At Evolution News: “Why Life?”: A Question Atheist Scientists Never Ask

JVL at 41, The last time I asked for the exact time (+/- 1,000 years) when the break from the ape-human common ancestor occurred, I got 'it doesn't work that way.' Evolution is not the right answer. By the way, unlike the real world where explanations actually explains things - evolution cannot explain anything. The trick is by providing a 'plausible sounding guess,' as opposed to facts. Examples: Evolution is fast except when it isn't. Evolution makes a lot of changes except when it doesn't. Evolution has an explanation for any contradictory discovery that amounts to fictional guesswork. relatd

“Sir Giles December 24, 2022 at 11:11 am I hope everyone has a very merry Christmas and a happy and healthy new year.” Thank you and back atcha. Vivid vividbleau

Jerry: ID provides an explanation for a few origins. One of these origins is the origin of matter and energy and their properties to keep the other origins going. But it doesn't really 'explain' how those things came into existence. It just asserts that some undetected, undefined and unpredictable being did it. I don't consider that an explanation. Especially when most ID proponents cannot even come up with a time when, say, life was created on Earth. And, since most ID proponents believe that it's impossible for many lifeforms to have come about without intervention from the same mysterious designer, that designer must be 'poofing' species into existence fairly often. JVL

I hope everyone has a very merry Christmas and a happy and healthy new year. Sir Giles

Jerry: No, it does that but it also deals with what exists.

The universe is the “what”. The solar system is the “what”. Life is the “what.” Science deals with how what we observe works, how it originated, how it interacts with other “whats,” how it may proceed in the future. In researching the “how” we often discover additional “whats” that we can ask additional “hows” about. Science does not and cannot deal with “why.” Why implies purpose, motive and intent. ID purports to deal with the “how” life originated and diversified. But unlike other sciences, it has not tested this hypothesis in any way. A design requires a designer and a mechanism of “production”. What research has been conducted on either of these.? In another thread I keep seeing emergence being ridiculed as “poofery”. But, as it currently stands, ID is the ultimate “poofery”. Sir Giles

Point out where the Intelligent Design approach has genuinely provided an answer to anything. Just one genuine example should be enough

Fine tuning of universe and solar system for starters. Inadequacy of OOL and Evolution theories for additional examples. They are incredibly more complex than ever thought possible and require extraordinary answers. If you don’t believe they were designed, these findings have forced scientists to look elsewhere. It has led to the nonsense of emergence which is highly touted by some but in actuality another dead end. It has led to self organization theories which are also a dead ends for life forms. If a real explanation for life and Evolution is ever found, thank ID for forcing the issue. I’m sure you realize how stupid your assertion is. You seem to want a theory of physics to explain the origin of physics and other origins, something that is on-going. When you obviously know the intelligence that created the universe did not work by some physical process. ID provides an explanation for a few origins. One of these origins is the origin of matter and energy and their properties to keep the other origins going. We witness each of these ongoing processes and try to understand them. These ongoing processes are the subject of nearly all science but science cannot explain these origins. So some other explanations are suggested. And as I just said above, drives science to find alternatives to failed theories. Merry Christmas to all from a very cold New Hampshire. jerry

AF, sez who? Why should we take such assertions as you just made, with any seriousness? Kindly, show your working. KF kairosfocus

In response to my remark: But where can I find answers that are “best”? “Intelligent Design” doesn’t provide them. Jerry

How do you know that? The answer is you do not know that but yet you make nonsense claims all the time.

Find a black swan, then, Jerry. Point out where the Intelligent Design approach has genuinely provided an answer to anything. Just one genuine example should be enough. Succumbing to cultural Christmas now. Merry Christmas to you, Jerry. Stay safe. Alan Fox

Those who honestly desire true answers to such a question are sure to discover them.

Not sure about that. There's a discontinuity between arguing from fine tuning that our universe is divinely created and concluding the Christian God is the right candidate and biblical truths follow. I don't see any connection. I see Ross's book is 10€ on Kindle. If it addresses the (to my mind non-existent) link between fine tuning and the attributes of a creator, I'll give it a go. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all reading this comment. Alan Fox

To Alan Fox @31: Those who honestly desire true answers to such a question are sure to discover them. To find answers to questions beyond what science can address, I would suggest reading a book like "Why the Universe is the Way it is," by astrophysicist Hugh Ross. Caspian

AF, Well it's never too late in life to become a truth-seeker. But you have to cooperate in the endeavor. You cant sit around and wait for academic pinheads to lie to you and think you are accomplishing anything. Andrew asauber

But where can I find answers that are “best”? “Intelligent Design” doesn’t provide them

An absurd comment. How do you know that? The answer is you do not know that but yet you make nonsense claims all the time. As far as I know, ID is constantly reassessing what is true based on the findings of science, other sources of information and logic. So what is ID today could be somewhat different from what ID will be tomorrow. But to say ID doesn’t provide the best explanation is based on nothing concrete. It is like a juvenile saying I don’t like that so I am taking my ball and go home. Fine, don’t like it but you can not offer anything better. That has been adequately demonstrated in recent months. jerry

Science doesn’t answer all questions the best.

I agree that Science fails to answer many philosophical questions satisfactorily and some not at all. As Sir Giles remarked in the third comment of this thread, science tells us how but not why. But where can I find answers that are "best"? "Intelligent Design" doesn't provide them. Alan Fox

PM1, Some people think Science is the thing that answers questions the best. As we discover again in this conversation, Science doesn't answer all questions the best. Some it cant attempt to answer at all. But some people use the stretched-out trappings of Science to pretend to answer the questions, instead of admitting Science has profound limitations. Andrew asauber

that means taking the sciences seriously but also going beyond them

That is ID.     ID is science+

There’s a lot of evidence for self-organization

Nothing that is relevant to life. So to argue for it as an explanation for life is specious.

there’s no evidence that a supernatural intelligence was involved in the creation of life or its subsequent evolution

True. It’s not the essence of ID. Fine tuning is. It’s that people have used OOL and evolution of complex life to argue against an Intelligence. And that’s bogus from two points of view. One, there is no evidence of natural origins for life and complex life. Two, even if there were, this would not argue against ID since the source for each of these could be in the fine tuning. We don’t know all the specifics of the fine tuning.

Also, “arguing for it without justification” is nonsense: to argue for a claim is to provide a justification for it.

No. Providing evidence that it was real would be a justification. But you have not done that. You admitted none exists. Aside: philosophy can speculate till the cows come home, but no one accepts any of this speculation as true till there is evidence for it in the real world. jerry

@27

Ok, we now have confirmation that emergence has no evidence to back it. It’s just speculation.

It's called philosophy, and there are ways of doing it better or worse. I'm trying to do it as well as I can, and for me, that means taking the sciences seriously but also going beyond them.

Aside: emergence is completely compatible with ID. So is self organization. So is Zeus. It’s just there is no evidence to accept any of these.

There's a lot of evidence for self-organization, and there's no evidence that a supernatural intelligence was involved in the creation of life or its subsequent evolution. What you call ID is just smoke and mirrors.

Aside2: when someone proposes something and then argues for it without justification, that is essentially begging the question.

That's just not what the phrase "begging the question" means. Also, "arguing for it without justification" is nonsense: to argue for a claim is to provide a justification for it. PyrrhoManiac1

Ok, we now have confirmation that emergence has no evidence to back it. It’s just speculation. Aside: emergence is completely compatible with ID. So is self organization. So is Zeus. It’s just there is no evidence to accept any of these. Aside2: when someone proposes something and then argues for it without justification, that is essentially begging the question. jerry

You have just said you endorse emergence because you like it.

Did you just fail to notice where I talked about metaphysical monism and the epistemic value of scientific methods?

It’s just an opinion but one with no justification. No evidence.

As I said, it's a philosophical concept, not a scientific one. Emergence is not itself something for which there's evidence; it's a philosophical concept that unifies the sciences without reducing them. You seem to be under the belief that I'm proposing emergentism as a rival to ID. I'm not. I think I've made it quite clear that in my view, the scientific rival to ID is complexity theory or theories of self-organizing systems. The science of self-organizing systems makes me more inclined to think that something like emergentism has to be right. But those are still distinct: one is a scientific theory (or more specifically, the mathematics that govern a specific class of phenomena) and the other is a scientific metaphysics. The job of scientific metaphysics is not the job of the sciences; scientific metaphysics unifies the sciences, to the extent that they can be. (In the SEP entry, O'Connor seemed to think that strong emergentism was compatible with the disunity of the sciences. That seems confused to me, so there's something I'm not understanding.)

So it obviously is not science. It’s no different than believing in some primitive religious fantasy or a magical force that’s yet to be discovered.

If everything that isn't science is primitive fantasy or belief in magic, that would have to include all of logic, mathematics, metaphysics, and theology. I had no idea you were such a hard-core empiricist!

The logical fallacy is begging the question.

"Begging the question" is when someone assumes the very same claim that they are trying to justify. In what way am I begging the question? PyrrhoManiac1

Is that sufficient explanation for why I endorse emergence without any nefarious ulterior motives on my part?

You have just said you endorse emergence because you like it. It’s just an opinion but one with no justification. No evidence. So it obviously is not science or logical. It’s no different than believing in some primitive religious fantasy or a magical force that’s yet to be discovered. The logical fallacy is begging the question. You are certainly welcome to your beliefs but why should anyone pay attention to them if one cannot provide any justification for these beliefs. ID constantly justifies its claims with evidence. There’s a huge difference. Again, what you are claiming is in no way against ID. But until some evidence is brought forward it is no more than wishful speculation. jerry

Origenes at 22, Next you're going to tell me that kids, when they start to talk, pick up whatever language their parents are speaking - automatically. No language class required. relatd

Ba77, Truth - meaning viewing reality correctly - is obscured by a story - a fictional story - of random forces doing random things to arrive at living organisms with distinct purposes. in other words, from chaos order. From nothing to something. Bees know how to find flowers, tell other bees how to find them, make honeycombs and beehives. And human beings found out how to use the wax. No. The fictional stories will fall away and no longer obscure the truth. relatd

Ok, suppose emergent consciousness. Imagine a brain forming and, at some point, its complexity is such that consciousness **poof** emerges. It's a MIRACLE. But. Ok. There it is. Now, the very next thing this newly emerged consciousness has to figure out is how to apply downward causation, IOW how to control the brain.. How can the new fundamental possibly know what to do? It needs a superior understanding of the brain to do so. Don't mess with the wrong neurons, please! The Stanford article glosses over the problem:

However, basic dynamical laws in contemporary physics have an open-ended character (Schrödinger’s equation, Hamiltonians or Lagrangians more generally), taking forces or energies as input. The notion of a strongly emergent force or energy is no more problematic than that of the standard physical forces or energies that physicists take to be input into the operative laws ...

Well, Stanford, how does the emergent consciousness know how to operate the brain at the quantum level where the "open-ended" laws apply? How does the freshly emerged consciousness know how to play this incredibly complex 'instrument' the brain, at the quantum level no less? Inquiring minds want to know. Origenes

@17

Consciousness is not entirely dependent on its building blocks … That is ‘emergence’ for you. You can kinda think what you want. You are kinda free. A truly sickening concept. You have your consciousness kinda independent from the body, but it cannot exist without the body, so materialism still holds, God is dead and so will you be.

Picking up from our other conversation on Kant, I suggest something like "minimal doctrinal Christianity" or MDC (feel free to suggest another term) for the conjunction of the following three ideas: 1. There is a transcendent and personal God. (classical theism) 2. We have conrtra-causal, libertarian freedom of the will. (libertarianism) 3. Some aspect of our unique personal identity will persist after complete biological death. (personal immortality) Is your criticism that strongly emergent naturalism cannot accommodate MDC? If you want a metaphysics that can accommodate MDC, then we'd need to start having a very different conversation, focused (perhaps) on the following questions: 1. If our best metaphysics is based on science, then what scientific evidence is there for the claims of MDC? 2. If there's no or insufficient scientific evidence for MDC claims, should we reject science as the basis for our metaphysics? On what basis should we allow that personal experiences have probative weight greater than that of scientific methods? For what little it's worth, I have some ideas about (1) and (2) but it's pretty superficial. Just not my cup of tea. PyrrhoManiac1

Asauber: we all do know that emergence is *poof-poof*ery dressed in a cardigan, smoking a pipe. If some versions of ID are correct . . . did not some species just POOF into existence at some point? JVL

Sorry Asuaber, I accidentally said Origenes, when it was you who succinctly stated, "we all do know that emergence is *poof-poof*ery dressed in a cardigan, smoking a pipe." Not to take away from Origenes spot-on, “not a scintilla of evidence” for strong emergence, contribution at 17 bornagain77

@16

The concept has been discussed several times over the years and has been found wanting.

Based on what I've seen since I've joined UD last month, those discussions were not informed by actual understanding of the concept.

All of a sudden someone is pushing this apparently bogus concept without any justification.

Geez, if you wanted to know my justification, you could just ask. Have I ever simply refused to answer the question "what's your justification for this concept?"? No need to conjecture some ulterior motive! As to the question "why do I support strong emergence?", the answer is, because I think that's the most philosophically plausible way of understanding how the sciences are related. That's to say: I am drawn to some version of metaphysical monism -- it's possible for us to understand something important and true about the world as a unified whole -- and I think that the methods of science are the best tools we currently have for figuring out what the world is really like. Consequently, the question for me becomes, how to understand the systematic unity of physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, anthropology -- how to understand these sciences (and there many sub-disciplines) as being about one and the same universe? I think that strong emergence is the best concept we've yet come up with for understanding how the sciences are related. More specifically, I think that life strongly emerges from thermodynamics, that mind strongly emerges from life, and also that our rule-governed symbolic systems, social practices, and institutions (what Hegel called Geist, "spirit'") strongly emerges from mind. So we shouldn't expect biology to reduce to physics, or cognitive science to biology, or the social sciences to the natural sciences. Is that sufficient explanation for why I endorse emergence without any nefarious ulterior motives on my part? PyrrhoManiac1

Stanford entry on **POOF** “Strong Emergence” — some initial comments:

Strong emergentists maintain that at least some higher-level phenomena exhibit a weaker dependence/stronger autonomy than weak emergence permits. This often takes the form of rejecting physical realization, affirming fundamental higher-level causal powers, or both.

What this boils down to is: consciousness exists (hooray!), but God does not, and when you are dead you are just dead. And BTW naturalism is still true; only with a slight modification.

Perhaps the most commonly cited phenomena offered as requiring strong emergentist treatment have to do with the nature and capacities of the conscious mind in relation to its neural substrate. (...) 4.1.1 Incoherence or inexplicability An initial worry about strong emergence is that there is a tension in the very idea of a feature that is both dependent and fundamental—a worry exacerbated by recent accounts of fundamentality according to which what it is to be fundamental is precisely to be independent (see Bennett 2017 and entry on fundamentality). This worry might be resolved by distinguishing two senses of “fundamental”: first, a sense applying to an ingredient of physical reality that is ubiquitous (or “basic” in a building-block sense), and so not even dependent on any arrangements of other entities; and second, a sense applying to an ingredient of reality that is not (entirely) constituted by or otherwise internally (as opposed to external-causally) related to the structured arrangement of some other same-category entities.

Consciousness is not entirely dependent on its building blocks … That is ‘emergence’ for you. You can kinda think what you want. You are kinda free. A truly sickening concept. You have your consciousness kinda independent from the body, but it cannot exist without the body, so materialism still holds, God is dead and so will you be.

We might then use the term “basic” for the first sense and reserve “fundamental” for the second sense, (...) So understood, there is no tension in the notion of an entity or feature that is fundamental but non-basic (O’Connor 2018). Granting that there is no incoherence in the idea of a non-basic, fundamental entity or feature, one might be concerned that such an entity or feature would introduce an inexplicable (since fundamental) addition to reality at an arbitrary juncture. Avoiding such inexplicability might give reason to prefer a panpsychist accommodation of the irreducibility of consciousness to physical properties, (...) (Nagel 1979 and Strawson 2006).

Panpsychism if you really must, but let’s keep dualism and God out as an option.

4.1.2 Anti-naturalism or evidential paucity A second initial worry with strong emergence is that it is inconsistent with a “naturalist” point of view, insofar as (on most accounts) strongly emergent properties are associated with fundamentally novel powers or laws that apparently would interfere with more basic physical laws or processes. However, basic dynamical laws in contemporary physics have an open-ended character (Schrödinger’s equation, Hamiltonians or Lagrangians more generally), taking forces or energies as input. The notion of a strongly emergent force or energy is no more problematic than that of the standard physical forces or energies that physicists take to be input into the operative laws (McLaughlin 1992).

Notice what they just did? I’m old enough to remember that the ‘impossibility’ of mental-physical interaction was their main reason to reject dualism. Remember those days too? But now that it suits them, the problem is solved. Emergent consciousness can interact with matter just fine — physical laws have an open-ended character. There you go.

The real problem here, if there is one, is not inconsistency with physics, but rather that there is at present a lack of clear empirical evidence for strong emergence. If there were strongly emergent causal powers, forces, or laws, we might expect to see, in candidate emergentist contexts, evidence for a hitherto unrecognized configurational interaction, much as occurred with the weak nuclear interaction. But, McLaughlin avers, “there is not a scintilla of evidence” in support of there being such fundamental novelty (1992: 91).

Oh, “not a scintilla of evidence”? Well, how about “consciousness”? That is somehow ‘proof’ of emergence, is it not? Origenes

I have no problems with some asking intelligent questions about something they don’t understand. I do have problems with some dismissing out of hand something that they haven’t even tried to understand.

That absolutely does not describe the concept of "emergence." The concept has been discussed several times over the years and has been found wanting. All of a sudden someone is pushing this apparently bogus concept without any justification. Why won't you admit this? Because you don't, we have to assume there are ulterior motives. And they are not to increase understanding. No one is saying that something cannot emerge. There're just no examples of it except for maybe atomic physics. If there were, it would gain acceptability. Until that time, it is pie in the sky. ID is not against life arising naturally, just that everything screams against it. ID is not against complex life arising naturally, just that everything is against it. jerry

@14 I have no problems with some asking intelligent questions about something they don't understand. I do have problems with some dismissing out of hand something that they haven't even tried to understand. Look, I won't deny that emergence is a philosophical concept, not a scientific one. One of the main reasons I keep bringing it up is that some people here act as if Rosenberg's reductive naturalism is the only game in town once we reject anything like supernatural theism. But reduction is also a philosophical concept, and not a scientific one. There's nothing in the sciences themselves that dictates that all sciences are reducible to quantum mechanics. That's Rosenberg's own philosophical interpretation of how the sciences are related to each other. In other words, emergentist naturalism is just as legitimate as a philosophical interpretation of the sciences as reductive naturalism is, and I think it makes more sense of what makes psychology distinct from biology and what makes biology distinct from chemistry and physics. I actually think that life is strongly emergent with regard to inanimate nature, and also that consciousness and intentionality are strongly emergent with regard to life. That doesn't mean that there can't also be borderline cases. Terry Deacon's hypothetical autogen is one example of a borderline case between non-life and life. I've been thinking about borderline cases between life and mind but would need to read more before committing myself to anything too definite. PyrrhoManiac1

"the history of the idea" PM1, This is part of the problem. Emergence is just an idea. And looking through your link, the product of extensive mental acrobatics. Is there an emergence detector? Any metrics? Is it a force? Is it the mental state of an analyst? What's the problem with being skeptical of it? Andrew asauber

"it appears to be important to your personal belief-system to reject emergence as nonsense" Origenes in not alone in his belief that the word 'emergent', especially when used by atheists to try to explain something away, is, for the most part, nonsense,, for instance,,,

Consciousness: What are some concise ways to convince people that consciousness is not an emergent property? Excerpt: It's pretty easy because claims of emergent consciousness are simply philosophical assumptions dressed up as science. You can poke holes in this edifice in three crucial ways, teasing apart the idea that consciousness (1) is an emergent (2) property of the brain (3). Emergent First, "emergent property" is an oft-misused term. With respect to consciousness, it is one of those hand-wavey terms people like to throw around without any substance behind it. Used appropriately it can refer to an incredibly useful scientific hypothesis. A basic definition is something like complex properties that result from the interaction of simple behaviors. When people talk about emergent consciousness, they show nothing of this sort and therefore don't answer the how of consciousness. Some crucial questions that "emergence" doesn't answer, which actual scientific emergent explanations tackle include: *How does consciousness arise from chemical interactions leading to electric impulses? *Why is there consciousness instead of something else? *How does physiology constrain and define this so-called emergent property? The crucial thing missing here is mechanism. When we talk about real emergent properties, like those of a network, for example, we can show how a specific type of network (e.g., a Small-world network) will emerge in lots of different situations, (e.g., the brain, social networks etc.) because of simple properties that connections between things have: some sort of relationship between viability and proximity. From this you get lots of local connections and a few non-local ones in certain proportions. Crucially, this makes sense in a mechanistic way where you can understand how the simple properties specifically gives rise to the larger organization and basically only this organization and you can model it -- see it happen before your eyes. The same cannot be said of consciousness and synapses. Don't get me wrong: I'm all for emergence as explanatory when worked out in sufficient detail (e.g., An Exemplar-Based Computational Model of Chain Shifts), but that has yet to be done with consciousness and it's not even close, because it is currently at square zero. Has anyone shown a model that exhibits properties of self awareness and qualitative experience from chemical properties? Again, not even close. Terrence Deacon articulates this well in Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter: Emergentism is simply playing a shell game, taking the mysticism it purports to explain, and calling it "emergence".,,, So, emergentism, in this context, is simply camouflaging the supernatural wolf in the sheep's clothing of pretend science and pretend explanation. It is merely renaming the philosophical imperative (and perhaps belief) of monism and materialism as something that sounds explanatory. - Marc Ettlinger, Research Neuroscientist, Department of Veterans Affairs http://www.quora.com/Consciousness/What-are-some-concise-ways-to-convince-people-that-consciousness-is-not-an-emergent-property/answer/Marc-Ettlinger?srid=4tp&share=1

bornagain77

emergence is *poof-poof*ery dressed in a cardigan, smoking a pipe

Suppose emergence was an actuality, what would that entail? So far any meaningful emergence is restricted to atomic physics. But if it did show up in biology, then what would that imply? The laws of nature are fine tuned as well as it’s constituent elements. This would mean the creator had the emergence in mind. But we don’t see it. Why? This and some other obvious questions are never answered let alone pursued.

For the curious, the SEP entry on emergent properties has a nice overview of the history of the idea and its role in contemporary debates.

But we are never given any examples. Why? We are just told to read esoteric documents. ID proposes fine tuning as an example of intelligence and readily gives hundreds of examples. ID specifies others areas of design and denotes them in detail. No lack of actual examples backed up by realistic probabilities. Amazing difference between the ideas. jerry

@9

emergence is *poof-poof*ery dressed in a cardigan smoking a pipe.

I don't know why, but it appears to be important to your personal belief-system to reject emergence as nonsense. But it's not. For the curious, the SEP entry on emergent properties has a nice overview of the history of the idea and its role in contemporary debates. PyrrhoManiac1

PM1 @

To be sure, I do think that Nagel is onto something important when he writes, in Mind and Cosmos, that the universe is somehow biased towards the emergence of teleological systems.

Somehow ... . Fermions and bosons just doing what they always do, minding their own business, and yet ***somehow*** every once in a while, they team up to be "biased towards the emergence of teleological systems." Surely, Nagel will come up with a plausible explanation for this infrequent "bias", other than intelligent design. Perhaps his next book will tell us more. Origenes

"the universe is somehow biased towards the emergence" PM1, This stuff is great to hold forth about over drinks, but in all seriousness, scientifically, no one knows what the universe is, somehow = I Don't Know, and we all do know that emergence is *poof-poof*ery dressed in a cardigan, smoking a pipe. Andrew asauber

e. Time, energy, and inanimate matter carry on ceaselessly with no apparent purpose. But arising out of the inorganic are living creatures, utterly purpose-driven. There is absolutely no reason for purpose-driven life to exist within this milieu, unless purpose itself exists at the fundamental core of reality itself.

I am uncertain as to Iacoboni's reasoning here. Yes, we do need an explanation as for how organisms as natural purposes arose from non-purposive processes. But why must that explanation itself be teleological? To be sure, I do think that Nagel is onto something important when he writes, in Mind and Cosmos, that the universe is somehow biased towards the emergence of teleological systems. And I do think that general systems theory shows that we should revive what Aristotelians call "formal causation" (Alicia Juarrero has written a very good book on this, with a follow-up scheduled for publication in a few months.) I'm unsure if a tendency or bias towards complexity and the emergence of teleology is itself teleological. But I think that's what Iacoboni needs to demonstrate. PyrrhoManiac1

Science deals with how.

No, it does that but it also deals with what exists. So what exists is probably just as important as how it operates. Examining both are at a minimum necessary. So the above remark is incredibly naive.

You would think that those claiming to understand science would understand this fundamental aspect of science.

More naivety. ID is science+ So ID integrates what science discovers with logic. The universe shouts purpose and this must be interpreted. The interesting thing is that there exist entities that can consider this additional question of why. Or purpose. Why do these entities exist? So “why” must be an essential part of any enquiry. And why do entities that can speculate on the “why” exist? If this goes beyond normal science, so be it. But that is ID or science+.     ID is a more complete form of     enquiry than science. jerry

And in the following article, Stephen Talbott challenges Darwinists to, “pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness, (i.e. teleology)”

The ‘Mental Cell’: Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! – Stephen L. Talbott – September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm

This working biologist agrees with both of Noble and Talbott’s assessments and states, “in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them.”

Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails – Ann Gauger – June 2011 Excerpt: I’m a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them. Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn’t troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it’s high time we moved on. – Matthew http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/life_purpose_mind_where_the_ma046991.html#comment-8858161

And as the following 2020 article pointed out, “teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological.”

Metaphor and Meaning in the Teleological Language of Biology Annie L. Crawford – August 2020 Abstract: Excerpt: However, most discussions regarding the legitimacy of teleological language in biology fail to consider the nature of language itself. Since conceptual language is intrinsically metaphorical, teleological language can be dismissed as decorative if and only if it can be replaced with alternative metaphors without loss of essential meaning. I conclude that, since teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/philosophy/biologists-cant-stop-using-purpose-driven-language-because-life-really-is-designed/

And whereas it is found that "“teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power", the type of words that can be readily jettisoned from research papers, without explanatory loss, are the 'narrative gloss' words of Darwinian evolution itself. As the late Philip Skell pointed out, “In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core.”

“In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.” – Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005

And as Evolutionary biologist Robert Reid stated, “Indeed the language of neo-Darwinism is so careless that the words ‘divine plan’ can be substituted for ‘selection pressure’ in any popular work in the biological literature without the slightest disruption in the logical flow of argument.”

Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection Has Left a Legacy of Confusion over Biological Adaptation Brian Miller – September 20, 2021 Excerpt: Evolutionary biologist Robert Reid stated: “Indeed the language of neo-Darwinism is so careless that the words ‘divine plan’ can be substituted for ‘selection pressure’ in any popular work in the biological literature without the slightest disruption in the logical flow of argument.” Robert Reid, Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment, PP. 37-38 (2009) To fully comprehend the critique, one simply needs to imagine attempting to craft an evolutionary barometer that measures the selection pressure driving one organism to transform into something different (e.g., fish into an amphibian). The fact that no such instrument could be constructed highlights the fictitious nature of such mystical forces. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/darwins-theory-of-natural-selection-has-left-a-legacy-of-confusion-over-biological-adaptation/

And as Ann Gauger noted, “the icing (the narrative gloss of evolutionary language) sits atop and separate from the cake (the actual experimental data)”

Rewriting Biology Without Spin By Ann Gauger – Jan. 12, 2014 Excerpt: It’s a funny thing—scientific papers often have evolutionary language layered on top of the data like icing on a cake. In most papers, the icing (evolutionary language) sits atop and separate from the cake (the actual experimental data). Even in papers where the evolutionary language is mixed in with the data like chocolate and vanilla in a marble cake, I can still tell one from the other. I have noticed that this dichotomy creates a kind of double vision. I know what the data underlying evolutionary arguments are. By setting aside the premise that evolution is true, I can read what’s on the page and at the same time see how that paper would read if neutral, fact-based language were substituted for evolutionary language. Let me give you an example.,,, http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/107965814309/rewriting-biology-without-spin

Thus in conclusion, teleological, i.e. designed based, language is found to be absolutely essential for doing biological research, whereas ‘evolutionary language’ is found to be a superficial ‘narrative gloss’ that can be, somewhat easily, stripped away from the research papers without negatively effecting the actual science in the papers. In summary, the very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing, and/or describing, their actual biological research falsifies Darwinian evolution and proves that all scientific explanations are not 'bottom-up' as is falsely presupposed within the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution. In short, Sir Giles is utterly wrong in his claim that science only deals with 'how' questions and does not deal with 'why', i.e. purpose oriented, questions. Moreover, it is biology itself, via its crucial dependence on teleological, i.e. purpose oriented, explanations, that most convincingly falsifies Sir Giles claim.

Matthew 12:37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Of supplemental note to the fact that the very words that Darwinists are forced to use when they are doing their biological research falsifies Darwinian evolution, it is also (very) interesting to note that, according to atheist professor of philosophy Alex Rosenberg (Duke University), who worked out the implications of atheistic naturalism, if atheistic naturalism were actually true, then it turns out that “no sentence has any meaning.”

2.) The argument from meaning 1. If naturalism is true, no sentence has any meaning. 2. Premise (1) has meaning. 3. Therefore naturalism is not true. – Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ i.e. Dr. Craig’s succinct, and devastating, refutation of atheist Professor Alex Rosenberg’s (Duke University) book “The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions”

:) Not to try to tell atheists how to run their lives, (as if that were even possible), but since your naturalistic worldview renders not only your life, but also your very words, completely meaningless, perhaps it is time for you to seriously look around and try to find some new, and 'not completely insane', worldview? Might I suggest Christian Theism as a rational alternative to the complete insanity, and epic failures, that are inherent in your present Atheistic materialism?

Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.,,,

bornagain77

As to: "“Why life?”,,, The answer, finally, comes all the way back to where we started: purpose. Time, energy, and inanimate matter carry on ceaselessly with no apparent purpose. But arising out of the inorganic are living creatures, utterly purpose-driven. There is absolutely no reason for purpose-driven life to exist within this milieu, unless purpose itself exists at the fundamental core of reality itself. To which Sir Giles responded, "Science deals with how, not why. You would think that those claiming to understand science would understand this fundamental aspect of science." So Sir Giles thinks science can safely ignore any and all 'why' questions that seek the teleological purpose, and/or the goal oriented reason. for why something exists and/or for why life exists And he also holds that anyone who argues otherwise does not really understand science? Hmmm, Really???? Well first off, I guess, according to Sir Giles, Aristotle does not understand science since he held, out of his four causes, that 'why' causes were the most important causes to understand, i.e. "we think we do not have knowledge of a thing until we have grasped its why, that is to say, its cause",,, and that "(Aristotle's) defense of final causes shows that there are aspects of nature that cannot be explained by efficient and material causes alone. Final causes, he claims, are the best explanation for these aspects of nature.",,, and that, "Final" causation is often referred to as "teleology,",, "end, goal, (purpose)."

Airtotle's four causes,, For Aristotle, science = causal knowledge Thus knowledge of what causes are is essential for every science we think we have knowledge of a thing only when we have grasped its cause (APost. 71 b 9-11. Cf. APost. 94 a 20) we think we do not have knowledge of a thing until we have grasped its why, that is to say, its cause (Phys. 194 b 17-20) Aristotle's "causes" are often better thought of as "explanations" or "reasons." Take any single thing, then ask yourself four questions: What is it made of? What made it/what action/what trigger led to its creation/coming to be/happening/becoming what it is? What is it: shape, structure, arrangement? What makes it one sort of thing rather than another? What holds it together? What about the way it is put together makes it work? What is it for? What end is it likely to serve? What goal is it likely to reach? Those four questions correspond to Aristotle's four causes: Material cause: "that out of which" it is made. Efficient Cause: the source of the objects principle of change or stability. Formal Cause: the essence of the object. Final Cause: the end/goal of the object, or what the object is good for. A note about final causes: they always presuppose the formal cause: in order to explain the goal/purpose/end, you must use the formal cause. Each of those four questions leads to a different sort of explanation of the thing. The material cause: “that out of which”, e.g., the bronze of a statue, the letters of a syllable. The formal cause: “the form”, “the account of what-it-is-to-be”, e.g., the shape of a statue, the arrangement of a syllable, the functional structure of a machine or an organism. The efficient cause: “the primary source of the change or rest”, e.g., the artisan, the art of bronze-casting the statue, the man who gives advice, the father of the child. The final cause: “the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done”, e.g., health is the end of the following things: walking, losing weight, purging, drugs, and surgical tools.,,, ABOUT FINAL CAUSES Physics II 8 is Aristotle's general defense of final causes. He needs to defend them because, he claims, his predecessors believed only in efficient and material causes. His defence of final causes shows that there are aspects of nature that cannot be explained by efficient and material causes alone. Final causes, he claims, are the best explanation for these aspects of nature. Aristotle holds, for example, that certain teeth have certain shapes because of what they are for. Those of carnivores are designed to tear and rip. Those of herbivores are designed to crush (cf. Physics 198b24-27). "Final" causation is often referred to as "teleology," which derives from Greek ????? "end, goal." Teleology is often thought of as requiring an agent separate from the thing that has a final cause. For instance, if an oak tree has a final cause, must there not be something apart from the oak tree that uses the oak tree for some goal or end? The ultimate result of many teleological views is that there must be a God who designs the world: if things have a purpose, whose purpose? If things have a design that makes them FOR certain goals, there must be a designer.,,, https://www.uvm.edu/~jbailly/courses/Aristotle/notes/AristotleCausesNotes.html

Sir Giles may try to object that, "Hey, modern science has moved far beyond Aristotle's antiquated notions of four levels of causation and thus we can safely ignore Aristotles four causes." To that objection, first I would respond that, far from Aristotle being irrelevant to modern science, it can be forcefully argued that Aristotle anticipated the 'collapse of the wave function', i.e. "reduction of potency to act", 2200 to 2300 years before quantum mechanics even came along.

Stephen Hawking: "Philosophy Is Dead" - Michael Egnor - August 3, 2015 Excerpt: The metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas is far and away the most successful framework on which to understand modern science, especially quantum mechanics. Heisenberg knew this (Link on site). Aristotle 2,300 years ago described the basics of collapse of the quantum waveform (reduction of potency to act),,, Real scientists have a meaningful understanding of natural philosophy as it relates to their work. No atheist scientist in the public spotlight today would pass a freshman philosophy class. Think Dawkins. Think Krauss. Think Myers. Think Moran. Think Novella. Think Coyne. Think Hawking. Our 21st-century scientific priesthood -- mostly atheists and materialists to the extent that their metaphysics is coherent enough to be described -- is dominated by half-educated technicians with publicists.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/stephen_hawking_3098261.html "In the experiments about atomic events we have to do with things and facts, with phenomena that are just as real as any phenomena in daily life. But atoms and the elementary particles themselves are not as real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts … The probability wave … mean[s] tendency for something. It’s a quantitative version of the old concept of potentia from Aristotle’s philosophy. It introduces something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy. London: Allen and Unwin. (1958), p. 41 What Is Matter? The Aristotelian Perspective - Michael Egnor - July 21, 2017 Excerpt: Heisenberg, almost alone among the great physicists of the quantum revolution, understood that the Aristotelian concept of potency and act was beautifully confirmed by quantum theory and evidence.,,, Heisenberg wrote: ,,,The probability wave of Bohr, Kramers, Slater… was a quantitative version of the old concept of “potentia” in Aristotelian philosophy. It introduced something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality…The probability function combines objective and subjective elements,,, Thus, the existence of potential quantum states described by Schrodinger’s equation (which is a probability function) are the potency (the “matter”) of the system, and the collapse of the quantum waveform is the reduction of potency to act. To an Aristotelian (like Heisenberg), quantum mechanics isn’t strange at all. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/07/what-is-matter-the-aristotelian-perspective/ Jerry Coyne Hasn’t Got A Prayer - He Understands Neither Natural Theology Nor Natural Science - Michael Egnor - March 15, 2020 Excerpt: Evidence for the existence of God, as provided by Aquinas, actually consists of the same logical and evidentiary process as science itself, only with much stronger logic and more abundant evidence than any other scientific theory. 1) Change exists in nature (evidence) 2) Change is the actuation of potentiality, and an essential chain of actuations cannot go to infinite regress. A fully actual Prime Mover is necessary (logic) 3) That Prime Mover is what all men call God (conclusion) – Michael Egnor https://mindmatters.ai/2020/03/jerry-coyne-hasnt-got-a-prayer/

To state the obvious, Aristotle's anticipation of wave function collapse is rather stunning proof that Aristotle may have far more to say about modern science than our modern prejudices may be inclined to grant to the ancient sage of Greece. Secondly, I would argue that, contrary to what Sir Giles, and much of modern day science, believe, it is simply impossible to 'scientifically' explain things solely be reference to 'bottom-up' material causes. In short, the fatal flaw in Sir Giles reasoning, and in the reasoning of much of modern day science, is that he and modern science, (since he and modern science are both wedded to the framework of reductive materialism), think that all things can be explained solely by reference to the 'bottom-up' material cause and that 'top-down' final causes can be safely ignored. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. For instance, as George Ellis noted, without 'top-down' causation, Einstein, without 'free-will' is some meaningful sense', then Einstein himself "could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options."

Physicist George Ellis on the importance of philosophy and free will - July 27, 2014 Excerpt: And free will?: Horgan: Einstein, in the following quote, seemed to doubt free will: “If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the Earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.” Do you believe in free will? Ellis: Yes. Einstein is perpetuating the belief that all causation is bottom up. This simply is not the case, as I can demonstrate with many examples from sociology, neuroscience, physiology, epigenetics, engineering, and physics. Furthermore if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options. I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense. Physicists should pay attention to Aristotle’s four forms of causation – if they have the free will to decide what they are doing. If they don’t, then why waste time talking to them? They are then not responsible for what they say. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/physicist-george-ellis-on-the-importance-of-philosophy-and-free-will/

To state the obvious, Ellis's quip, "indeed it does not seem to make any sense", is an understatement. To deny that Einstein himself was responsible for discovering relativity, and instead claim that the laws of physics somehow discovered themselves in nothing short of insanity. As Ellis went on to further explain, without reference to 'top-down' causation, and I might add 'intelligent' causation, then computers and computer programs are both left without an adequate causal explanation for how they came into existence.

Recognising Top-Down Causation - George Ellis Excerpt: Causation: The nature of causation is highly contested territory, and I will take a pragmatic view: Definition 1: Causal Effect If making a change in a quantity X results in a reliable demonstrable change in a quantity Y in a given context, then X has a causal effect on Y. Example: I press the key labelled “A” on my computer keyboard; the letter “A” appears on my computer screen.,,, Definition 2: Existence If Y is a physical entity made up of ordinary matter, and X is some kind of entity that has a demonstrable causal effect on Y as per Definition 1, then we must acknowledge that X also exists (even if it is not made up of such matter). This is clearly a sensible and testable criterion; in the example above, it leads to the conclusion that both the data and the relevant software exist. If we do not adopt this definition, we will have instances of uncaused changes in the world; I presume we wish to avoid that situation.,,, Excerpt: page 5: A: Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored. The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts.,,, The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2275.pdf

Contrary to what Sir Giles, and much of modern day science, holds, it is simply impossible to 'scientifically' explain things solely by reference to 'bottom-up' material causes. The computer sitting right in front of Sir Giles is evidence, in and of itself, that 'top-down', intelligent, causation, even teleological causation, is very much a legitimate scientific explanation. Moreover, molecular biology itself betrays Darwinian materialists. It is simply impossible to describe the complexities of molecular biology without resorting to teleological, i.e. goal and/or purpose oriented, explanations. Which is to say, it is impossible for molecular biologists to do their research without resorting to goal oriented explanations for 'why' a molecule may do what it does, instead of just trying to explain 'how' biological molecules may do what they do. In short, the very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution. The renowned J.B.S. Haldane himself admitted as much, “Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.”

“Teleology is like a mistress to the biologist; he dare not be seen with her in public but cannot live without her.” - J. B. S. Haldane

As Denis Noble, Emeritus Professor of the University of Oxford, states, “it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language”.

“the most striking thing about living things, in comparison with non-living systems, is their teleological organization—meaning the way in which all of the local physical and chemical interactions cohere in such a way as to maintain the overall system in existence. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.” – Denis Noble – Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford. http://www.thebestschools.org/dialogues/evolution-denis-noble-interview/

bornagain77

Given that fermions and bosons are all that exist, why do they form organisms? And if organisms are, in fact, nothing over and beyond fermions and bosons, then it must be the case that they only appear to be 'organisms' to us. That we see wholes where, in fact, there are none. That is to say, in reality, there are no organisms at all, there are just fermions and bosons that are working in concert to create the appearance of there being organisms. So, here is the question of the OP again: why do fermions and bosons do that? Why (the appearance of) 'organisms', why 'life'? Given that fermions and bosons are all that exist, one would expect to see, in a purposeless world, only those conglomerations to exist that represent the most likely outcomes of interactions. The question is: does that description fit organisms? Origenes

Science deals with how, not why. You would think that those claiming to understand science would understand this fundamental aspect of science. Sir Giles

Absolutely shameless anthropomorphism…… chuckdarwin

This post is so full of misconceptions fueled by tribal stereotypes. This epitomizes why meaningful discussion is impossible. Yikes! Viola Lee