American atheist feels misunderstood, attacks Uncommon Descent

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 25, 2014

'Junk DNA', Intelligent Design, News}

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

Apparently, “Angry by Choice,” the star of this post “Precious: American atheist finds ENCODE to be bullshot science,” noticed “a spike in traffic” on the post. It was actually more of a mini-spikette at our end, but never mind. Anyway, he posted a response here. We can’t quote most of it, for reasons that will be apparent. However,

I am an atheist, and proud to state that. How that relates to my post on how I perceive science is being sold seems irrelevant. I also have black hair, albeit with some gray, why not title the post: Precious: Graying American finds ENCODE to be bullshot science. I am a parent so maybe: Precious: American dad finds ENCODE to be bullshot science. I’m also a scientist, which seems relevant. It’s more relevant to my post than my views on god, my hair color, or parental status. But you know what, me being a scientist is not relevant to uncommondescent’s post. In fact, I’ld argue it undercuts the strength of their post. Pointing out I think their god is hooey, is essentially poisoning the well so that their readers, conservative christians, will not bother reading my post or thinking. (I was going to write more after ‘or thinking,’ but realized I didn’t need to.)

Spanish proverb: He who loses his temper has lost the argument.

Pos-Darwinista writes to ask,

How can such a person be an university professor?

[Is he? Really? My, my. – O’Leary for News ]

Does he use these foul mouthed words in the classroom? I bet he does. Two years ago I gave a talk about ID in a Brazilian public university for some 1.200 Biology students, and was shocked with the wild foul mouthed talk given by the evolutionist professor, that I opened my talk with these words: Professor So and So, after your joking talk, it will be pretty hard for me to sell my fish, but let’s do business here! I got profound silence from a wild laughing audience that paid close attention to my talk on ID and made a lot of questions in the Q & A section.

Well, that’s today’s Darwinism for ya: Long on profanity, short on viable ideas.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

Note: One of our post authors is a learned gentleman in the Caribbean who simply will not permit his Canadian (British Commonwealth) colleague to use bad language, hence she tries to avoid it.

Comments

joe, Both Newton’s four rules of scientific investigation and the explanatory filter show that if purely materialistic processes can account for something then we do not add an intelligent agency to the mix Not really, since Newton's rule apply to natural mechanistic theories, and ID is neither. Second,one can not refute an explanation by merely proposing an alternative. To refute ID one would have to show an unknown designer would be incapable of producing a materialistic process, since known intelligent designers use materialistic processes in design, ID can not be refuted. I will concede that ID may be useless as scientific explanation without complete knowledge of all possible materialistic processes and what those processes are capable of.velikovskys_{June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

velikovskys, I don't really get your point. We are talking about Mark Frank suggesting that if the Nazsca lines were discovered on the far side of the moon, he would look for a "natural explanation" for that find. Are you equating the Nazsca lines found in Peru to someone saying they saw Jesus on a piece of toast?Upright BiPed_{June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Strange, that when all it would take to refute Intelligent Design is actually present positive evidence for materialism, the materialists refuse to take that route. velikovskys
Not really.
Yes really. Both Newton's four rules of scientific investigation and the explanatory filter show that if purely materialistic processes can account for something then we do not add an intelligent agency to the mix- the design inference is never considered. Science 101.Joe_{June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Those circumstances are so extraordinary we would have to consider the most outlandish explanations, including explanations which no one had experience.
Exactly! This is the point! So a perfect little picture of a fly on a fly's wings so when it flaps it looks like a fly moving is not so extraordinary as a whole host of epigenetic information, multiple "convergent" events and mathematic impossibility?! There you go folks, the logic of a committed naturalist.Dr JDD_{June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

velikovskys, What if something is not caused by natural processes? Would that present a problem for Darwinism? Or is Darwinism forever unfalsifiable in your mind? (excuse me, foprever unfalsifiable in your deterministic robot brain?) Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - short video https://vimeo.com/92405752 Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons - Jun 11, 2013 Excerpt:– requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-06-bell-test-loophole-photons.htmlbornagain77_{June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

up, Is there a conceptually plausible “natural explanation” for the symbolic image of a monkey to appear on the far side of the moon? How about the image of Jesus on a piece of toast?velikovskys_{June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

We are talking about a hypothetical case that will never happen – symbols appearing when there is no possibility that any person created them.
But Mark, that is exactly where we are at in the 21st Century. We have documented semiosis in the cell (i.e. the cell cannot be organized without it) and mankind is obviously not the source.Upright BiPed_{June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

joe, Strange, that when all it would take to refute Intelligent Design is actually present positive evidence for materialism, the materialists refuse to take that route. Not really. Just because something can be caused thru natural processes doesn't mean it could not be designed. And since ID is not mechanistic it cannot eliminate natural processes as the means of design.velikovskys_{June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

#52 UB Of course I have no experience with natural processes creating symbols of monkeys and birds. I doubt anyone has. So what? We are talking about a hypothetical case that will never happen - symbols appearing when there is no possibility that any person created them. Those circumstances are so extraordinary we would have to consider the most outlandish explanations, including explanations which no one had experience.Mark Frank_{June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Mark, Is there a conceptually plausible "natural explanation" for the symbolic image of a monkey to appear on the far side of the moon? I know you're very busy, but the only reason I ask is because you take the position that there is such a thing. Is there?Upright BiPed_{June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

Mark, I can certainly imagine why you wouldn't want to talk to me Mark, I might stoop to asking about your experience with natural processes creating symbols of monkeys and birds. Given what is entirely obvious to any rational person - that you have no such experience - I can see how it would be a topic to avoid for someone in your position.Upright BiPed_{June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

#49 UB There are rather a lot of people to respond to on this thread and you are quite low down my priority list. However, the answer to your question is "yes".Mark Frank_{June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

Strange, that when all it would take to refute Intelligent Design is actually present positive evidence for materialism, the materialists refuse to take that route. That tells us all we need to know about materialism and materialists.Joe_{June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Well okay. Mark Frank says that if he found representations of monkeys and spiders and birds etched into the surface of the far side of the moon, he would "have to start thinking seriously about some natural explanation." I asked him twice to clarify that if he found such symbolic material in a place that man has never been, he would be inclined to search for a "natural cause" to explain that symbolic material ... and he refuses to answer. Oh well. Given his priors, I suppose I can understand his reluctance.Upright BiPed_{June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Dr JDD @46 Thanks for you interesting comment. My responses below.
This is a non-argument. Why? a) because the same criticisms can be made in the field of “science” and b) as explained before the inference of design always precedes the mechanism. Design is a resultant conclusion not a mechanistic conclusion (as pointed out above). You are confusing what design is with what laws of nature do. With regards to a) we could easily apply many current scientific hypotheses to the list that made the same error that you describe here. As I have pointed out above, the multiverse hypothesis. The universe is extremely unlikely by chance given known natural processes The universe shows characteristics of extreme improbable by chance laws Therefore the universe must be the result of many universes to account for the fine-tuning (2) is just a way of restating (1) but dressed up in maths and laws so it makes people feel clever, and you cannot conclude (3) from (1) without the addressing the probability of the universe occurring as we know it given all known processes involving universe generation. As a special case it may turn out that everything we know about universe generation means this universe existing is impossible yet we will still conclude that the multiverse must be real because it never examines the plausibility of something generating infinite universes.
I think you are confusing prior probabilities with likelihoods. As you say, we clearly don’t know anything about the prior probability of a single universe or multiverse arising. Some people think we can say something about the chances of a single universe having fine tuning parameters and of a multiverse having fine tuning parameters (as it happens I think this pretty ropey as well – but let’s go with it). Given that you can compare the two likelihoods and and conclude there is strong evidence for a multiverse. This is using both sets of likelihoods. It is not arguing there single universe is unlikely therefore there must be a multiverse.
Now you will say, “but we just don’t know yet” i.e. we cannot yet assess “universe generating” but that is no different to saying “we cannot assess a transcendent designer that is outside the physical laws and constraints placed on our universe, therefore mechanism is currently impossible to establish” just like multiverse generation mechanisms are conceded as probably impossible for us to establish from within our universe.
If your design hypothesis is that life was designed by a transcendent designer that is outside the physical laws and constraints placed on our universe then you have said something about your designer. I thought the design inference was able to come to a conclusion without any such assumption. If you prepared to come out and say that is your design hypothesis then the problem is a different one (basically that is a completely ad hoc hypothesis that could explain anything).
Therefore, if modern science will accept one such approach it cannot deny a similar approach lacking mechanism to design.
I think I have shown that at least in the case of multiverses modern science has not accepted such an approach.
With regards to b) Design is usually inferred as a deductive reasoning exercise. That is not mechanism first, rather design implication first. For example, you do not need to know nor logically understand nor be able to describe how Stonehenge was designed. It is a deduction from the fact it is perceived to be unable to arise through natural processes. Likewise with a computer, a car, any machine. You do not have to have the first bit of understanding about a computer to know that it is designed and could not happen by accident. Lack of mechanistic explanation does not negate the initial conclusion. However, the opposite can occur. You can think something is designed but on further interrogation discover a natural process that made it appear that way. Then you can reject design. The argument within evolutionary biology vs design is not the false observation that things appear designed but rather the debate whether upon interrogation it actually could arise naturally. However your interpretation is vastly different to even other atheists who maintain it appears designed but is actually not (just has appearance). Your summation gives the impression that design can never be inferred if no mechanism is examined.
I have said in other comments why I believe you cannot validly deduce design for anything without characterising the designer/design process to some extent.
The argument then between IDers and you is whether mechanism precludes a design inference. Clearly, even mechanism does not preclude naturalistic science as proven by abiogenesis, multiverse, string theory, etc. Therefore, you already have an uneven playing field laid out and this refutes your demands. Secondly though, I (and others) would strongly disagree that a mechanism is required for a valid design conclusion when that design is inferred to from a designer not constrained by our known laws of nature (which a designer for the universe must by definition be in terms of contingency and need for transcendence to address the fine-tuning problem).
This is the same point you made above. I do not agree that you can have evidence for any hypothesis about abiogenesis, multiverses, string theory or whatever without calculating the likelihood of what we observe given the hypothesis.
Finally, I contest the mechanism needed for proof of design as based on this, you have created for yourself a win-win scenario. As we could only ever explain or understand a design mechanism based on our understanding of the known universe in terms of its laws and nature, we would be held hostage then to the interpretation of such a mechanism as being completely plausible by nature itself (as it would be described by natural means). Therefore, you have not simply moved the goalposts – you haveremoved the IDer’s goalpost all together as you would inevitably reject the need for a designer with or without a mechanism for design, described by those constrained to the laws of this universe.
Well if the designer is to be outside the laws and nature of the universe then there are certainly problems with knowing what would be evidence for it. But this is to do with the nature of the hypothesis not the design inference which is usually presented as not having implications for the nature of the designer. Mark Frank_{June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank, referring to #28 and #34 above, Is it true that if you found symbolic material in a place that man had never been, you'd start looking for "natural causes" for that symbolic material?Upright BiPed_{June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

1) X is extremely unlikely given all known natural processes. 2) X shows characteristics such as CSI and IC which are associated with objects humans have designed. 3) Therefore X was designed. I say this is invalid logic for two reasons: (2) is just a way of restating (1) but so dressed up in maths and jargon it fools ID proponents You cannot conclude (3) from (1) without addressing the probability of X given all known processes involving design. As a special case it might turn out that X is impossible given all known processes involving design and yet the design inference would still conclude X because it never examines the plausibility of the design side.
This is a non-argument. Why? a) because the same criticisms can be made in the field of “science” and b) as explained before the inference of design always precedes the mechanism. Design is a resultant conclusion not a mechanistic conclusion (as pointed out above). You are confusing what design is with what laws of nature do. With regards to a) we could easily apply many current scientific hypotheses to the list that made the same error that you describe here. As I have pointed out above, the multiverse hypothesis. The universe is extremely unlikely by chance given known natural processes The universe shows characteristics of extreme improbable by chance laws Therefore the universe must be the result of many universes to account for the fine-tuning (2) is just a way of restating (1) but dressed up in maths and laws so it makes people feel clever, and you cannot conclude (3) from (1) without the addressing the probability of the universe occurring as we know it given all known processes involving universe generation. As a special case it may turn out that everything we know about universe generation means this universe existing is impossible yet we will still conclude that the multiverse must be real because it never examines the plausibility of something generating infinite universes. Now you will say, “but we just don’t know yet” i.e. we cannot yet assess “universe generating” but that is no different to saying “we cannot assess a transcendent designer that is outside the physical laws and constraints placed on our universe, therefore mechanism is currently impossible to establish” just like multiverse generation mechanisms are conceded as probably impossible for us to establish from within our universe. Therefore, if modern science will accept one such approach it cannot deny a similar approach lacking mechanism to design. With regards to b) Design is usually inferred as a deductive reasoning exercise. That is not mechanism first, rather design implication first. For example, you do not need to know nor logically understand nor be able to describe how Stonehenge was designed. It is a deduction from the fact it is perceived to be unable to arise through natural processes. Likewise with a computer, a car, any machine. You do not have to have the first bit of understanding about a computer to know that it is designed and could not happen by accident. Lack of mechanistic explanation does not negate the initial conclusion. However, the opposite can occur. You can think something is designed but on further interrogation discover a natural process that made it appear that way. Then you can reject design. The argument within evolutionary biology vs design is not the false observation that things appear designed but rather the debate whether upon interrogation it actually could arise naturally. However your interpretation is vastly different to even other atheists who maintain it appears designed but is actually not (just has appearance). Your summation gives the impression that design can never be inferred if no mechanism is examined. The argument then between IDers and you is whether mechanism precludes a design inference. Clearly, even mechanism does not preclude naturalistic science as proven by abiogenesis, multiverse, string theory, etc. Therefore, you already have an uneven playing field laid out and this refutes your demands. Secondly though, I (and others) would strongly disagree that a mechanism is required for a valid design conclusion when that design is inferred to from a designer not constrained by our known laws of nature (which a designer for the universe must by definition be in terms of contingency and need for transcendence to address the fine-tuning problem). Finally, I contest the mechanism needed for proof of design as based on this, you have created for yourself a win-win scenario. As we could only ever explain or understand a design mechanism based on our understanding of the known universe in terms of its laws and nature, we would be held hostage then to the interpretation of such a mechanism as being completely plausible by nature itself (as it would be described by natural means). Therefore, you have not simply moved the goalposts – you have removed the IDer’s goalpost all together as you would inevitably reject the need for a designer with or without a mechanism for design, described by those constrained to the laws of this universe.Dr JDD_{June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

Eric @40:
But, Mark. You just told us above that anything could be designed. So, which is it?
I said that if you assume a designer with unlimited powers then it is possible that anything could be designed. You need to describe the designer and the implementation process to see if it is really possible that the output was designed.
Furthermore, are you really staking out a position that we can’t possibly infer that something like a 4-bit digital coding system with storage, retrieval and translation mechanisms might have been designed unless we know for a fact that it could have been designed? You are going to take that position in spite of the blatantly obvious fact that (i) designers are known to produce systems of that type, and (ii) no natural process has ever come close to producing such a system?
The phrase “unless we know for a fact it could have been designed” is too extreme. I can have degrees of confidence that something could be designed (indeed my whole point is we need to compare the degree of confidence with our confidence it was created by natural processes). Although humans have designed 4-bit digital coding systems that is very far from having designed life and anyway there were no humans around 4 billion years ago. So I need some idea of who and how – at least a hypothesis.
Additionally, human designers are now doing things like storing digital information in DNA, even researching the possibility of using DNA storage for computing applications. So, to anyone not blinded by silliness, yes, it is quite obvious that many things in biology could have been designed. Lastly, let’s pursue your objection to its logical conclusion. Are you going to go on record and acknowledge that if and when humans eventually build a functional DNA-based data storage and retrieval mechanism (to give but one example), that you will then acknowledge that the DNA-based data storage and retrieval mechanisms in living organisms may have been designed? Hint: If you are willing to go on record, please say so. If not, then your a priori philosophical baggage is showing.
This would provide a mechanism but not a designer as there were no humans around 4 billion years ago. But at least it leads to a discussion about might be possible. What kind of thing could have designed the first life in the universe? Bear in mind that this thing cannot itself be a life form.
Finally. Thank you for acknowledging this.
I am not sure why write “finally”. I have never denied I was looking for a mechanism.
Unfortunately, it means you do not understand the design inference, so until you get on board with what intelligent design is about (whether or not you agree with it), I fear there may not be much point in continuing.
My experience over the years is that I understand the design inference and its limitations better than most ID proponents. I know that the design inference tries to conclude design without getting into the mechanism. My point is that this is invalid reasoning. But if your response to this criticism is to just say I don’t understand ID then you are right there is little point in continuing (if there ever was).
MF: If you accept no limits on the designer then anything could be designed. True? Eric:Yes, in a purely theoretical sense. So?
That’s fine. I just want to establish your agreement to that statement. We can deal with the consequences later.
Well, all I can say then, is that you need to think through it more clearly. Maybe get out a piece of paper and draw a flowchart for yourself or something.
No doubt both of us need to think more clearly. Neither of us are perfect.
Example #1: Hiker in the Amazon jungle comes across a large rock lying on the trail. Hiker immediately, quickly, clearly and without any significant intellectual effort concludes that the rock was not designed. Hiker moves on his way, never proceeding to the subsequent questions of ‘how’, ‘why’, ‘who’, etc.,precisely because those questions are not needed in order to draw the initial inference about whether the object was designed. Example #2: Hiker in the Amazon jungle comes across a round disc-shaped stone with pictographs and symbols on it. Hiker immediately, quickly, clearly and without any significant intellectual effort concludes that it was designed. Hiker then, and only then, starts to contemplate ‘how’, ‘why’, ‘who’, etc., precisely because those questions only arise once an inference to design has been drawn.. This is pretty basic stuff, but I realize it can be confusing to those who are wedded to the (false) notion that we have to know all kinds of things about the designer, or the design process, or the motives, personality or capabilities of the designer in order to infer design in the first place.
There is a difference between what makes an inference valid and the mental process that people go through when coming a conclusion. We often jump to conclusions without examining our logic. There is no harm in this - in fact it is necessary to function at all. We couldn’t possibly think through the grounds of every conclusion we come to. The hiker correctly concludes whether the objects are designed are not. This is reasonable because in #1 there are many natural processes which are more likely to produce the rock than any process involving deliberate design. In case #2 the reverse it true. People are known to like making regular objects with decorations and are quite capable of doing it and there are plenty of them! However, the hiker does not consciously go through all these steps to come to his conclusion. When it comes down it my whole position is one of what is valid logic. The ID inference can be summarised thus (I have omitted the natural law possibility to keep it simple): 1) X is extremely unlikely given all known natural processes. 2) X shows characteristics such as CSI and IC which are associated with objects humans have designed. 3) Therefore X was designed. I say this is invalid logic for two reasons: (2) is just a way of restating (1) but so dressed up in maths and jargon it fools ID proponents You cannot conclude (3) from (1) without addressing the probability of X given all known processes involving design. As a special case it might turn out that X is impossible given all known processes involving design and yet the design inference would still conclude X because it never examines the plausibility of the design side.Mark Frank_{June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

Eric Anderson:
ID leaves lots of false negatives by the wayside in order to focus on those situations in which design is clear. Again, this goes back to a basic understanding of what ID is about. It is not a valid criticism of ID to note that some things that don’t look designed might in fact be designed. We already know that. It is well acknowledged in the ID literature. It is not an issue for ID.
I agree. I assume these "some things that don’t look designed might in fact be designed" must fall into your category of everything that everyone knows is not designed? EA:
for which nearly everyone else in the English-speaking world uses words like “chance” and “necessity”.
Mung_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

Eric:
Well, if you prefer to imagine design in everything that is your prerogative.
What does imagination have to do with it? Natural disasters are not uncommon. Why are they called natural disasters? Is it due to lack of imagination? Is it because we can't imagine God doing such a thing?
Mark thinks nothing is designed;
Well, you could call Mark the anti-Mung! But that's not true. Mark believes humans are designers and that design is real, but limited (in his experience) to human action. Of course, that's the entire basis of the inference to intelligent design. So I don't know what his problem is.
Regardless, we can get out of your personal definitional conundrum. Just humor us by referring to two different kinds of design...
I'm not the one that is conflicted here. This is ID 101. There are not different kinds of design as you as using the term. If there was, then design as used by ID would be meaningless. You are asking me to describe some event which can scientifically be placed into the category of not designed when I have denied that such a thing is even possible. Mung (the Anti-Mark!):
Some things lead to an inference of design and some don’t. It doesn’t follow that the things that don’t lead to an inference of design are not designed. Science has not and never will develop a test of “unguidedness” or “undesignedness.”
Ooh, Christians fear THE MARK. So sure, call me THE ANTI-MARK!Mung_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

MF, I wish you a speedy recovery and soon departure from UD. Well at least the first part is true! The second I'm rather ambivalent about. How have you managed to avoid banation? What, precisely, is the evidence for materialism? Heck, even matter is isn't made of matter. What more evidence do you need that materialism is false?
All I ask is that explanations involving design are subject to the same scrutiny as explanations that do not.
LOL! You are so incredibly transparent. Nice try.
As it happens I have never come across any convincing evidence that anything has been designed other than things designed by humans.
So? That's how the design inference works. That's why it's called an inference. Do you have something against inference? Is it not scientific? Are other explanations not also based upon inference? Anyways, I hope you're just "under the weather" and it's nothing serious. At least you admit that design is a real concept and not just an illusion. But how is it that you limit design to humans? Is there something shared by humans to the exclusion of all other natural species that allows them to "design"?Mung_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

Mung @39: Well, if you prefer to imagine design in everything that is your prerogative. Hmmm . . . Mark thinks nothing is designed; Mung thinks everything is. I think I'll start calling you the "Anti-Mark"! Good thing his name isn't Christopher or something like that. :) Regardless, we can get out of your personal definitional conundrum. Just humor us by referring to two different kinds of design (i) "design 1" = what nearly everyone else in the world understands as design and what the dictionary refers to, and (ii) "design 2" = the other stuff that you think is also designed, although admittedly it can never be detected as such, and for which nearly everyone else in the English-speaking world uses words like "chance" and "necessity". [Hint: when we talk about design on this forum generally, we are talking about design 1.] There, that should do it. :) ----- BTW, just so onlookers are clear, this is quite separate from the question Mark and I were discussing about whether some things may be designed that don't appear designed. That is clearly the case, and relates to the false negatives I mentioned in detail.Eric Anderson_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Mark @28:
. . . without stopping for a moment to consider whether it was possible that it could be designed.
But, Mark. You just told us above that anything could be designed. So, which is it? :) Furthermore, are you really staking out a position that we can't possibly infer that something like a 4-bit digital coding system with storage, retrieval and translation mechanisms might have been designed unless we know for a fact that it could have been designed? You are going to take that position in spite of the blatantly obvious fact that (i) designers are known to produce systems of that type, and (ii) no natural process has ever come close to producing such a system? Additionally, human designers are now doing things like storing digital information in DNA, even researching the possibility of using DNA storage for computing applications. So, to anyone not blinded by silliness, yes, it is quite obvious that many things in biology could have been designed. Lastly, let's pursue your objection to its logical conclusion. Are you going to go on record and acknowledge that if and when humans eventually build a functional DNA-based data storage and retrieval mechanism (to give but one example), that you will then acknowledge that the DNA-based data storage and retrieval mechanisms in living organisms may have been designed? Hint: If you are willing to go on record, please say so. If not, then your a priori philosophical baggage is showing.
Yes I am looking for a mechanism.
Finally. Thank you for acknowledging this. Unfortunately, it means you do not understand the design inference, so until you get on board with what intelligent design is about (whether or not you agree with it), I fear there may not be much point in continuing.
If you accept no limits on the designer then anything could be designed. True?
Yes, in a purely theoretical sense. So? I have already explained, and it has no doubt been explained to you before, that ID is not in the business of identifying everything that is designed. ID leaves lots of false negatives by the wayside in order to focus on those situations in which design is clear. Again, this goes back to a basic understanding of what ID is about. It is not a valid criticism of ID to note that some things that don't look designed might in fact be designed. We already know that. It is well acknowledged in the ID literature. It is not an issue for ID.
I don’t think you can make a valid inference of design without some consideration of who, how, when etc.
Well, all I can say then, is that you need to think through it more clearly. Maybe get out a piece of paper and draw a flowchart for yourself or something. Example #1: Hiker in the Amazon jungle comes across a large rock lying on the trail. Hiker immediately, quickly, clearly and without any significant intellectual effort concludes that the rock was not designed. Hiker moves on his way, never proceeding to the subsequent questions of 'how', 'why', 'who', etc., precisely because those questions are not needed in order to draw the initial inference about whether the object was designed. Example #2: Hiker in the Amazon jungle comes across a round disc-shaped stone with pictographs and symbols on it. Hiker immediately, quickly, clearly and without any significant intellectual effort concludes that it was designed. Hiker then, and only then, starts to contemplate 'how', 'why', 'who', etc., precisely because those questions only arise once an inference to design has been drawn.. This is pretty basic stuff, but I realize it can be confusing to those who are wedded to the (false) notion that we have to know all kinds of things about the designer, or the design process, or the motives, personality or capabilities of the designer in order to infer design in the first place.Eric Anderson_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Eric Anderson:
One of the key practical considerations in the debate is that ID proponents accept the reality of both design and non-design in the history of life and the universe. Some things are designed; some things aren’t.
I'm not one of those ID proponents. Some things lead to an inference of design and some don't. It doesn't follow that the things that don't lead to an inference of design are not designed. If we had perfect design detection methods we would see that everything is designed, but we don't. Science is tentative like that. Science has not and never will develop a test of "unguidedness" or "undesignedness."Mung_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped:
I now go back and read what “figures” Mark was talking about. If Mark Frank found imagery of birds, spiders, and monkeys etched into the suface of the dark side of the moon,...
Far side of the Moon. You know, where Gary Larson writes from... :cool:Joe_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

UB, prezactly. KFkairosfocus_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

MF @ 28:
I don’t think you can make a valid inference of design without some consideration of who, how, when etc.
Really! If I were to find on Mars, say a Periodic Table or a drawing of a spaceship or a LGM or a dinosaur, I would immediately infer design on the FSCO/I involved, as an empirically reliable and analytically plausible sign of design. For reasons outlined here . . . yet again. What you are doing is taking up an irrelevancy in the teeth of a cogent inductive argument. If you could show that FSCO/I is not such a reliable sign, that would be one thing. Obviously, you don't have that -- and we both know that in past years there were dozens of failed attempts. What you have done instead is to go off after a red herring led out to a strawman that you have proceeded to pummel. Please, after all these years, do better than that. KFkairosfocus_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Good grief. I now go back and read what "figures" Mark was talking about. If Mark Frank found imagery of birds, spiders, and monkeys etched into the suface of the dark side of the moon, he says he would begin looking for natural explanations. Is there anything that more clearly demonstrates a clinically-frozen closed mind?Upright BiPed_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

MArk,
If the same figures were found in a place where people could not possibly have created them e.g. the other side of the moon, then we would have to start thinking seriously about some natural explanation.
What would you do if you found something symbolic or representational in a place that man had never been? You can come up with whatever you think would convince you that it was a representation, perhaps something that depicts the position of the stars, or perhaps something numerical scratched across the surface of a flat rock. Whatever it is, it is not the question here - we have to assume that there is at least some organization of an object that would convince you it was representational. The question is, what would you do then? Would you look for an "natural explanation"?Upright BiPed_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

JDD, very well put. KF Jerry, quite a blast from the past. KFkairosfocus_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply