Barr (instead of just buying Big-ID-oriented books) and other fellow religionists who reject Big-ID he would better understand why they continue to hold their orthodox position. They are not afraid to be bullied by Big-ID propagandists when the traditional faith of their ancestors already accepts small-id (argument from design), but rejects the pseudo-rational claim that G-d’s works can be natural scientifically proven. ‘Nonsense’ and 'silly,' as PeterJ, Mong, BA77 and Axel call it, is the notion that claims the capitalisation instead of non-capitalisation of ‘intelligent design/Intelligent Design’ is not important and makes absolutely no impact on the IDM’s proto-scientific claims. That is obviously a communicatively primitive position to hold. An example: Does PeterJ display reading comprehension? No, he displays partisanship to IDists and doesn't seem to care or even know that he rejects the work of faithful and validated scholars, including non-naturalists. I’ve been falsely accused here of being an ‘atheist.’ I am not. I’ve been falsely accused here of being a ‘materialist.’ I am not. Why does this not matter to Big-ID ideologues? at UD Big-IDists at UD will seemingly do anything, including putting words in people’s mouths, including impugning their motives, in order to try to be ‘revolutionaries,’ to try to spark a ‘scientific revolution.’ That is the IDM as reality records it here and now. My main point in addressing this thread is to challenge the way W.J. Murray used small-id ‘intelligent design’ in the OP. This was done in a way which I and others think is invalid. It is invalid because it equivocates between human-made and non-human-made things. For those of you who think that is not problematic, there are many more others who say that it is. And you’ve made no legitimate counter-argument other than ideologizing on behalf of the IDM about ‘secular America’. (cont'd)Gregory

January 26, 2013

January

01

Jan

26

26

2013

04:43 AM

4

04

43

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Thanks for your words of support, PeterJ.Timaeus

January 26, 2013

January

01

Jan

26

26

2013

03:55 AM

3

03

55

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Sorry, I feel I had better rephrase this comment as it wasn't what I intended "foolhardy attempt to get it somehow established into the dilaogue here as some major relevant point, when in actual fact it is a rather silly concept." The concept of course is not silly, what I meant is that Gregory's use of it as some major issue has become rather silly. Thanks.PeterJ

January 26, 2013

January

01

Jan

26

26

2013

01:29 AM

1

01

29

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I would just like to add a word of support here for Timaeus. I have been keeping an eye on this thread from the beginning and it became very plain to see that Gregory isn't so much interested in arguing the science of this topic but trying to make a fool of Timaeus. It has indeed been one of the saddest exchanges I have seen thus far. Good for you Timaeus for keeping it civil, I applaud your patience. Also I can't help but think that Gregory's constant use of 'Big ID' and 'little id' is very simply a foolhardy attempt to get it somehow established into the dilaogue here as some major relevant point, when in actual fact it is a rather silly concept. I may not be a scientist, or for that matter have a brilliant understanding of the major talking points here at UD, but I can spot nonesense when I see it. Therefore can someone please explain to me why there should be such a song and dance about this 'Big ID' and 'little id' when design is design whether the designer happens to be God or man? I would also like to thank Upright BiPed and WJ Murray for their support of Timaeus. I have to say I like to see courtesy used in these forums, and those who do not being pulled up for it. Enjoying the discussion guys :o)PeterJ

January 26, 2013

January

01

Jan

26

26

2013

12:21 AM

12

12

21

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Natural selection must be a nonsense, in that selection implies an act of the will of a living creature. Unless naturalists posit Mother Nature as the volitional agent, it makes no sense. The plain fact is that they have absolutely no vocabulary with which to designate their core tenets, other than such as predicate intelligence and will (sometimes combined in extended form to create a design or plan, ipso facto, intelligent), thus self-refuting. They are the ones who will not tolerate the notion of imponderable mysteries, and yet cannot reconcile plain matters of fact, even at the level of coherent, descriptive language.Axel

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

05:57 PM

5

05

57

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

lastyearon:

Thought experiment: You’re part of a team of computer scientists building a robot that will be deployed on a distant planet. The robot has one mission: Look for objects that are designed, and report back to earth when it has found one. How do you program the robot to identify designed objects?

You program it to look for signs of counterflow- Counterflow refers to things running contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely Del Ratzsch in "Nature, Design and Science" page 5Joe

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

05:16 PM

5

05

16

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Jerry @ 290: I remember you as a frequent poster from two or three (or was it four or five?) years back. It seems to me that I agreed with your positions more often than not. It's very kind of you to offer such compliments to me. It would probably be thought of as egocentric for me to compile a "best of Timaeus." And probably my comments make more sense in conversational context than pulled out and collected. The only immediate suggestion I have is for people to search my name in these UD archives and on the archives for the old ASA list (where Ted Davis allowed me to guest-post), find threads on which I've participated, and read them in context. In fact, that's what I have to do myself, when I'm trying to remember some old argument I posted! I wish I had a topical index of my own writings, so I could find things faster! You said that you rarely come here anymore. I understand that people's focus can change over time. Still, you might want to check out the columns here by Vincent Torley. They are often extremely good, and very well-researched. For the last year or so, he has been one of my top reasons for keeping up with the site. And there are some other new people here, who were not writing in your day. Have a look at some of their stuff. Thanks again for your kind comments.Timaeus

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

05:13 PM

5

05

13

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

LYO, It has of course been pointed out previously and above that being human is neither necessary nor sufficient to be an intelligent designer: e.g. (as has been long since pointed out) being human does not equip one to design a battleship or a computer or a first rate audio amp etc., and beavers -- albeit limited -- are quite capable of designing and implementing complex dams suited to particular sites and flow conditions. It has been further pointed out that if we were to say run into a star battleship partly buried under the foot of an avalanche on Mars, the lack of humanness in its evident creators would have no impact on our ability to distinguish it from the rocks burying it. What is significant in the long since past sell-by date objection, is exactly how it is so desperately clung to, having been corrected over and over again on the merits. That very intransigence is telling us just how little objectors to the design inference on evident signs are clinging to. KFkairosfocus

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

02:28 PM

2

02

28

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Timaeus, I used to comment here frequently and happened to come across this exchange by chance since I rarely come here any more. About four years ago I made a file of your comments after your set of responses to ASA at the request of Ted Davis, They were the best summation of the ID position and refutation of the supporters of naturalistic evolution that existed at that time that I had seen. I am glad that you are still slaying the dragons out there of I should say sophistry since I believe you are a classical scholar. You or someone else should sum up your exchanges over time since every time I read one they are substantive, coherent and very clear. So a challenge to you and the editors here is to compile a "Best of Timaeus." Maybe it already exists but if it doesn't someone should make links to your best posts.jerry

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

02:20 PM

2

02

20

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

How do you program the robot to identify designed objects?

What have researchers programmed the computers at SETI to look for? When we sent voyager out into space, what was the information on it meant to do, if we didn't expect alien races to be able to comprehend that it was from an intelligent species that designed the information? I would program the robot to look for well-formed geometric patterns (squares, circles, triangles, especially when carved into hard materials (stone or metal) or as markings; repetition of kinds of patterns on surfaces of different materials; materials not known to exist without intelligent manufacturing processes; well-formed stacked or conjoined blocks; woven fabrics; machinist markings; smooth panes of any material that keep a consistent width several inches long, especially when having right or 45 degree angles; spheres; objects of hard substances, like stone, that appear in several locations with identical features, or which are placed in grids or other patterns, etc. That's just off the top of my head. Give me a few days and I can probably come up with a much better list.William J Murray

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

02:20 PM

2

02

20

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

LYO,

Your argument seems to be that some human made things-such as battleships-belong to a class of ‘designed’ objects, and that we can identify other, non-human made things as belonging to that class. I think what Gregory (and other non IDists) are arguing is that there is no categorical distinction between ‘designed’ and ‘not-designed’ things.

I think WMJ is making the point that in one breath ID opponents will say there is no categorical distinction between ‘designed’ and ‘not-designed’ things, then in the next breath, happily admit to the obvious difference between a battleship and a pile of rocks. Its a curious dance. P.S. As for your specific claim about that categorical distinction, you might consider comment #171, and ask yourself if a unique (coherently identifiable) material condition - one which is only observed in a singular type of material event - provides such a category.Upright BiPed

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

01:19 PM

1

01

19

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

William, Your argument seems to be that some human made things-such as battleships-belong to a class of 'designed' objects, and that we can identify other, non-human made things as belonging to that class. I think what Gregory (and other non IDists) are arguing is that there is no categorical distinction between 'designed' and 'not-designed' things. Thought experiment: You're part of a team of computer scientists building a robot that will be deployed on a distant planet. The robot has one mission: Look for objects that are designed, and report back to earth when it has found one. How do you program the robot to identify designed objects?lastyearon

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

12:54 PM

12

12

54

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Folks: We are now well off track. Let us take up WJM's thoughts on what design theory is, and his focus on a specific simple case that can break a log-jam of polarisation. From my general knowledge of the design theory tought over the past decade or so, it is plain to me that WJM has accurately summarised the core In concept, simply and sufficiently exhaustively the view and scientifically orients school of thought, that it is profitable to ask whether there are signs in objects that allow us to identify major classes of cause at work, specifically chance, necessity and intelligence. Second, a particular school of thought and paradigm, that has concluded that yes it is profitable and yes, there are certain signs that can be arranged in such a way as to further specify scientific investigations, per what we could call a per-aspect explanatory filter. That almost looks trivial, until you understand the context, where since the C19, there has been an increasing tendency to restrict science to naturalistic explanations, perhaps best captured in the English title for Monod's c 1971 book: Chance and Necessity. But, if in fact there are signs that cell based life, major body plans and the fine tuned balance of the cosmos that enables such cell based life rooted in Carbon chemistry and aqueous medium, then that revolutionises our view of the origin of life and beyond, the cosmos. Notice, the direction of reasoning used: from an epistemic principle to methodological issues to results to implications. That is important, as it underscores that it is not that he principle of design was injected as an a priori from the outset, but that the possibility being considered, and in light of tested signs, it is a credible explanation. I get the feeling that a lot of people are not comfortable with such an inference to best explanation reasoning process, and wish instead to invert it, or given their own strong inclinations, do automatically and unreflectively invert it. Such should consult the history of the roots of origins sciences and the discussions on the elaboration of the concept of the logic of abduction. Until and unless this is done, no progress is possible. And in the case of the sort of thing that has gone on at Wikipedia as I exposed in this thread, it can reach a point where there is failure of duties of care sufficient to be guilty of constructing false narratives in the teeth of duties of care and means of doing better, and seeking advantage from the false being perceived as true. Let us do better than this. And in so doing, let us ask, what is the difference between a battleship and a pile of ore-rocks. Then, let us reflect on where that leads. KFkairosfocus

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

11:12 AM

11

11

12

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

#284

If Gregory is really interested in determining the truth or falsehood of the proposition, “design in nature is detectable,” he will debate that proposition with me here

Good luck with that. After what may now be dozens of attempts to engage Gregory on the material evidence of that proposition, he has thus far been amazingly consistent. He avoids it like the plague.Upright BiPed

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

09:20 AM

9

09

20

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Gregory wrote: "I have offered ‘Timaeus’ ... to publically debate me, voice-recorded, with conditions he would likely agree to. I repeat that challenge again. He has refused this and prefers to hide behind a mask." I recall no offer of a "voice-recorded" debate, and in any case, I would not accept such an offer. I have no intention of revealing my civilian identity in the near future. However, I am available for internet debate as Timaeus any time, and I have proved that by responding hundreds of times to Gregory's arguments on this site. It is not necessary for debaters to know each other's civilian identity in order to have a profitable debate. In fact, knowing personal information about the other side often gets in the way of proper debate, because personal information often tempts people to start imputing motivations to the person on the other side, when arguments, not motivations, are what need to be attended to. Nor is it necessary for the reader to know the civilian identities of the debaters in order to assess a debate. If you look at Telic Thoughts, where "Mike Gene" and "nullasalus" and many others have debated over the years, the readers have never complained that the debate suffers because they don't know the real identities of the combatants. They measure the debaters by their arguments, not by their biographies, formal qualifications, etc. If Gregory is sincere about wanting to debate me, he can respond right here, to my post #200 above, in accord with my challenge (#277) -- stick to the issues, avoid the personal, avoid name-dropping and quoting authorities, argue the science, argue the philosophy, argue the theology. The person who is interested in truth focuses on the argument, not on the person. If Gregory is really interested in determining the truth or falsehood of the proposition, "design in nature is detectable," he will debate that proposition with me here, and will drop all discussion of people's identities. #200 above -- I await Gregory's reply.Timaeus

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

08:54 AM

8

08

54

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Gregory, I realize that you operate from a "Big ID vs small id" perspective, but I don't (as far as I know). That's not to say I'm oblivious to the social agenda of the ID community - I'm generally supportive of it. That's also not to say that I don't have a position on whether or not there is a God - I'm what I like to refer to as a rational theist. My concept of "god" is pretty much limited to what I outlined in my first post on UD about whether or not atheism could be supported rationally. I have no particular religion I adhere to. This is the first I've heard of "Big ID vs small id". For me, the ID scientific argument is simply one of inference to best explanation. If the best explanation is that something was intelligently designed (meaning, any explanation of it is implausible without an intelligent agency matching means to an end), then that's what the current, best, provisional explanation should include. As I pointed out in my O.P., such a designation matters to the ongoing research. It's has a practical value. I don't see how this is conceptually different when one extrapolates from known human artifacts, to hypothetical alien "artifacts" (objects that may or may not be intelligently designed), to known cases of humans designing biological features, to hypothetical or contested cases of biological design; from known cases of humans designing environments, to proposing that an intelligence designed the universe based on the fine tuning evidence. Biological stuff, and universal constants, are just more "stuff" and features that may or may not require ID in their explanation. I don't see why religious or theological positions and views should matter in this regard. I honestly don't see what the issue is. You are apparently looking at all of this from a position that is entirely outside of my perspective. I'm the one making this argument. I agree, I rarely see anyone making arguments about human and/or hypothetical alien "artifacts", but I assumed that this was because they felt it was too trivial a point to make, not that it was not an example of the kind of ID they were talking about. As I said, I also consider it a trivial point, but the very triviality of it is what makes it such a good way to expose what I consider to be the utter intransigence of the anti-ID community, where they will not even admit that a battleship is (1) intelligently designed, and (2)is quantifiably distinct from a pile of rocks (in terms of ID). However, it appears that to you this argument is not only "wrong", it's so far off it's "not even wrong" (so to speak), in terms of what you think the actual ID proponents are arguing. I'm actually very interested in a nuts and bolts explanation of why my view of what ID is and means is so categorically wrong. I don't want to be directed to some other people or be asked to read and decipher something else. I don't really care what Behe or Meyer or Dembski "say" ID is, or is about; I'm not making an argument about their views or opinions. Perhaps my views and my argument is not at all what the "real" ID argument is; but then, so what? I'm not making that argument about ID; I'm making this one. So, maybe I'm using the term ID in a way that is far outside of how Behe, Dembski and Meyer use it; but from what I've read, that doesn't appear to me to be the case. And, IMO, this might be where conceptual frameworks break down ability to communicate; you might read their works and be utterly certain they mean X; I read them, and I'm certain they mean Y, and even attempts to reconcile our views through quotes fail because that does nothing to address how our different conceptual frameworks interpret quotes we're both looking at. That's when frustration and accusations of dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc. basically ends civility. My view is that ID (the ability of an intelligent agency to match means to achieve an end) is a commodity that can (but not always) produce things that have distinct, telltale signs (whether they are rigorously defined or not) that are not known to be produced by any other commodity. My view is that this distinction is often obvious (battleship vs rocks), and that we can easily posit obvious examples of non-human ID (alien "artifacts" - objects that might be intelligently designed). Furthermore, I think that his distinction can be usefully quantified and applied towards findings of "best explanation". To go even further, if the application of that method of quantification indicates that the simplest possible organic cells required ID, so what? If it implies that the universe itself required ID, again, so what? To me, it's no different than saying that something requires gravity or heat as a necessary aspect of the explanation; why is ID a verboten commodity that many stonewall any attempt to quantify in any useful way? ID is a label for [whatever processes are involved as a purposeful agency matches means towards an end], just as "gravity" is a label for [whatever is going on that produces the apparent mutual attraction of masses]. According to you, (if I'm correct), it's because, for some reason, attempting to quantify ID as "just another scientific, explanatory commodity" is somehow a categorical error in comparison to, say, "gravity" or "heat" or "water erosion". As I said, I'm interested in the debate, and understanding your view, but IMO this is why one must be committed to the principle of charitable reading; people often have insurmountably different conceptual frameworks that interpret things very differently on a consistent basis.William J Murray

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

08:33 AM

8

08

33

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Onlookers: Observe how the thread at this time is increasingly embroiled in the ins and outs of a side tracked poisonous atmosphere debate. That is the effect of what G has done and how. I repeat, his distinction disregards what those who are doing science in a design frame are doing and fails to respect the basic principle of respecting the terms used and the ways they are used by practitioners. Beyond that the snide sniping at the undersigned largely came about after I took time to show a live example of how a metric of FSCO/I can be used in a real situation. Going back to the main issue, we have a simple question: are we or are we not willing to acknowledge that there is something sharply and recognisably distinct between a battleship and a pile or rocks that points to its cause? KFkairosfocus

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

08:24 AM

8

08

24

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB @250: Thanks for the clarification. I purposely referred to "ID" in general, not some made-up "Big" or "Small" ID, like Gregory does. Intelligent design does not assume a transcendent designer, so Gregory is off base. Unless he is making up his own definitions, in which case his definitions don't match what most other people are talking about, which may be the source of so much disconnect. I think you're right that his definitions aren't helpful. Anyway, I don't find it useful to spend a lot of time on his Big/Small ID discussion which he pushes at every opportunity and don't intend to do so. Others seem to have more patience for that than I. Just wanted to flag the definitional disconnect.Eric Anderson

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

08:10 AM

8

08

10

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Claudius to Timaeus: I asked you to quote a criticism of ID on the grounds that the genome contains too much non-functional DNA.

We have to wonder why the Intelligent Designer added to our genome junk DNA, repeated copies of useless DNA, orphan genes, gene fragments, tandem repeats, and pseudo¬genes, none of which are involved directly in the making of a human being. In fact, of the entire human genome, it appears that only a tiny percentage is actively involved in useful protein production. Rather than being intelligently designed, the human genome looks more and more like a mosaic of mutations, fragment copies, borrowed sequences, and discarded strings of DNA that were jerry-built over millions of years of evolution. – Michael Shermer

Upright BiPed

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

07:36 AM

7

07

36

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Claudius to Timaues: I asked you to quote a criticism of ID on the grounds that the genome contains too much non-functional DNA.

Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution … we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed … the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply … our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes - Jerry Coyne

Upright BiPed

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

07:33 AM

7

07

33

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Thanks for the Miller quotation, UB.Timaeus

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

07:32 AM

7

07

32

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Gregory wrote: "A guy who won’t even admit openly that he’s changed his song, when the evidence is clear to follow in the links above, that he first supported distinguishing ‘Big ID’ and ‘small id’ and now denies his own previous logic." This is a false charge. I openly admitted -- as anyone can read above -- that I *did* at one time make use of a big-ID versus small-id distinction. I also explained above that I did not intend that distinction (useful in the original context of a blog discussion) to become some sort of official definition binding upon all future participants in discussions of the nature of intelligent design, and I indicated that I was not pleased to see Gregory (or anyone else) using it in that fashion. There has been no "flip-flop" in my position. I simply have determined, based on my sad experience since offering my tentative definition, that discussions over whether someone or something is big-ID or small-id quickly degenerate into hair-splitting terminological debates, with everyone asking everyone else exactly what is included in big and small ID/id, and so much time is spent wrangling over the meaning of the terminology that the substantial question -- is design detectable in nature, or not? -- is entirely lost from sight. So I'm not going to bicker about whether or not Gingerich or someone else endorses "ID" or "id" etc. I will address only the substantial issue. I have laid out my position here; I think that design in nature is detectable, even to someone who accepts no religious revelation. If Gregory disagrees with that, he can tell me why. He should be able to do that without ever mentioning the name of any other author, and without ever discussing whether ID should be capitalized or lower-cased. All he has to do is show me that the evidence for design in nature is lacking. He has not done that. He has not even tried to do that. He has complained about capitalization, he has littered his replies with scare quotes around virtually every crucial term, so that it is hard to tell which terms he endorses and which he rejects, and he has consistently made arguments from authority, while avoiding all discussion of cells, genomes, probability theory, information theory, teleological arguments, etc. He clearly does not wish to talk about nature or what can be inferred by it. He clearly wants to talk about the opinions of authors. I don't want to talk about the opinions of authors. I want to talk about nature and what can be inferred from it. If Gregory does not want to have that conversation, he doesn't have to; but he cannot claim to have refuted my position if he opts out of engaging with it. My position is stated in 200 above. I will respond politely to all non-polemical criticisms of that position. It's Gregory's choice: he can offer non-polemical, content-focused criticism, eschewing name-dropping and concentrating on substance, and get a reply from me; or he can continue to write polemics, talk about all the authors he has read, avoid the substance of my argument, and be met with silence. I'm indifferent as to which he chooses.Timaeus

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

07:31 AM

7

07

31

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Claudius to Timaues: I asked you to quote a criticism of ID on the grounds that the genome contains too much non-functional DNA.

The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, "orphaned" genes, "junk" DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design. . . . In fact, the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and commands that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival. It works, and it works brilliantly; not because of intelligent design, but because of the great blind power of natural selection. – Ken Miller

Upright BiPed

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

07:24 AM

7

07

24

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"What’s your problem?" - es58 Conflation of small-id with Big-ID. Go back and read KN's #4 above. Likewise, read the OP again. The apparent claim (which perhaps W.J. Murray can clarify for us) that the terms small-id 'intelligent design' have anything at all to do with Big-ID 'Intelligent Design' theory. They don't for anyone who isn't trying to universalise 'ID'. There are no IDM-Big-ID theorists of small-id. KF's speculative FSCO/I claim fails because of this. On that topic, the jury is already out; the Discovery Institute stopped trying to promote Big-ID to university students in the humanities and social sciences. Please respect this fact.Gregory

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

07:19 AM

7

07

19

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning - Paul A. Nelson - Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517 Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/?MUD=MP Here, at about the 55:00 minute mark in the following video, Phillip Johnson sums up his, in my opinion, excellent lecture by noting that the refutation of his book, 'Darwin On Trial', in the Journal Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world, was a theological argument about what God would and would not do and therefore Darwinism must be true, and the critique from Nature was not a refutation based on any substantiating scientific evidence for Darwinism that one would expect to be brought forth in such a prestigious venue to support such a, supposedly, well supported scientific theory: Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – lecture video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw And in the following quote, Dr. John Avise explicitly uses Theodicy to try to make the case for Darwinism: It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species – Cornelius Hunter - June 2012 Excerpt: "Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]" - Dr. John Avise - "Inside The Human Genome" There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/awesome-power-behind-evolution-it-is.html What’s more ironic is that Dr. John Avise’s theological argumentation from mutations for Darwinism turns out to be, in fact (without Darwinian Theological blinders on), a very powerful ‘scientific’ argument against Darwinism: http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/evolution-professor-special-creation.html?showComment=1340994836963#c5431261417430067209 In this following video Dr. William Lane Craig is surprised to find that evolutionary biologist Dr. Ayala uses theological argumentation in his book to support Darwinism and invites him to present evidence, any evidence at all, that Darwinism can do what he claims it can: Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg And, to point out once again, the theological 'bad design' argument, which Darwinists unwittingly continually use to try to make their case, is actually its own independent discipline of study within Theology itself called Theodicy: Is Your Bod Flawed by God? - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: Theodicy (the discipline in Theism of reconciling natural evil with a good God) might be a problem for 19th-century deism and simplistic natural theology, but not for Biblical theology. It was not a problem for Jesus Christ, who was certainly not oblivious to the blind, the deaf, the lepers and the lame around him. It was not a problem for Paul, who spoke of the whole creation groaning and travailing in pain till the coming redemption of all things (Romans 8). http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201002.htm#20100214a Did God Create Evil? (William Dembski) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCVYqg6TFmA Finding a Good God in an Evil World - William Dembski http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdfbornagain77

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

07:10 AM

7

07

10

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

G you claim: @ #261 – I’ve outgrown ‘Darwinism.’ Once you’ve understood this, and it may take many years, you’ll realise how ridiculous and self-inflicting your strategy toward me is. ‘(neo-)Darwinism’ has a worldview, not a theological basis. Darwin was not a theist. Au contraire my self inflated egotistical one: Darwin was a (A)Theist of the worst sort, Darwin 'knew' how God should and should not act: "One of the great ironies of the atheist mind is that no-one is more cock-sure of exactly what God is like, exactly what God would think, exactly what God would do, than the committed atheist. Of course he doesn’t believe in God, but if God did exist, he knows precisely what God would be like and how God would behave. Or so he thinks",,," Eric - UD Blogger To deny that Darwinism has a theological basis further reveals your ignorance on the matter Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html The Descent of Darwin - Pastor Joe Boot - (The Theodicy of Darwinism) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKJqk7xF4-gbornagain77

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

07:06 AM

7

07

06

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

@ W.J. Murray #264 - Thanks, for this. I didn't see it before I posted #267. This is true: I have offered 'Timaeus' (PhD in religious studies and western philosophy, as told here) to publically debate me, voice-recorded, with conditions he would likely agree to. I repeat that challenge again. He has refused this and prefers to hide behind a mask at UD and elsewhere (about which I'm not allowed to speak). The waffling by Timaeus is clearly evident in this thread. Follow the links, follow the evidence. Timaeus has changed his tune. Torley supports me and Gingerich and Davis and Murphy and Isaac and Barr; Timaeus now rejects the intentional clarity of our distinction. As for courage, please judge for yourselves. I was recommended at the DI's summer program (along with 40+ others) to hide my identity, because of what is now called the 'Expelled Syndrome.' Fear - the city is rank with it. Once I learned that such deception was not necessary - and this was better understood when the DI cancelled its 'Intelligent Design in Humanities and Social Sciences' program - I understood that being fearful for telling the truth was not the best option. Timaeus, the man that he actually is behind his on-line mask, is still caught behind this masquerade wall. Again, I honour my agreement with Denyse not to try to 'out' him; these are innocent facts that are unproblematic to say here. "To Gregory, apparently, human ID and the ID that may have designed the universe are two entirely different things – categorically different (unless I’ve interpreted him incorrectly, which wouldn’t surprise me); to me, they would be the same thing – the actual, same commodity albeit on different scales." - W.J. Murray Thanks for that. Yes, you seem to have interpreted me correctly. A phone call could likely clear this up. If you follow the links, you can find me to arrange this. Your position - "the same thing" - is one of 'univocal predication' between humanity and G-d. Feser and Fuller discuss this fruitfully but critically of the IDM in various ways. If you know of anyone who theorises about small-id 'intelligent design' using specifically that concept-duo, and not just 'design theory' (for which there are many non-Big-ID proponents), then please do let me know. I've been keeping an eye and ear open, but haven't heard anything yet. And if John G. West is any indication, there won't be a Big-ID theory of small-id anytime soon. Hopefully that helps to clarify my objection to your language of what seemed to be trying to validate the terms 'intelligent design' relating to human-made things with Big-ID theory that has *nothing* to do with human-made things. Gregory p.s. KF will of course protest, but without his 'scientific' numbers, his comments can be ignored.Gregory

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

07:05 AM

7

07

05

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Mr. Murray: Thanks for your comments regarding Gregory. I am glad that my arguments don't strike you as polemical. On the point you made about human and divine design being similar, that is a good one to make, because it is one stressed over and over again by Steve Fuller, and Steve Fuller is someone that Gregory greatly admires and promotes. One would therefore think that Fuller could be a bridge by which Gregory and ID could be brought into harmony. But for some reason Gregory does not appear to agree with Fuller's thought on "univocal predication." I have asked Gregory to clarify his apparent objections to Fuller on that point, but have never been successful in eliciting an answer. I think perhaps Gregory's distrust of me causes him to think that I am trying to "trap" him -- but in fact my confusion is genuine. I don't see how Fuller's position can be taken in any other way than your own position -- divine and human design are essentially of the same character. And I embrace Fuller's position on that particular point, which should put me on Gregory's side. But apparently it doesn't. I don't know why.Timaeus

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

07:04 AM

7

07

04

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The hallmark of intelligent design [read: Big-ID theory], however, is the claim that this can be shown scientifically; I’m dubious about that.” – A. Plantinga

Fine, so, we're trying to become more clear, less dubious, without someone telling us by fiat that we're wasting our time. It's our time, and it's what we're interested in. What's your problem? You've done all the thinking and proven it can't be done? Show us.es58

January 25, 2013

January

01

Jan

25

25

2013

07:01 AM

7

07

01

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link