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

This is a very long post but gets at the heart of what ID is and at those who object to it.
How can you refute a design inference other than by showing that the result could be achieved through natural processes?
Mark Frank has been here as long as I have and knows every nuance of ID but continues to misrepresent it. Is Mark not capable of knowing what ID is about? Hard to imagine as Mark worked for IBM in computers and should be able to follow basic logic. This is a series of comments I made several years to go to clarify just what ID is. This is nothing new but apparently must be told continually. It comes from a thread over 5 years ago: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/human-evolution-the-spin-machine-in-top-gear/#comment-318723
“I wonder how many times this will need to be repeated? The above is a test of the alternative theory, not of ID. It would not follow from the failure of the alternative that ID is correct. Both can be wrong. The entire population of U.D., USA seems to be particularly dense on this point.”
This is a rather stupid statement and indicates a lack of understanding of the issues. My reply to this is rather long so if no one wants to read it, I understand because I am mainly clarifying my thoughts by writing this. I will make this reply in three rather long comments and if anyone wants to comment, feel free. There are two choices for any phenomenon, both of them rather broad. One is that certain things happened naturally, the mechanism to be discovered. The second is that these things were produced through intelligent input. And by the way a lot of what may be considered natural, could be the result of a designed process allowed to proceed naturally. For some simple examples, pearl farmers seed their shell fish with an irritant and the let nature do the rest and beavers dam the course of a river and the ensuing wetlands provide an enhanced habitat for the beavers and other animals and plants.. But in general it is mainly one or the other but what appears to be natural could also be great design. There are no other choices unless you want to proffer some. As I said these are rather broad categories. It is almost impossible to eliminate the intelligent input option. It is not a theory such as gravity, the Standard Model, the Laws of Thermodynamics, Kinetic theory of Gases, Information theory or Plate Tectonics etc yet people keep on asking for some hypotheses and predictions. ID is simply that intelligence is an input at some time in the history of being, the universe, the world, life etc. Some hypothesize that it was in the design of the universe itself and the initial conditions and subsequent boundary conditions of the Big Bang were such fantastic design that it enables natural processes to produce everything we see including this very rare planet, the origin of life and the evolutionary progression through subsequent natural consequences. Some hypothesize that the input was ongoing and there were various events that reflect an intelligent input. This input could have been minimal and then natural processes were allowed to do the rest. To disprove an intelligent input, one has to show natural processes at every turn. It is a difficult job. All ID has to do is show that naturalistic processes fail at some point and that an intelligent input is more reasonable. They only need one point. That is the nature of the discussion. It seems unfair to some who whine that ID is unfalsifiable. But that is it. Because ID is more of a logic process and not a specific scientific theory it does not have the usual domain of interest such as plate tectonics, cosmology or even evolution. After all an intelligence could create life or modify a genome to guide life maybe only once and that is not the making of some theory. To create life or modify it is not too hard to understand as it appears to be within human capability in the near future. Thus, the possibility of an intelligence creating and modifying life is not an issue. It is whether it ever happened or not that is at issue. If we had a video camera at the time of an intelligent input, we could settle it once and for all but such an event does not exist and we have had people here and at other places demanding such evidence. Short of this something else has to be done.

Part 2 – We have observed a lot of phenomena through out history that could possibly be explained by an intelligent input and the challenge for science is to verify if there may be a natural cause for each. For most of history it was thought that God was personally responsible for most, much, or a lot of these phenomena. From Zeus throwing lightning bolts in anger and the various gods determining the fates of various personalities such as Odysseus to Newton’s hypothesis that God sent comets to stabilize the orbits of the planets. Newton’s laws and then LaPlace’s theory of the heavens seemed to show that all was under control of natural laws. So it was assumed from then on by many that everything must be under control of natural laws. We have no need for Zeus and lightning bolts and for comets stabilizing orbits. And we get the conventional wisdom that everything is due to natural laws and chance and it is only a matter of time before science gets around to explaining it. And science has a good track record. But what is glaringly obvious is that science has some spectacular failures in one particular area. So while science continues to chalk up win after win there seems to be one opponent which gets the better of it every time. Consequently, one has to reevaluate the conventional wisdom and maybe consider an alternative to natural processes. ID only exists because science loses most of the time to the heavy weights in this one area, namely life. It does wonderfully well in some important areas of life, specifically medicine, food production and genetics but it is badly outperformed by the problems in the areas of macro evolution and origin of life. Why this failure here? Is there an alternative to naturalistic processes in these two domains. Is intelligence an explanation? Hence, every time science fails in these areas it adds credence to the alternative. At this moment in the realm of logic and reason both alternatives exist. Which is more feasible? Every time we see the failure of one alternative it raises the possibility of the other. After all it is possible. We just cannot identify the intelligence. So each failure for a natural pathway raises the probability of the alternative, namely an intelligent input. And the rationale for an intelligent input has been bolstered by the knowledge that what underlies life is different from every other area of nature, specifically information. Information is not present in any other area of nature except life.

Part 3 – Now this game of supporting the ID premise is played two ways and both use the tools of science, logic and reason. One shows that time after time that certain naturalistic processes have failed. The second way is to show why naturalistic processes have failed. Both use science and point to the inadequacy of natural processes. There is a third way which one group says must be present before an intelligent input can be accepted and that is evidence for the specific event where there was an input of intelligence. The first way above is to challenge each natural explanation for the phenomenon as flawed and show why the explanation could not have possibly happened. This is the frequent challenges to Darwinian macro evolution we have seen not only by the ID people but also by the anti ID people as well as the creationists. It is represented here on this site and in the academic and popular literature by the lack of any coherent demonstration that Darwinian macro evolution ever took place. Now macro evolution did take place and no one is denying that here but there is no evidence for it happening by Darwinian processes or any other known natural processes. All the processes of science are brought to bear in this examination so to declare it non scientific is ludicrous. The second way is to use observations of the world and then to complement these observations with some form of analysis, mainly probability, and some understanding of natural processes to illustrate why the failure of naturalistic processes is not only reasonable but to be expected. To this end a couple of different approaches are in their infancy but have showed some reasonable results. One is being developed by Behe and is showing that there does not exist the probabilistic resources to create the changes needed in macro evolution. Behe’s two books, Darwin’s Black Box and Edge of Evolution, are aimed at this objective. Namely, that life is extremely complicated and naturalistic processes seem unable to climb the hurdles necessary to produce macro evolution. Another is being done by Dembski and others trying to show something similar using mathematical and probabilistic approaches to show that reaching the complexity necessary for life is beyond the probabilistic resources of the universe. So in lots of way the two approaches are similar but using different methodologies to attack the same problem. To argue that this is not science is also ludicrous. One may argue that the techniques by these scientists are flawed or that the interpretation of the results are invalid but to say that they are not using science is absurd. Now the naturalists respond with their challenges. The best challenge would always be to show that the phenomena probably arose by naturalistic means but this is rarely done because there seems to be little evidence supporting any particular mechanism. The main challenge is to use something similar to what I described above as the first approach, namely that the intelligent input scenario is flawed just as ID people point out that each naturalistic input is flawed. The creator could not be omniscient, or no one would design such an imperfect system or make these childish mistakes etc. They also point to science’s track record in other areas and that the work on the problem is just getting started etc. So we have two broad approaches and any evidence in one camp reduces the likelihood of the other. It is one that won’t be solved any time soon but to assume your side is right a priori is ridiculous. ID is the more reasonable side as far as I can see. They are willing to accept naturalistic explanations when it is demonstrated but are not willing to accept an arbitrary demand of absolute dismissiveness for intelligent inputs that is imposed by the naturalists. One side is flexible and reasonable while the other side is intransigent and unmoving.
I added the following comments to these three comments in response to another inane challenge.
“And in my experience ID “considering” these issues consists of time in an armchair parasitically reinterpreting data obtained by others – in a way that, once again, generates no testable assertions and hence no further research. That isn’t science.”
The best term I can use for this attitude is “clueless.” When science takes on one more additional possible explanation, it does not mean it eliminates all the other explanations. Maybe we should speak in shorter sentences so you may be able to understand. ID does not eliminate anything that current science does. ID can do any experiment that current science does. ID can do additional experiments that current science might not do. ID can come to the same conclusions as current science does. ID can also come to some different conclusions than current science. ID will come to a naturalistic explanation in nearly all experiments. But in fact naturalistic explanations can be used to support intelligence based conclusions. ID will do some things differently than current science about its conclusions. For example, it will not make up any unsupported conclusions. It will not use the words “it evolved”, “it was selected”, “it was exapted”, “it emerged” to explain an unknown event or transition. ID will not use its imagination as evidence in science. Now that you understand some of the things that ID will add to science you may try some other non sequiturs to your array of arguments. But I suggest you try to understand instead. ID adds, it does not subtract. Your point of view subtracts and restricts and oppresses and misinforms. So please try an honest and logical argument. It is getting tiresome. No one is asking you to agree with an ID conclusion even if it is completely logical and well supported, but try to represent it reliably instead of distorting it. You might learn something.
The anti-ID people are desperate to find some fault with ID that they misrepresent nearly everything and attribute some remarks by people as representing ID in total. It is a game of "gotcha." But that is all they have. They have no positive support for what they believejerry_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
You are right that I have been making the same point for years.
And it has been refuted for years. That seems to be a common thread with the anti-ID mob.Joe_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
But that is not scrutinising the design inference – that is looking only at the alternatives.
And looking at the alternatives is scrutinizing the design inference.
The way the design inference works as you describe it you could conclude that an object was designed because all conceivable alternatives appear too improbable without stopping for a moment to consider whether it was possible that it could be designed.
Except that is NOT how the design inference works. There also needs to be a reason, ie a POSITIVE case, for the design inference. Just as the EF mandates.
Yes I am looking for a mechanism.
Design is a mechanism.
If you accept no limits on the designer then anything could be designed. True?
Then all deaths are murders, all fires are arsons and all rocks are artifacts. True?
I would ask you to stop and think whether you can really decide that something is designed without any idea of what did the designing, why they did it, and what capabilities they had.
Absolutely. All it really takes is knowledge of cause and effect relationships to determine whether or not mother nature did it or an intelligent agency was required.
How can you refute a design inference other than by showing that the result could be achieved through natural processes?
Why is more than one way to refute a design inference required? So it all boils down to Mark's position has nothing but he wants us to wait because he is sure materialism will eventually sort it out. Tell us Mark, how can we refute materialism other than proving Design?Joe_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

Jerry #16 You are right that I have been making the same point for years. I believe I am correct but it is fairly pointless going over the arguments all over again. My excuse is that I am suffering from shingles and debating distracts me from the considerable pain.Mark Frank_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

Eric #24
What makes you think a design inference cannot be scrutinized? The design inference is rebutted all the time by competing theories in situations in which a chance or law-like process can demonstrably account for the artifact in question.
But that is not scrutinising the design inference – that is looking only at the alternatives. The way the design inference works as you describe it you could conclude that an object was designed because all conceivable alternatives appear too improbable without stopping for a moment to consider whether it was possible that it could be designed.
Furthermore, the design inference itself can be challenged by looking at the probabilities and real-world experience.
How is this different from checking there are no conceivable natural processes?
What you appear to be saying (without saying it) is that you are — yet again — looking for a mechanism.
Yes I am looking for a mechanism.
First of all, you need to go back and look at how the design inference works. ID has never claimed to be able to identify every instance of design. It is certain that ID will end up with many false negatives. That is OK. ID isn’t in the business of identifying everything that is designed; only that some things rise to a threshold where we can confidently infer design. Furthermore, ID proponents are perfectly happy acknowledging that lots of stuff in the universe and in life are not designed.
That does not contradict what I wrote. If you accept no limits on the designer then anything could be designed. True?
As to your last sentence, again, you need to acknowledge that those how, who, when, why questions are separate from and come after the inference of design. I’m not sure why you are having such difficulty separating those in your mind. Pretty basic logic 101 stuff.
The whole point is that I dispute that 101 stuff. I don’t think you can make a valid inference of design without some consideration of who, how, when etc. Take a most extreme example, Joe’s Nasca plain figures. Yes we all agree that they were designed not accidental, but that is a valid inference because we know that it is quite possible that there were people around when they were constructed and people are much more likely to deliberately create representations of things than nature is to unintentionally create them and it is not impossible that people could have created such things. We know a bit about people, their motives and capabilities. 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. We would probably still prefer some design hypothesis e.g. aliens in preference to a natural explanation – but the less plausible the design hypothesis the more seriously we would look for natural explanations – the important thing is you need to compare them.
Again, please stop and think. The question of ‘how’ is separate from the question of ‘whether.’ For the sake of all of us here, please take time to think through this before conflating them again.
It is the same point. Do you really think I have not stopped and thought about this? I would ask you to stop and think whether you can really decide that something is designed without any idea of what did the designing, why they did it, and what capabilities they had.
And your description of the design inference is completely false. As has been explained to you on multiple occasions, the inference to design is not simply based on the lack of a natural process. If you cannot grasp this simple fact, then please take time to learn a bit more about the design inference before making false claims. We have gone over this again and again and again
And I have refuted the point again and again. All the talk of CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, IC is a way of deciding there is no natural process and then disguising it in jargon and maths so you fool yourselves. It is most obvious in CSI where the actual calculation requires the probability of an alternative to be low. But think of it this way. How can you refute a design inference other than by showing that the result could be achieved through natural processes?Mark Frank_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Jerry - Thanks for your comments and laying out the situation. However, I have always assumed since fighting this battle with naturalists/atheists for many years and after seeing the same responses, that the logic I see as natural is not entertained by such people. I never think that I will convince them of their proposed folly and why I think I am right. Quite the opposite - I expect them to hold their ground. I am genuinely interested in the atheist's response to that question " what would existence of god/a designer look like in your opinion / what would the evidence look like for you to consider it evidence of design?" I have yet to hear a very good answer to it, least of all convincing as a reason for rejecting current design inferences. However I come back to the first point. Whilst having debated for a long time with atheists over this subject, what I realise is that forums and discussion websites like these are read by far more people that are searching than those who post. The overwhelming number of reads are often not posters. I believe that when someone is genuinely open to, and searching for truth, if you do not at least follow the argument through (even if you know they will not accept your argument) to a point that gives enough information to a genuinely inquisitive reader to leave and not think that you have lost that argument then you are doing them a dis-service. So where possible, I try to keep dialogue open even if I know someone I am speaking with will not change, as this is a record that literally 100s if not 1000s of people can view. If you stop replying too early and do not make a decent enough point, your arguments will be assuming invalidated by those neutrals who perhaps are more easily swayed one way or another. At least give them what you think is a full story and/or highlight the error of the logic of other arguments, if there is error there. That's just my personal view. Give people a full picture so they can make a fully informed decision.Dr JDD_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @21: Why are you asking for a mechanism? Take some time to think about why you phrased the question the way you did and you will realize that you are wedded to a mechanistic outlook. But it doesn't matter, because we never have to get to the mechanism to infer design. There are lots of ways that designers design, but we need to keep the focus on the basics for now because some people in this thread can't seem to get it straight that 'whether' is separate from 'how' or 'who' or 'when', etc. ----- BTW, while you're at it, please explain what mechanism caused you to write your comment @21. And don't give some vague unscrutinizable claim about neurons firing and such. We're looking for a concrete, detailed mechanism that caused you to write what you did, as opposed to some other different comment. Inquiring minds want to know.Eric Anderson_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

jerry @16; Thanks for the reminder of Mark's long-standing misunderstandings and red herring arguments. I guess I've fallen prey this time around to thinking that if we could just explain it one more time than something would click, a light bulb would go on. Sadly, perhaps a lost cause. Hopefully, there might be a sincere, objective onlooker out there who stumbles across the exchange and for whom the review, yet again, of what the design inference is and isn't will be helpful.Eric Anderson_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Mark @13:
Why? As it happens I have never come across any convincing evidence that anything has been designed other than things designed by humans. If the evidence points that way what should I do? Pretend I think something is designed to appear “objective”?
Ironically, even ardent Darwinists like Dawkins acknowledge that biological systems appear designed. So you should at least be willing to consider the possibility of design. And I don't mean in some untouchable, theoretical "sure, if I were to be convinced of design then I would be convinced" tautological sense. I mean as a live possibility. If not, then it betrays a philosophical, mental roadblock to considering design.
This where our ways part. I think it is not scientific to assert hypotheses that cannot be scrutinised.
What makes you think a design inference cannot be scrutinized? The design inference is rebutted all the time by competing theories in situations in which a chance or law-like process can demonstrably account for the artifact in question. Furthermore, the design inference itself can be challenged by looking at the probabilities and real-world experience. What you appear to be saying (without saying it) is that you are -- yet again -- looking for a mechanism.
If you assert something was designed and you place no limits on the powers and motives of the designer then anything might be designed (even things that have apparently natural explanations). And this is the key difference between ID and an assertion of design by the archaeologist or forensic scientist. If they assert something was designed it is possible to assess their assertion by asking who, when, how, etc.
First of all, you need to go back and look at how the design inference works. ID has never claimed to be able to identify every instance of design. It is certain that ID will end up with many false negatives. That is OK. ID isn't in the business of identifying everything that is designed; only that some things rise to a threshold where we can confidently infer design. Furthermore, ID proponents are perfectly happy acknowledging that lots of stuff in the universe and in life are not designed. As to your last sentence, again, you need to acknowledge that those how, who, when, why questions are separate from and come after the inference of design. I'm not sure why you are having such difficulty separating those in your mind. Pretty basic logic 101 stuff.
This is pretty much the same point again. You may not need a lot of detail but if you cannot describe any aspect of the design process in any way then your only evidence is that this could not have been done by a known natural process.
Again, please stop and think. The question of 'how' is separate from the question of 'whether.' For the sake of all of us here, please take time to think through this before conflating them again. And your description of the design inference is completely false. As has been explained to you on multiple occasions, the inference to design is not simply based on the lack of a natural process. If you cannot grasp this simple fact, then please take time to learn a bit more about the design inference before making false claims. We have gone over this again and again and again.Eric Anderson_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart:
Are you suggesting that there is no mechanism to “design”?
No. I am saying that we don't have to know how the design was implemented before we can infer that design exists. BTW, design is a mechanism.Joe_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Crop circles. Paranormal advocates say they are alien designed. Skeptics say they are human designed. Note that NO ONE says they are a result of pure chance or any natural contingency. Why is that? Because they are both complex AND specified. Design is the only logical conclusion, and it the question then becomes, "WHO is the designer?"OldArmy94_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

Design = with or for a purpose. As opposed to purposeless chance. What is the mechanism that causes purposeful action?Silver Asiatic_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

Just jumping into the conversation if you don't mind: @#13
As it happens I have never come across any convincing evidence that anything has been designed other than things designed by humans.
Will you accept that animal & insect intelligences design things? (Beaver dams, ant colony organizational structures, bee hives, birds nests)?Silver Asiatic_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

"It’s a theory that is all about the mechanisms, Mark. Yours is such a position, ID is not, for the reasons discussed." Are you suggesting that there is no mechanism to "design"? If not, then it is indistinguishable from magic.Acartia_bogart_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

Here is some sarcasm used with Mark Frank about 5 years ago. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/complex-specified-information-you-be-the-judge/#comment-305339
Mark Frank and Adel, you people are just too good to be true. Next they will be accusing us of having planted you people here. Yes, I make sarcastic remarks because absurdity deserves it. If I hear one more person wanting to know what FSCI is, I will scream. I explained it to my niece in 4th grade and she understood it and thought it was neat. But she is really a bright kid. Someone actually wants the laboratory techniques used 3.8 billion years ago. You talk about bizarre. I say a thousand as hyperbole and Mark in all seriousness says there is probably only a dozen. Mark wants the actual technique used a few billion years ago. Mark, I got word from the designer a few weeks ago and he said the original lab and blue prints were subducted under what was to become the African plate 3.4 billion years ago but by then they were mostly rubble anyway. The original cells were relatively simple but still very complex. Subsequent plants/labs went the same way and unfortunately all holograph videos of it are now in hyper space and haven’t been looked at for at least 3 million years. So to answer one of your questions, no further work has been done for quite awhile and the designer expects future work to be done by the latest design itself. The designer travels via hyper space between his home and our area of the universe when it is necessary. The designer said the techniques used were much more sophisticated than anything dreamed of by current synthetic biologist crowd but in a couple million years they may get up to speed and understand how it was actually done. The designer said it is actually a lot more difficult than people think especially since this was a new technique and he had to invent the DNA/RNA/protein process from scratch but amazingly they had the right chemical properties. His comment was “Thank God for that” or else he doesn’t think he wouldn’t have been able to do it. It took him about 200,000 of our years just experimenting with amino acid combinations to get usable proteins. He said it will be easier for current scientists since they will have a template to work off.
This is why the labs that were originally used to create life are no longer available.jerry_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

Thanks for the generous answer, Dr JDD.Bateman_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

Dr. JDD, Mark Frank has been making the same objection here for 7 or more years. He says show me the designer and the specific way he did it. Until then ID is nonsense. This objection is not rational but it is his way of denying ID as valid and not giving an inch. You can use logic, probability, emotional appeals, sarcasm, irony and none will work till you produce proof of the actual designer and how it was done.jerry_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Hi Mark, I am very curious, as I always am with all naturalists, to ask them what they consider would be adequate proof of either a god or design? My curiosity is genuine - I believe that design is the best, most rational and logical conclusion. Even atheists such as Dawkins will say it has "appearance of design". So I am very interested to know if you don't see any evidence for design, what would you consider to be evidence? Also, how do you tally up that science can say that we may never know or be able to test if there is a multiverse or not yet present it as a valid scientific theory, however a transcendent designer is rejected as a valid theory because it is currently untestable? ThanksDr JDD_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
As it happens I have never come across any convincing evidence that anything has been designed other than things designed by humans.
Thankfully you are not an investigator.
I think it is not scientific to assert hypotheses that cannot be scrutinised.
And the design inference can be scrutinized.
If you assert something was designed and you place no limits on the powers and motives of the designer then anything might be designed (even things that have apparently natural explanations).
If something can be explained via purely materialistic processes then we do not infer it was designed. That is how it works in archaeology, forensics and SETI.
If they assert something was designed it is possible to assess their assertion by asking who, when, how, etc.
ID doesn't stop anyone from asking those questions, Mark. They are just separate from the detection and study of design, which is what ID is about.
You may not need a lot of detail but if you cannot describe any aspect of the design process in any way then your only evidence is that this could not have been done by a known natural process.
That is incorrect. It has to also meet the design criteria or else we say "we don't know at this time".
I don’t understand what you mean by a mechanistic theory.
It's a theory that is all about the mechanisms, Mark. Yours is such a position, ID is not, for the reasons discussed.
How are we to tell whether it was possible to design life?
It's called evidence, Mark. ID has a methodology to determine design from nature, operating freely. And that is all that it needs. Most, if not all, anti-IDists always try to force any theory of intelligent design to say something about the designer and the process involved BEFORE it can be considered as scientific. This is strange because in every use-able form of design detection in which there isn’t any direct observation or designer input, it works the other way, i.e. first we determine design (or not) and then we determine the process and/ or designer. IOW any and all of our knowledge about the process and/ or designer comes from first detecting and then understanding the design. This is a virtue of design-centric venues. It allows us to neatly separate whether something is designed from how it was produced and/ or who produced it (when, where, why):
“Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production. A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question.” Wm. Dembski- pg 112 of No Free Lunch
Stonehenge- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when. Nasca Plain, Peru- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when. Any artifact (archeology/ anthropology)- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input. Fire investigation- if arson is determined (ie design); further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input. An artifact does not stop being an artifact just because we do not know who, what, when, where, why and how. But it would be stupid to dismiss the object as being an artifact just because no one was up to the task of demonstrating a method of production and/ or the designing agent. And even if we did determine a process by which the object in question may have been produced it does not follow that it will be the process used.Joe_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Eric
Excellent. I applaud your willingness to consider design. Can you identify for us an example of something in the history of the universe or the origin and diversity of life on Earth that you consider to be designed? If, on the other hand, you think there is only evidence for materialism (which is why you conclude materialism), then — despite what you say — it puts the lie to the claim of objectivity and shows that your materialism is borne of an a priori philosophical position, rather than a careful review of the evidence.
Why? As it happens I have never come across any convincing evidence that anything has been designed other than things designed by humans. If the evidence points that way what should I do? Pretend I think something is designed to appear “objective”?
1. The question of how something was designed is logically separate from, and subsequent to, the question of whether it was designed. ID is not an attempt to answer all questions. It is a limited inquiry into whether something was designed. Questions about who, why, how, when are all interesting second-order questions that can be asked only after an inference to design is drawn. You may want, deeply in your heart of hearts, for ID to answer all of those questions. But that is a failure of your expectations, not ID itself.
This where our ways part. I think it is not scientific to assert hypotheses that cannot be scrutinised. If you assert something was designed and you place no limits on the powers and motives of the designer then anything might be designed (even things that have apparently natural explanations). And this is the key difference between ID and an assertion of design by the archaeologist or forensic scientist. If they assert something was designed it is possible to assess their assertion by asking who, when, how, etc.
2. Design does not have to answer a “how” in the same way that purely natural explanations need to. That is because we are dealing with two different domains. Design is not a mechanistic theory. It is a theory about choice, about intentionality, about intelligence. You don’t need to know how the ancients built the pyramids or stonehenge, or the precise design and manufacturing process for how a solid state flash drive was built, to know that such things were designed.
This is pretty much the same point again. You may not need a lot of detail but if you cannot describe any aspect of the design process in any way then your only evidence is that this could not have been done by a known natural process.
In stark contrast, chance and natural-law-driven processes are all about the mechanism. They are purely mechanistic theories that live or die by identifying a natural physical mechanism. Many materialists (because, again, they can’t see past their materialism), want to demand that ID provide some kind of detailed mechanistic explanation for design. That demand is based on a misunderstanding, because ID is not a mechanistic theory. That is not a failure of ID. It is a failure by the materialist to understand the different domains we are dealing with.
I don’t understand what you mean by a mechanistic theory. Do you just mean a theory that doesn’t deign to deal with what is actually possible? How are we to tell whether it was possible to design life? Or do we take that for granted? Mark Frank_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

Bateman @ #7 – you raise a good point and one reason I hesitated whilst I typed that statement. However for me personally, the abiogenesis problem is the greatest problem (excluding the fine-tuning of the universe). The problem of macro-evolution in my mind is huge, but no-where near as big as abiogenesis (I strongly disagree with Dawkins on this one). Why? Because, at least with macro-evolution you have some material to work with. It is astonishing to believe that you could upwards generate complexity by chance (and contrary to everything we can and do currently observe), but that is still more believable to me when compared with generating self-sustaining, self-replicating, self-correcting machine (life) through chance. This is because by definition that chance is working on raw materials whereas macro-evolution is working on improving and adding to existing materials. That is not me supporting macro-evolution – rather it is my definition of the order of difficulty to overcome. Therefore, if someone could demonstrate how the simplest organism could arise through abiogenesis that satisfies the qualities of life, from raw non-living constituent components then macro-evolution become very believable and is not the hurdle to overcome. Observation of a true OOL event by chance would destroy my belief in God. That said, you can then say well what about the fine-tuning of the universe and that still supports a designer/god? Yes it does and that is a separate argument. However if the problem of life coming by chance from nothing on earth can be overcome without the need for a designer, then I would question the validity of the fine-tuning problem itself as I would be under the impression that something in nature perhaps then gives the appearance of design but is not design, and therefore we do not understand the laws of nature as purely random. Thus the possibility of the universe coming about through natural means is greatly elevated if life on earth can indeed be satisfactorily shown to also do so. Moving away from ID and towards the religious slant that comes from accepting a designer often I would side with RC Sproul on his logic argued in “Not a Chance…” book. Similar to this, from my own point of view, if chance was shown to be able to explain the OOL and subsequent origin of all the different organisms and species, and that therefore humans are but chance from a lesser species, there is no sovereign God and there is no real truth. Therefore if there is a “god” of sorts that even started off the universe, this god is none of those described in the Bible or any religion and as such we have no knowledge of this god and therefore no moral compass or understanding of how to live our lives in any way. It is hence all guesswork and the whole religion thing has no basis. How would we know what is “good” and “evil”? How would we know what might happen to our soul/self-consciousness when we die? The only option then, is for us to say that there is no real truth outside what we can see around us. Therefore the only positive we can take from life is that we have a brief stint of but a breath’s length here on earth so we should live the way we want, do what we want when we want and not worry or have any thought to the consequences of our actions. There is no real meaning as even if there is a god he has no true control as chance rules our lives in every single way from its generation to its completion. There are aspects of my faith that I wish were not true. People often say “You want to believe this is true, hence why you are a Christian.” That is not entirely true though, there are plenty of parts of Christianity I do not want to be true, but I accept them as true because of the evidence. To me the evidence demonstrates that there must be a designer, this designer must be transcendent if true, and that life cannot arise by itself from material things or naturalistic processes. If there is a transcendent God/designer, we can only know a very small bit about Him and His character by studying what He designed. That is not sufficient though, as it simply speaks to order, complexity and immense power – it does not speak to morals and guilt and right and wrong and our inherent different nature to other animals (self-consciousness, morally aware, meaningful relationships, etc) that makes us supremely unique. Therefore, you must search theological texts that claim to be from God. One of those such collection of texts claims to be from God and the evidence (to me) stands up to those claims therefore in fact we can know a sufficient amount about God and His character and the other matters that we desire to know about the transcendent God. Consequently, if you accept that text (the Bible) as truly from God and about Him rather than man’s words you have to humble yourself and accept those things that you do not want to be true, but you accept because of who says it (for example, there is a Hell). You cannot pick and choose what you want, accepting what you like and rejecting what you do not like. That is illogical. Therefore, the process is cyclic – examine the evidence, conclude there must be a designer, find out if such a designer has revealed themselves and if so, their revelation must be taken seriously. Notice how the process starts with evidence though – not blind faith.Dr JDD_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

Mark @9: Joe has addressed your comments pretty well, but I'd like to add some thoughts as well.
It may well be that some materialists hold this position. But I don’t. For me materialism is a conclusion not a philosophical position, which might be overturned by evidence to the contrary.
Excellent. I applaud your willingness to consider design. Can you identify for us an example of something in the history of the universe or the origin and diversity of life on Earth that you consider to be designed? If, on the other hand, you think there is only evidence for materialism (which is why you conclude materialism), then -- despite what you say -- it puts the lie to the claim of objectivity and shows that your materialism is borne of an a priori philosophical position, rather than a careful review of the evidence.
I use the phrase “explanations involving design” because just to offer “design” as an explanation is utterly inadequate. If I were to say life originated by “chance” without saying anything about how chance might achieve it, you would be rightly dismissive. Purported chance explanations of OOL say something about how it happened, which enables them to be assessed; and as you note many have been dismissed as a result. Explanations involving design also need to say something about how so they too can be assessed.
This sounds all well and good, until we realize the following logical facts: 1. The question of how something was designed is logically separate from, and subsequent to, the question of whether it was designed. ID is not an attempt to answer all questions. It is a limited inquiry into whether something was designed. Questions about who, why, how, when are all interesting second-order questions that can be asked only after an inference to design is drawn. You may want, deeply in your heart of hearts, for ID to answer all of those questions. But that is a failure of your expectations, not ID itself. 2. Design does not have to answer a "how" in the same way that purely natural explanations need to. That is because we are dealing with two different domains. Design is not a mechanistic theory. It is a theory about choice, about intentionality, about intelligence. You don't need to know how the ancients built the pyramids or stonehenge, or the precise design and manufacturing process for how a solid state flash drive was built, to know that such things were designed. In stark contrast, chance and natural-law-driven processes are all about the mechanism. They are purely mechanistic theories that live or die by identifying a natural physical mechanism. Many materialists (because, again, they can't see past their materialism), want to demand that ID provide some kind of detailed mechanistic explanation for design. That demand is based on a misunderstanding, because ID is not a mechanistic theory. That is not a failure of ID. It is a failure by the materialist to understand the different domains we are dealing with.Eric Anderson_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
For me materialism is a conclusion not a philosophical position, which might be overturned by evidence to the contrary.
A conclusion based on what, exactly?
All I ask is that explanations involving design are subject to the same scrutiny as explanations that do not.
' The EF demands they (design inferences) are subject to more scrutiny than materialistic explanations.
I use the phrase “explanations involving design” because just to offer “design” as an explanation is utterly inadequate.
No it isn't. Saying design tells us nature, operating freely, was not responsible and agency involvement was required.
Explanations involving design also need to say something about how so they too can be assessed.
That is also incorrect. With design the how comes AFTER design has been determined. Are you really that scientifically illiterate that you don't understand that? Stonehenge- designed determined and then many decades of investigation to determine how and we still don't know. And Stonehenge is much more simple than a living organism. Materialism is the position that is a step-by-step paradigm, ie a mechanistic position. ID is not.Joe_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

Eric #8 This is much the same point that you made here and this gives me an opportunity to address it in a different way. You paint a picture of materialists being philosophically unable to accept explanations involving design for any aspect of life. It may well be that some materialists hold this position. But I don’t. For me materialism is a conclusion not a philosophical position, which might be overturned by evidence to the contrary. All I ask is that explanations involving design are subject to the same scrutiny as explanations that do not. I use the phrase “explanations involving design” because just to offer “design” as an explanation is utterly inadequate. If I were to say life originated by “chance” without saying anything about how chance might achieve it, you would be rightly dismissive. Purported chance explanations of OOL say something about how it happened, which enables them to be assessed; and as you note many have been dismissed as a result. Explanations involving design also need to say something about how so they too can be assessed.Mark Frank_{June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT}

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. In contrast, the materialist must, by very definition, assert that nothing is designed. His is a militant, take-no-prisoners, rigid, exclusionary theory that refuses to countenance even one act of intelligent intervention in the history of the universe or the origin and diversity of life on the Earth. So even if OOL were somehow explained by purely natural causes (insert laughter), it would not completely overturn ID (there are many aspects of biology that point to design; and as Bateman points out @7, there are other non-biological aspects of the universe that may indicate intelligence). In contrast, if OOL (or any other aspect of the universe or life) were accepted as resulting from an intelligent cause, then the materialist's theory crumbles and he is up a creek.* That may seem like a disparity. It may seem that ID has somehow set itself up in an unfairly advantageous position in the debate. Sorry, but that is just the way the theories work. It isn't the ID proponent's fault that the materialist has painted himself into a corner by adopting a myopic, limited naturalistic theory that cannot even admit to the possibility of design at any point in history. The problem is not with the ID proponent. The problem is that the materialist has adopted a limiting and, frankly, a silly, logically-unsupportable position. So the debate over OOL takes place on uneven grounds. ID proponents are quite keen on discussing OOL, because it is a prime example of an obvious place in the history of the universe and life where intelligent intervention is required. So there is naturally a lot of interest there, although ID does not entirely rest on OOL having been designed. But the materialist is even more adamant about OOL. Adamant that there just must be a purely naturalistic explanation. Adamant to the point that alternative viewpoints are not even given a fair shake. Militant to the point of name calling and ad hominems and fist-pounding rhetoric about science only allowing naturalistic explanations. Adamantly opposed to the possibility of design with all the fervor of a religious zealot. The reason the design argument resonates with so many people and why design is starting to win the day with those who are willing to approach the subject in an objective manner is not because we design proponents are all such skilled debaters (though we would like to think we are!). No. The reason is a combination of the fact that (i) design is apparent (as even admitted by prominent anti-design people) and is supported by positive evidence, while on the other hand (ii) the materialistic creation story is just such a terrible, laughable theory. ----- * The materialist could, perhaps, fall back to admitting that life on Earth was designed, while asserting that it must have been designed by an intelligent alien, which in turn came into existence purely by natural causes. However, in addition to the complete lack of support for any assertion of an alien's non-design, this is not a particularly satisfying answer for the materialist, and is only likely to be adopted in the most dire of debating circumstances.Eric Anderson_{June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT}

Dr JDD, Nice comment. One point of contention. You said that there is no need for God if materialism can explain OOL. I would point out that the laws of nature and materialism existed before the Big Bang. Does that not indicate a Lawgiver? Morality and purpose; isnt there a transcendence required there in order for them to have ultimate meaning? I recall that the laws of physics needing to exist before the big bang may have put some doubt in Sagan's mind.Bateman_{June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

Nicely expressed, Dr JDD. You can easily test bias by switching the attributed author or reversing the object under discussion. For example, there's no logical distinction between the statements that you frequently hear and to these statements: "But you don't believe in a God and are an atheist so you are biased and interpret this how you want.” “You want to believe in materialism and have a need to believe that God doesn't exist so you are simply interpreting the evidence in light of that.” “Your judgement is clouded because of your faith.” (no change) -QQuerius_{June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Is he really that non-perceptive in philosophical critical reasoning and simple logic deduction? I find this absurd. 99.9% of my conversations with atheist friends (and just atheists in some cases) always end up coming to this sort of argument: "But you believe in a God and are a Christian so you are biased and interpret this how you want." "You want to believe in God and have a need to believe in a God so you are simply interpreting the evidence in light of that." "Your judgement is clouded because of your faith" All of these things I contend most atheists will always come back to and at least think in their minds if not spoken. This is why when religious scientists speak about things that are to do with OOL, if they do not conform to the atheistic view, they will almost instantly be dismissed as from a predetermined background and therefore not unbiased (and therefore wrong). This is completely illogical, because the undertone therefore is, that because they are not religious nor hold a belief to God, they are therefore unbiased and more capable of making the correct informed decisions on evidence. They look through a clear glass whereas the theist looks through a translucent one. Anyone applying any simple logic can see the fallacy of this. OOL science vastly impacts on one's world view. If nature and material things can explain all around us, then the most natural conclusion is there is no God. I fully subscribe to that conclusion if the evidence showed that. What is the point of God then if material can do it itself? And if you have a belief that there is no God, why would you ever choose to favour a scientific theory that implied there must be a god of sorts? You have bias just as much as the theist does. Therefore, the only true "unbiased" person you could perhaps argue is an agnostic (however reasoning will probably lead you to the conclusion noone is truly unbiased on issues that directly affect their worldviews). But wait a minute, I am sure you will say that I am being unfair - I am assuming that someone was an atheist and interpreted the evidence in that light. Maybe, someone was agnostic or even theist and went looking for truth and as a result became an atheist - surely then they are not biased in the same way? Well yes of course that is a slightly different scenario but it is negated by the fact that it works the other way around. Plenty of athetists have changed their worldviews however the difference is most of the time the atheist camp will simply claim they have gone a bit "mad in their old age" or "lost it a bit" or have been "brainwashed by Bible bashers or similar". So the most relevant thing about a scientist when they discuss data that impacts OOL evidence is in fact their faith position regarding "God". There is no way that someone's hair colour or anything else he mentions is more or as equally relevant. The most convinving or the strongest pieces of evidence for a theory are the pieces of evidence acknowledged by someone who disagrees with that theory as being evidence in favour of that theory. When an IDist says, "this does support evolution" you know that is strong evidence. When an atheist says, "this does support design" you know it is strong evidence. However in my experience atheists in particular are the last to budge and they will not budge an inch (e.g. look at what was said in times past about junk DNA then look more recently).Dr JDD_{June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

@Aspire I help moderate the http://reddit.com/r/creation forum. It's pretty active. There are usually a couple dozen posts a week and a few hundred comments.JoeCoder_{June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

This is totally unrelated, but thought I might ask; is there a "uncommon descent" forum of some sort? There is a lot of very knowledgeable and smart ID proponents on this site, but it would be nice to talk to them and ask questions in a forum setting.Aspire to Solomon_{June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply