Another species of “hominin” still alive?

_{News
April 21, 2022

Human evolution, Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Human evolution
Intelligent Design}

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

Between Ape and Human: An Anthropologist on the Trail of a Hidden Hominoid by [Gregory Forth]

No, it does not make nearly that much sense. The Flores people were real.

Meanwhile, here’s the story by anthropologist Gregory Forth, author of Between Ape and Human (2022) — a summary of his book, more or less — advancing a remarkable claim about still-missing “hominins” at The Scientist:

Coming from a professional anthropologist and ethnobiologist, my conclusions will probably surprise many. They might even be more startling than the discovery of H. floresiensis—once described by paleoanthropologist Peter Brown of the University of New England in New South Wales as tantamount to the discovery of a space alien. Unlike other books concerned with hominin evolution, the focus of my book is not on fossils but on a local human population called the Lio and what these people say about an animal (as they describe it) that is remarkably like a human but is not human—something I can only call an ape-man. My aim in writing the book was to find the best explanation—that is, the most rational and empirically best supported—of Lio accounts of the creatures. These include reports of sightings by more than 30 eyewitnesses, all of whom I spoke with directly. And I conclude that the best way to explain what they told me is that a non-sapiens hominin has survived on Flores to the present or very recent times.
Gregory Forth, “” at The Scientist (April 2018, 2022)

So no one has ever found one of them but we are supposed to take this seriously?

Also:

Lio folk zoology and cosmology also include stories of natural beings, specifically humans, transforming permanently into animals of other kinds. And they do this, in part, by moving into new environments and adopting new ways of life, thus suggesting a qualified Lamarckism.
Gregory Forth, “” at The Scientist (April 2018, 2022)

Which is supposed to make the evidence stronger?

Our initial instinct, I suspect, is to regard the extant ape-men of Flores as completely imaginary. But, taking seriously what Lio people say, I’ve found no good reason to think so.
Gregory Forth, “” at The Scientist (April 2018, 2022)

There is no evidence for the existence of any such life form.

Okay. Untraceable hominins. Elves, fairies, the Abominable Snowman? So this is all “science” now?

Note: The Scientist story riffs off Flores Man, which was a genuine find.

Comments

DD
Nobody knows, analogously, if the core is hot or cold.
That's my point. Nobody knows. But it does not stop science from proposing inferences to reasonable explanations that are accepted by a consensus. Scientists don't say "Nobody knows so it could be hot or cold".
But it’s worse than that, really – ID can’t even say what it means, analogously, to be “hot”. It hasn’t even defined the concept, analogously, of “temperature”.
That is not correct. ID can be tested and falsified. You've proposed GPT-3. That's an intelligently designed product. Instead, you need to use blind, unintelligent natural processes or random effects - with no input of human or other intelligence.Silver Asiatic_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Jerry: That you proposed this means you haven’t a clue about ID. They have done the math.
Then what is the probability of the flagellum evolving. Please show your math.
Why don’t you read Doug Axe and Stephen Meyer.
I have. Now, let’s see if you can answer this probability question. From a starting point of 500 years ago, what is the probability that you would be alive today?JHolo_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

DD
So this doesn’t really help with the “disembodied intelligence” option of ID.
I explained this to you twice already - here's the third and last time. ID does not specify a "disembodied intelligence". You continue to repeat that, even though you contradict yourself later in the very same post by saying that the cause of the universe could be physical.
Now let me anticipate your response: “But computers are designed by human beings!”. But that response doesn’t help you: AI computer systems are designed to be intelligent. It doesn’t matter than humans designed them – that’s just asking “who designed the designer?” .
The fact that humans designed them means their cause was not deterministic.
Of course I could ask that same question of your brand of ID.
I don't have a brand of ID. I just use the standard texts from Behe, Meyer and others.
No refutation, SA.
You stated: "All intelligent causes are living organisms, without exception." That was refuted. You bounced off of that, without much reflection on your mistake, and went running in a different direction. In the end, you're taking one fall-back position. "We don't know."
Purely deterministic mechanical systems can indeed be intelligent – we agree about that. That means ID can’t eliminate all possible “blind, natural” processes as causes of biological complexity.
The source of the intelligence in such systems cannot be deterministic, mechanism. As with a computer. Design comes from an intelligent source. This is not controversial.
Depends what you mean by “unintelligent”.
The term "intelligence" is well understood in this context. Darwin knew what it was. Dawkins knows. All the anti-ID writers knows what is meant by intelligent design vs unintelligent cause. That's the entire basis of the materialist system.
You can call it “intelligent” or “unintelligent” or “natural” or “supernatural” or whatever else, but it doesn’t change the fact that nobody knows what it is.
This is really all you're saying. "Nobody knows". There's a body on the floor with three gunshots in it, a revolver found outside the room. Question for forensics team: "Was it an accident, murder or suicide"? Answer: "Nobody knows". From that, we just have to walk away. Nobody knows what happened. Nothing more we can do about it. I make the challenge: "Show me how an unintelligent process can produce the complex design". Answer: "Nobody knows what an unintelligent cause is". If you want to investigate the cause of things, you have to look at what we do know and extend knowledge beyond that. Nobody knows how the first organisms in the Cambrian fossil layer developed. In fact, nobody has witnessed a new species of animal evolve from a previous one. But that hasn't stopped evolutionists from making their claims.Silver Asiatic_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

The approach ID takes is analogous to harping on the very low probability of Jerry winning the lottery rather than looking at the probability that someone will win the lottery. These are two very different probabilities.
Nonsense example. Someone I know once proposed a lottery that was based on one’s social security number. It’s 9 digits. Sounded like an interesting lottery when focus grouped. Till when they realized that the odds of winning were 1 in a billion and that it would be rare event when someone won, probably never. The lottery of life is similar except the odds are 1 in 10 to the million power or higher. Or essentially no time in a trillion universes or more to get the right combination. In other words no winners ever. That you proposed this means you haven’t a clue about ID. They have done the math.
meaningless to talk about the probability of events without clearly stating what those events are.
But they do. Why don’t you read Doug Axe and Stephen Meyer. Then there is the fine tuning of the universe. Here is one video on it. Based on probability https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE76nwimuT0 Stephen Meyer goes through the history of fine tuning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ7GBZm087Yjerry_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

I'd suggest it's meaningless to talk about the probability of events without clearly stating what those events are.Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Jerry: ID is essentially a probability analysis.
Agreed. But it is an improper use of probability. It looks at the probability of a specific outcome rather than the probability of an unspecified outcome. A good analogy is a lottery. The approach ID takes is analogous to harping on the very low probability of Jerry winning the lottery rather than looking at the probability that someone will win the lottery. These are two very different probabilities.JHolo_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

My position is that there is design in nature. Evolutionary theory proposes an explanation for that design. ID argues that the mechanism evolutionary theory proposes is wrong ( Meyer) or insufficient (Behe). What I am unaware of is IDs mechanism of design. As Jerry says I should know, having read comments at this site for a while. But I seem to have missed that.Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Jerry says "You misrepresented in #23." Don't think so, Jerry.Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Jerry says I misrepresented him
Yes you did. I put that in as a throw away. To see if that is what you would answer. You misrepresented in #23. By the way, the official position of ID is “we don’t know” to the questions I asked. But the science that describes these phenomena, points to some extremely unusual things about each that are not present anywhere else. ID is essentially a probability analysis.jerry_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Jerry says I misrepresented him. Don't think so, Jerry. I asked for clarification.Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

SA,
DD:All intelligent causes are living organisms, without exception. SA:AI systems are not living organisms.
Ah yes! Excellent point, SA! AI systems do indeed accomplish tasks that, if a human were to perform them, would be called "intelligent"! This is an example of something that is not a complex living organism, but still has a type of intelligence. Unfortunately this undercuts your beliefs in two different ways. First, while computers are not living organisms, they are most certainly highly complex, functional, physical systems. So this doesn't really help with the "disembodied intelligence" option of ID. Second, computers are (generally) deterministic machines that operate according to the "blind" laws of nature. Since you believe that mechanistic processes are capable of intelligence, this undercuts your argument against mechanistic processes (such as evolutionary processes) being capable of producing complex form and function. Now let me anticipate your response: "But computers are designed by human beings!". But that response doesn't help you: AI computer systems are designed to be intelligent. It doesn't matter than humans designed them - that's just asking "who designed the designer?" Of course I could ask that same question of your brand of ID. After all, if being designed by something else meant something wasn't really intelligent, then you would have to declare that we humans (being, in your view, designed by something else) are not actually intelligent ourselves. Purely deterministic mechanical systems can indeed be intelligent - we agree about that. That means ID can't eliminate all possible "blind, natural" processes as causes of biological complexity.
You’re putting words in my mouth here. ID speaks of an intelligent cause. You’ve built your own logic which is now refuted, but ID never proposed a living organism.
No refutation, SA. You spoke of a "known cause" of complexity, and I simply point out that the only "known" causes of complexity are living organisms. You've chosen to add AI systems to that list, which I thought was a very good addition.
You have three options: 1. Yes, it’s an intelligent cause 2. No, it’s an unintelligent cause 3. It could be either – I don’t know.
As I've said - and you have ignored - you would need to specify exactly what abilities and attributes you would be claiming to "intelligent cause" in order to evaluate that claim against the evidence.
For the third option, saying “you don’t know” means it’s possible that an unintelligent cause produced the effect in question.
Depends what you mean by "unintelligent".
Again, I invited you to show that and you simply repeated “no one knows”.
Nobody knows what caused the universe to exist, nor life to begin. You can call it "intelligent" or "unintelligent" or "natural" or "supernatural" or whatever else, but it doesn't change the fact that nobody knows what it is.
Why should no one know if an unintelligent cause can produce complex, specified, functional information?
AI systems are purely mechanical, deterministic systems that create CSI.
As we speak, people continue to try to randomize some numbers and letters to see what results they observe. Try the monkeys typing Shakespeare experiment.
Try GPT-3.
Again, with AI systems. We have conferred intelligence on non-living things through the use of code, electricity and physical material – through Intelligent Design.
Yes indeed! AI systems are bona fide intelligent agents (of a sort) even though they are deterministic mechanical systems. The creator of AI systems are also intelligent agents, which could be deterministic mechanical systems. And the creators of the creators of AI systems could be deterministic mechanical systems. And so on. How did it all get started? Nobody knows!. Still and yet: AI is fabulously successful at certain (intelligent) tasks, and hopelessly inept at others. This is why many people deny that AI systems are "intelligent" at all. This could also be true of the cause of the universe and first life. This is why it doesn't mean anything to call some hypothetical cause "intelligent" - it just doesn't tell you anything at all about what the cause is, and what it can and can't do.
There are a lot of people, analogously, who claim that the core of the sun is cold.
Nobody knows, analogously, if the core is hot or cold. But it's worse than that, really - ID can't even say what it means, analogously, to be "hot". It hasn't even defined the concept, analogously, of "temperature".dogdoc_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

But how does any of what you write in that comment allow you to infer dishonesty in those with whom you disagree
Not to answer something but go on to something irrelevant. I responded in #9. Why don’t you answer/respond to the comment made there?
I have been a regular reader here for a while
If this is true then you must know the ID position and that Dogdoc did not respond to it and diverted. You also must know that you misrepresented what I said.jerry_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

Has anyone considered the obvious, that the Lio people must either be excellent b*llsh*ters having one over on the professor or high on some type of indigenous hallucinogen....chuckdarwin_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

PPPS at Jerry Just to add I have been a regular reader here for a while mainly because of the amusement I get from Jerry's comments and trying to decide which are tongue-in-cheek and which are serious.Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

PPS at Jerry ID has an explanation for the beginning of living organisms on Earth? I'd not heard that. Can you give a summary?Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

PS to Jerry Saying "I don't know" to the question of how life got started on Earth if you really don't know can hardly be called dishonest. Who does know?Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Replying to Jerry (comment no 21) But how does any of what you write in that comment allow you to infer dishonesty in those with whom you disagree?Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

On what basis does Jerry form that opinion?
By the fact that the commenter does not respond to questions with anything sensible or respond to answers to his comments. He then proceeds to makes up other nonsense.
so convinced of the rightness of his points that anyone who disagrees with him must inevitably be dishonest
If some provide evidence and logic in response to a question/remark then that has to be considered. Dogdoc has done neither. Otherwise the comment made is nonsense and non responsive.
The best conclusion to what caused it is “I don’t know”,
Why is the universe so finely tuned? How did it happen as such? To say “I don’t know” is an answer but hardly an adequate criticism of ID. In fact it’s an admission that ID is probably right. It commits the logical fallacy of “begging the question.”jerry_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

And with regard to the universe, nobody has suggested that it was uncaused, or that it started from nothing. We have a fairly good idea of what happened from a point shortly after the start of the “big-bang”. The best conclusion to what caused it is “I don’t know”, not “intelligent design”. Again, invoking intelligence as the cause is a projection from personal belief, not evidence.JHolo_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Jerry says dogdoc is not an honest commenter. On what basis does Jerry form that opinion? Is it that Jerry is so convinced of the rightness of his points that anyone who disagrees with him must inevitably be dishonest?Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

All known sources of design are the result of intelligence embodied in a physical cell-based life-form. Therefore, the most appropriate inference is that if life or the universe was designed, then it was designed by a physical cell-based life-form. Anything else would be speculation or projection from deeply held previous beliefs.JHolo_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

F/N, meanwhile, on the table from Smithsonian,
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/human-skin-color-variation/modern-human-diversity-genetics People today look remarkably diverse on the outside. But how much of this diversity is genetically encoded? How deep are these differences between human groups? First, compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically far less diverse – a counterintuitive finding, given our large population and worldwide distribution. For example, the subspecies of the chimpanzee that lives just in central Africa, Pan troglodytes troglodytes, has higher levels of diversity than do humans globally, and the genetic differentiation between the western (P. t. verus) and central (P. t. troglodytes) subspecies of chimpanzees is much greater than that between human populations. Early studies of human diversity showed that most genetic diversity was found between individuals rather than between populations or continents and that variation in human diversity is best described by geographic gradients, or clines. A wide-ranging study published in 2004 found that 87.6% percent of the total modern human genetic diversity is accounted for by the differences between individuals, and only 9.2% between continents. In general, 5%–15% of genetic variation occurs between large groups living on different continents, with the remaining majority of the variation occurring within such groups (Lewontin 1972; Jorde et al. 2000a; Hinds et al. 2005). These results show that when individuals are sampled from around the globe, the pattern seen is not a matter of discrete clusters – but rather gradients in genetic variation (gradual geographic variations in allele frequencies) that extend over the entire world. Therefore,there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between peoples on different continents or “races.” The authors of the 2004 study say that they ‘see no reason to assume that “races” represent any units of relevance for understanding human genetic history. An exception may be genes where different selection regimes have acted in different geographical regions. However, even in those cases, the genetic discontinuities seen are generally not “racial” or continental in nature but depend on historical and cultural factors that are more local in nature’ (Serre and Pääbo 2004: 1683-1684).
kairosfocus_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

Jerry, it seems to me that -- with a very active Internet and social media presence and institutional domination behind it -- the stream of objections are rather thin gruel. That in itself sends a message regarding actual balance on merits. It also tells us something about message domination and the power of pushing an agenda. Behind, one can scent fear. First, the obvious fear from projections of ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked religious bogeymen. Second, the more important fear that the ideology of evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers actually is a spent force, having lost on merits and, significantly, is now leading to increasingly bizarre sociocultural and policy agendas. With serious inflationary and wider economic and geostrategic consequences . . . I just spent nearly US$ 8 per gallon for gas, reflecting the wider impact of policy failures. The only alternatives they see are those horrible right wing theocrats and Christofascists. It is time some slanders were broken and it is time to put fairly serious reform principles on the table that can lead to sounder ways than those of mutiny on the ship of state. KF PS, it is particularly important to note the utter unwillingness to acknowledge that there are reliable signs of intelligent cause. That reflects crooked yardstick thinking.kairosfocus_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

Dogdoc is not an honest commenter. He revealed that in his first comment when he brought religion into the discussion and emphasized his dishonesty in his subsequent two comments with his evasions and baiting. So debating him is useless unless some think answering his evasions/diversion/false logic suddenly helps someone reading. He is not here to understand or react positively in any way. He’s just another anti religion person who makes up nonsense. His resorting to who is the designer trope is another example. He wants a religious answer. He is here like nearly all the rest to irritate. And UD commenters are quite willing to oblige because the objective seems to be generating comments which just allows more opportunities for irritation. Understanding is never the objective for most.jerry_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

Dogdoc
All intelligent causes are living organisms, without exception.
AI systems are not living organisms.
So you are apparently proposing that the cause of the first complex living organism was… another complex living organism, which is not a helpful theory.
You're putting words in my mouth here. ID speaks of an intelligent cause. You've built your own logic which is now refuted, but ID never proposed a living organism. You have three options: 1. Yes, it's an intelligent cause 2. No, it's an unintelligent cause 3. It could be either - I don't know. For the third option, saying "you don't know" means it's possible that an unintelligent cause produced the effect in question. Again, I invited you to show that and you simply repeated "no one knows". Why should no one know if an unintelligent cause can produce complex, specified, functional information? As we speak, people continue to try to randomize some numbers and letters to see what results they observe. Try the monkeys typing Shakespeare experiment.
Intelligence isn’t a thing, it is a property of living things.
Again, with AI systems. We have conferred intelligence on non-living things through the use of code, electricity and physical material - through Intelligent Design. So, we can see that intelligence is something that can be transmitted and actually created in that way. It's not a difficult inference to accept that the cause of the universe or of the first living organism is intelligent. As for what the intelligent designer is, you can consult philosophy (Aristotle had his arguments for the designer, for example) or religion. But ID is not a philosophical or religious project. It has to stop at what is empirical.
Anyway, all you are actually saying when you refer to an “intelligent designer” is “something that is capable of producing the complex form and function we observe”
Exactly. The choices were as above. It could be an unintelligent, blind natural cause - like gravity. Or it could be an intelligent cause, like human or other intelligences we know of. It's a forensics project: Was the crime deliberate (intelligently designed) or was it accidental (blind, unintelligent cause)? We don't start the investigation by asking "Ok, who killed him?" - ID just sorts through the first question: Design or chance. You're demanding that ID answer every following question, but it's not capable of that. The fingerprint team is not the DNA analysis team. There are various functions used in forensic research. ID is one function.
..., without providing any other description of what that thing is. It’s like answering the question “Why is the Sun hot?” by answering “Because it somehow produces heat”.
ID addresses the question of the origin of things, so it cannot use direct observations. It has to use inferences. So, it's like the inference on the sun's core. What is it like? We have to draw an inference because we can't observe the core of the sun. We use what we can observe to infer that the sun's core is hotter than the surface. We don't say "the only solar heat we know of is what we see, therefore the core of the sun cannot be hotter than what we observe on the surface". Of course, we infer there is a different degree of heat (even a heat unknown to humanity) at the core. But ID is not even going that far. ID is dealing with people who say "we don't know if the core of the sun is hot. It might actually be very cold". ID is just saying, in a sense, that there is heat at the core of the sun. What kind of heat, how hot, how big the core is? - are different questions. There are a lot of people, analogously, who claim that the core of the sun is cold. So, ID works to provide a convincing inference otherwise - based on what we know, then applied to what we don't know or cannot see.Silver Asiatic_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

KF says=>DD, circular argument Exactly. Design is the null. There is no way to distinguish design because everything is designed.Fred Hickson_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

DD, circular argument and projection. You do not know that all life is cell based or that all intelligence is cell based; you do not -- cannot, it is self refuting -- know that what we see justifies inferring that evolutionary materialistic forces account for the world of cell based life . . . one cannot know the necessarily false save that it is self defeating. We exemplify that certain cell based life forms are intelligent and that intelligence is possible but cannot exhaust possibilities; intelligence is not the gostak distims the doshes. We can further know that responsible rational freedom cannot be reduced to computation on a substrate, as such is causally driven by dynamic stochastic process rather than by free inference guided by judgement. That was Haldane's point 90 years ago. When we infer to intelligent design we infer to intelligently directed configuration on having established reliable signs of same. That is not the same as inferring any particular individual or class of individual agents, much less their ontological status. As was pointed out over and over, and as is readily accessible in the UD resources. In short, you are setting up and knocking over a strawman. KF PS, On defining intelligence and capabilities, the cell exhibits coded algorithmic strings using molecular nanotech. The designer of the cell would be language using, purposeful, capable of designing computational entities, also molecular nanotech rooted in deep understanding of polymer chemistry. Limited intelligences such as beavers do not use language, but effect designs.kairosfocus_{April 24, 2022
April
04
Apr
24
24
2022
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT}

SA,
ID...proposes “an intelligent cause or agency” as the only known source for such.
All intelligent causes are living organisms, without exception. So you are apparently proposing that the cause of the first complex living organism was... another complex living organism, which is not a helpful theory. If you reject that, then just show how something that is not a complex living organism can do anything intelligent.
As for “a disembodied intelligence” – ID does not state that.
Either this hypothetical designer is supposed to be a disembodied intelligence, or else a complex living organism. If it's a complex living organism then, again, you have a problem in that your theory is claiming that the first living thing came from some other living thing. And if it is not a complex living organism, then you have the problem that nothing in our experience is intelligent except complex living organisms.
So, if you don’t like “disembodied intelligence” feel free to propose an embodied intelligence.
Saying that they first life form was created by another life form is not a helpful theory.
Saying you “don’t know” means that you think a blind, mindless random natural cause could do it.
It's not just me - nobody knows how the universe or the first life form came to exist.
We can show what intelligence does,
No, you can show what human beings do, or what chimpanzees, or parrots, or amoebas, or other complex organisms do. They are all complex living organisms, displaying various abilities. But what does intelligence do? Does it speak in grammatical sentences? Learn from interacting with its environment? Does it play piano? Solve algebraic equations? Intelligence isn't a thing, it is a property of living things.
you’d merely need to show that an unintelligent cause can produce what we observe.
Nobody knows how any cause can produce the universe, or the first life form.
ID has nothing to say about whether the designer learns and solves problems or not.
If it doesn't, then the designer would not qualify as intelligent according to many common definitions of the term. Anyway, all you are actually saying when you refer to an "intelligent designer" is "something that is capable of producing the complex form and function we observe", without providing any other description of what that thing is. It's like answering the question "Why is the Sun hot?" by answering "Because it somehow produces heat".dogdoc_{April 23, 2022
April
04
Apr
23
23
2022
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

DogDoc
And disembodied intelligence designing biological organisms – is that “science”?
The first life form, for example, emerged from an intelligent cause or an unintelligent cause. ID can demonstrate that the multi-level functional code within organisms can be modeled by human intelligence and proposes "an intelligent cause or agency" as the only known source for such. If you reject that, then just show how it is done through a blind, unintelligent process. As for "a disembodied intelligence" - ID does not state that. All ID says it that the observed thing is the result of an intelligent agency or cause. The cause is not accidental or through any known unintelligent natural process. That's just basic forensics. So, if you don't like "disembodied intelligence" feel free to propose an embodied intelligence. For the cause of the universe, you can propose that a physical agent caused the emergence of all physical reality, as illogical as that is, and ID is not going to correct you or argue with you. Again, ID has nothing to say about the nature of the designer. Your option is to accept the inference that a blind, unintelligent could not produce the effect, or to reject that. Saying you "don't know" means that you think a blind, mindless random natural cause could do it. With that, you're invited to demonstrate it, not just speculate about it. We can show what intelligence does, you'd merely need to show that an unintelligent cause can produce what we observe. Failing that, it would not be true to say "you don't know" - since you can draw a reasonable conclusion from the inference and you have no alternative to propose.
For example, most accounts of intelligence entail the ability to learn from the environment and solve novel problems, but I doubt you would attribute these abilities to your conception of an Intelligent Designer.
ID has nothing to say about whether the designer learns and solves problems or not. It doesn't even say that there is only one designer. There are Hindu IDists who are polytheistic.Silver Asiatic_{April 23, 2022
April
04
Apr
23
23
2022
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

No, it is not science
ID is Science+. There is no legitimate scientific conclusion that ID disagrees with. What ID does is extend knowledge provided by science by appealing to logic as to what are the most probable explanations for some physical phenomena which seem beyond the purview of science.
The word “logic” has different meanings. You might mean that the conclusion of ID follows ineluctably from observable data; I’m sure that’s not true.
That’s an incredibly stupid statement. How can you be sure? You imply you know the answer which is ludicrous. The fine tuning of the universe very decisively points to a designing force, one that make choices. So what do you call such an entity. Most have used the term “god.” That is one of the terms you disparaged. I prefer to use the term ”creator.” ID says little about this entity, only that it makes choices and must be extremely powerful.jerry_{April 23, 2022
April
04
Apr
23
23
2022
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply