At Reasons.org: Is the Universe the Way It Is Because It’s the Only Way It Could Be?

_{Caspian
December 6, 2022

Fine tuning, Intelligent Design

4}_{Categories
Fine tuning
Intelligent Design}

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

Question of the week: How do you respond to the argument against fine-tuning as evidence for God by those who say the universe and its laws of physics are the way they are because that’s the only way they could be?

My answer: As I have documented in my books, The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th edition, Improbable Planet, and Designed to the Core, there are hundreds of independent features of the universe, its laws of physics, and its space-time dimensions that must be exquisitely fine-tuned to make the existence of humans, or their equivalent, possible in the universe. However, that pervasive fine-tuning is not the only way the universe and the laws of physics could be.

From a biblical perspective, the angelic realm has different dimensions and different laws of physics. Similarly, the future home of Christians, the new creation (see Revelation 21–22) has different dimensions and different laws of physics. Readers can see our book, Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men, for the scientific physical evidence for angels and the angelic realm.

As I explain in my books on fine-tuning, the universe can be fine-tuned in a different way to allow for the existence of certain kinds of bacteria but not allow for the existence of animals and humans. I also show how the laws of physics can remain unchanged but the universe structured so that no physical life is possible anywhere, anytime in the universe.
As I demonstrate in Designed to the Core, it is not just the laws of physics and the universe as a whole that are fine-tuned to make the existence of humans possible. All the universe’s subcomponents, from those on the largest size scales to those on the smallest size scales must be fine-tuned for humans to possibly exist.

Unlike the universe, the observed sample size of the universe’s subcomponents is not one. For example, there are a trillion trillion stars in the observable universe. So far, however, astronomers have detected only one star, our Sun, that possesses the fine-tuned history and features that make it possible for the existence of humans on a planet orbiting it. The Sun is not the only way stars can be. The same argument can be made for our Laniakea Supergalaxy Cluster, our Virgo Cluster of galaxies, our Local Group of galaxies, our Milky Way Galaxy, our local spiral arm, our Local Bubble, our planetary system, our planet, and our moon. The fine-tuning of the universe and all its subcomponents also vary according to the intended purposes for humans. As I show in Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, Improbable Planet, and Designed to the Core, the fine-tuning that allows billions of humans on one planet to be redeemed from their sin and evil within a time span of several tens of thousands of years is orders of magnitude more constrained than the fine-tuning that allows for the existence of a tiny population of technology-free humans with lifespans briefer than 30 years.
Reasons.org

Dr. Ross refers to scientific observations that show evidence of fine-tuning, not just for the existence of life, but to sustain life as we know it on Earth, with millions of species of plant and animal life, and a multi-billion population of humans with a technologically advanced global civilization. Often, arguments against intelligent design boil down to bad theology. Dr. Ross provides here a very brief connection between physical design parameters and a biblically-based theology.

Comments

@201
The problem is indeed philosophical as it involves analysing the philosophical implications of the concepts involved. They simply fail to understand that symbolism implies intentionality but physico-chemical dynamical laws are devoid of intentionality. Therefore, you can’t get symbolism like the genetic code from physico-chemical laws. It’s a qualitative difference, not a quantitative one. To think otherwise is a category mistake.
I wonder at this "symbolism implies intentionality." Is this a necessary truth? Is there an argument for it? Or is just one of those things that supposed to be 'obvious'? It's evident that we language-users can use symbolic systems to express our thoughts, can sometimes think in symbols (but not always), and can create new symbolic systems (computer languages, non-classical logics, Esperanto all come to mind as examples). But it doesn't follow that therefore every symbolic system must be the deliberate creation of some intelligent being. Likewise, is "physico-chemical dynamical laws are devoid of intentionality" supposed to be obvious? I'm not saying that I disagree, but I wonder what the argument is supposed to be for this conclusion.
biosemiotics researchers are committed to trying to make sense of coding/symbolism in biology under a naturalistic worldview, that’s precisely why the field was created. But like the valorous naturalists trying to make sense of consciousness or free will, they have failed, they are failing, and they will continue to fail. Their failure is the sad result of their fundamental inability to understand the mental nature of intentionality, and its necessary causal connection to symbolism itself.
I'd be interested to know what the symptoms of failure are.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

The problem... ...is I think related to intentionality and selfhood, in the sense that assigning values, names, categories, symbols, etc… can only be done by selves having intentions and free will expessible with language. Selves in turns, are by definition subjectivities, which means that they are entitities that depend on a distinction between “I” and the rest of the world. There’s no possibilty of making sense of this if your ontology is a monism of physical objects, none of which could claim any “special status” of this sort…
Entitities! Good typo :) The issue is undecidable. Some folks are emotionally drawn to dualism and attempt post hoc logical argument in support. Other folks remain unconvinced. There's a problem when groups decide their beliefs, ideas and rules should be enforced on others.Alan Fox_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

Jblais @220 Hear! Hear! - - - - - JVL, Poor man! Where art thou now? Thy day is night.Origenes_{December 30, 2022
December
12
Dec
30
30
2022
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT}

@Origenes You raise some of the incoherences inherent in naturalism. I share your bafflement that these problems don't bother naturalists more, they certainly should ! The problem you refer to is I think related to intentionality and selfhood, in the sense that assigning values, names, categories, symbols, etc... can only be done by selves having intentions and free will expessible with language. Selves in turns, are by definition subjectivities, which means that they are entitities that depend on a distinction between "I" and the rest of the world. There's no possibilty of making sense of this if your ontology is a monism of physical objects, none of which could claim any "special status" of this sort... So intentionality and selfhood are transcendendal conditions (in the sense of being a prerequisite) to there being any science, biology, theory of evolution, and so on, but are incompatible with an ontological monism of physical objects.Jblais_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Jblais @
… from what we know of the laws of physics and chemistry, there is no reason to think these laws can produce such symbolism.
There are no laws that compel particles to form organisms and/or code.
That in turns means that at best, a naturalist can say that he hopes that it occured via a natural unguided process …
I have a question. Exactly what is it that naturalists seek to explain? I would like to know because they are never quite clear about it. For instance, what exactly is an “organism” in their view? I gather that, under naturalism, an ‘organism’ is nothing over and beyond a bunch of elementary particles. But why is it that they nod in approval when Darwin tells them that ‘it’ (the bunch?) wants to survive? Why would a bunch of elementary particles want to prolong their presence in some organismal form? Why would they care? Why does that notion make perfect sense to the naturalist? Do naturalists see ontological wholes where there are none, as in “the house wants to protect the family”? And if they want to ‘explain’ to us that organisms just appear to be wholes, but in fact are not, and that BTW humans also just appear to be wholes (appear to whom?), but are in fact nothing over and beyond fermions & bosons, then to who or what do they think they are explaining stuff exactly? And a follow-up question would be: who or what is doing the explaining? I am just asking because sometimes the whole naturalistic project doesn’t make sense to me.Origenes_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

The following is fictional but illustrative. The persons named here are fictional and any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental. (AP) The Future. Evolution Laid to Rest. The End of a Discredited Idea. (Reporter) Today, my guest is Doctor Bob Smith. The man most credited with toppling evolution. Doctor Smith, what started you on this road? Smith: I've been a Biologist for 25 years but it began when I was a boy. The beautiful flowers, and watching honeybees going to each one. Dragonflies and their ability to hover and fly. Lizards, frogs, I had to know more. My parents got me a lot of books from the library. It didn't occur to me then but I saw distinct differences. Differences, I was told, that arose through unguided chance. (Reporter) When did your thinking change? Smith: I was doing a lot of research for private companies. Most involved humans but a few focused on insects. I slowly realized that the complex organs I was studying along with complex behaviors in insects were too perfect and too complex for unguided chance to bring about. One day, a computer data analyst was brought in on a project. He had a lot of data to sort through, but he also had observations that took my thinking further. This man, I'll call him John, told me that the level of complexity he was analyzing for us was far beyond anything that could be done by nature alone. That the internal organization of the human body and its functions were based on a code. That molecular switches received precise instructions to turn on and off. Or to stay on for a precise time period before shutting off. I realized that the evolution I had been taught was not a helpful idea. It was never brought in as an explanation for anything. I first expressed my views three years ago. I was immediately hit by nasty messages, including those that demanded I be stripped of my awards and that I leave the field of Biology entirely. (Reporter): How did you react to all this? Smith: At first I was taken aback. Academic freedom had also been taught to me. The exchange of ideas requires open discussion. But when I went back through the messages, I realized one thing: Not one of those people had made a rational argument. They were angry at me and that was it. The accusations included the idea that I was being dishonest, which wasn't true. About a week later, I got a message from a Biologist in France. He agreed with me but he was afraid. If I could be stripped of my awards and perhaps lose my job, so could he. If he spoke up. (Reporter): Then what happened? Smith: I held a press conference. I expressed my thoughts as clearly as I could. Most of those attending left, a few booed me. But three did stay. They asked me good questions. And then they left. I didn't know what they would do. Then a Doctor Renaud contacted me. He held a press conference. He was in full agreement with me. It snowballed after that. Other scientists contacted me and pledged their support. The National Academy of Sciences was appalled but had no rational arguments, just false accusations. Soon, other people in influential positions gave their support. Articles were published. Then, in a short time, the opposition ended. The public was getting to understand that life is too complex to have arrived at not only a complex assembly of parts but associated complex functions on its own. Who taught a dragonfly to fly? I asked the public that question, and it caused them to see things as they actually are. And that is the way things are.relatd_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

JVL @
There is no conceivable natural mechanism that would produce functional signs and symbols so the only alternative is Intelligence.
JVL: Argument from ignorance.

Rationality requires a person who is in control of his thoughts. For this, there is no conceivable physical explanation.
JVL: Those a priori assumptions just keep on coming!!
I hate to break it to you JVL, but, no matter how hard you try, there is only so much that can be explained with fermions and bosons. You can plead and pray with all your heart and all your strength but not a single fermion or boson will ever be persuaded to have an interest in signs & symbols, and perhaps above all, fermions and bosons are absolutely resolute about having zero interest in rationality.Origenes_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

JVL, why would anyone make a career suicidal announcement given the current hyper partisan climate in institutions and a significant heavily documented slaughter of the dissidents? I find, that you MUST know of that context, and of earlier similar cases such as to obtain a PhD in the USSR one had to produce a paper in defence of atheism to show that one had the "correct" "scientific" outlook. 1984 two minute hate and doublethink-doubletalk here we come. Therefore, for cause I infer your suppression of this highly relevant and telling context of institutional ideological captivity and baked in ideology dressed up as knowledge is tactical, a strategic half truth. So, it drastically undermines the force of your counter claims to UB. Then, turning focus to what is warranted and credibly true, in reform of knowledge, we may readily see the strength of the evidence that coded language expressing algorithms lies in the heart of the cell. When the rhetorical smoke clears and the institutional captivity is discredited, pointed observations will be made on what was being suppressed. KFkairosfocus_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

AF, so apparently you have a tough time remembering that "Evolution did it!" is always the correct answer for a Darwinist, no matter what the evidence says to the contrary? Shoot, you can ace Coyne's college class by repeatedly muttering those 3 little words. :)bornagain77_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

@ Phil (who asks):
Answers are hard for Darwinists?
Answers are hard for everyone. As you illustrate on a regular basis.Alan Fox_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

@JVL "How do you know that it’s not possible for symbolic representation to arise via unguided processes?" Because from conceptual analysis it follows, from what symbolism means, that it implies intentionality, which itself implies a mental reality. "You trust the researchers to come up with the results but not the proper interpretation?" The fact that life is based on symbolism follows from the fact that life is based on a code. This is a finding from Francis Crick, not from biosemiotics researchers. The philosophical implication of that fact is that, from what we know of the laws of physics and chemistry, there is no reason to think these laws can produce such symbolism. That in turns means that at best, a naturalist can say that he hopes that it occured via a natural unguided process, but as a hope, this is epistemically speaking, a faith, and a faith that cannot be rationally defended because of the philosophical issue of the intentional nature of any symbolic system. As I said, the same is true for consciousness under naturalism.Jblais_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Umm... OoL , Darwinism ,Biosemiotics didn't solve "the life via natural mechanism " test. Never will. Because a higher intelligence is...higher. :)whistler_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

AF: "Confirms my conjecture that questions are easy but answers are hard." Answers are hard for Darwinists? Really??? How can that possibly be when Darwinists already know that their answer will always be "Evolution did it!" no matter what the evidence may say to the contrary?
“Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!” - Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69) - 1998 Nobel Prize in physics “We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence ‘is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;’ but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists.” Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin “Evolution is slow and gradual except when it is fast. It is dynamic and creates huge changes over time, except when it keeps everything the same for millions of years. It explains both extreme complexity and elegant simplicity. It tells us how birds learned to fly and yet also lost that ability. Evolution made cheetahs fast and turtles slow. Some creatures it made big and others small; some gloriously beautiful and others boringly grey. It forced fish to walk and walking animals to return to the sea. It diverges except when it converges; it produces exquisitely fine-tuned designs except when it produces junk. Evolution is random and without direction except when it moves toward a target. Life under evolution is a cruel battlefield except when it displays altruism. Evolution explains virtues and vice, love and hate, religion and atheism. And it does all this with a growing number of ancillary hypotheses. Modern evolutionary theory is the Rube Goldberg of theoretical constructs. And what is the result of all this speculative ingenuity? Like the defunct theory of phlogiston, it explains everything while explaining nothing well” - Matti Leisola - Heretic - p. 199 "Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Cornelius Hunter
bornagain77_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Whistler: So how do you test a higher intelligence ? Pretty simple : use the same method for admission to a university or for a job. Umm . . . can you give an example?JVL_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

How do you test the divine?
Confirms my conjecture that questions are easy but answers are hard. ;)Alan Fox_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Argument from ignorance.
Argument from present evidences. Science is not about your wishful thinking, unicorns and pink clouds but what can be proved. As of Today.
How do you test the divine?
:) The divine and a trace of the manifestation of divine intelligence in this universe are 2 very different things. So how do you test a higher intelligence ? Pretty simple : use the same method for admission to a university or for a job. If you can't solve the test that means there is somebody smarter than you that made(designed) the test. ;)whistler_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Can someone tell me how semiotics would progress if it allowed divine agents into the equation. How would it progress past: well, this undefined and undetected and untestable being did something. How does that work exactly? If you say: well, God must have done it how do you check to see if that's true? How do you test the divine?JVL_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

Whistler: Biosemiotics is ID all the way. And you know that because . . . you are a biosemetic researcher? You've published some biosemetic papers that have been read and scrutinised by other biosemetic researchers? There is no conceivable natural mechanism that would produce functional signs and symbols so the only alternative is Intelligence. Argument from ignorance. I can't figure it out so it couldn't have happened. And that's science?JVL_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

Origenes: You can work on the ‘problem’ till the cows come home JVL. Gosh, is that an a priori assumption I see? A very apt comparison. Rationality requires a person who is in control of his thoughts. For this there is no conceivable physical explanation. Those a priori assumptions just keep on coming!!JVL_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Jblais: Pardon me but your argument seems a bit . . . scattered. First you say that Biosemetics was created to deal with the fact that codes were found to be at the basis of life. But then you say that some of the most famous and long-standing researchers in the field of biosemetics are deluded because they can't get away from the basic chemistry. So . . . let me get this straight . . . some of the premier supporters of a symbolic system at the heart of biology didn't actually believe that a symbolic system was at the heart of biology? Is that what you're saying? That the symbolism requires agency? Is that not an assertion on your part? How do you know that it's not possible for symbolic representation to arise via unguided processes? Given that it's humans interpreting the chemical and physical processes as equations. Let's put this another way . . . what if the symbolic nature of the biological realm is just down to our interpretation of the chemical landscape as abstract symbols? Reducing complicated chemical and physical processes to simple alphanumeric equations looks like abstraction and/or arbitrary representations. So, yes, biosemiotics researchers are committed to trying to make sense of coding/symbolism in biology under a naturalistic worldview, that’s precisely why the field was created. Right . . . so . . . you do or do not accept their research results? You seem to be throwing the whole field into the dust while at the same time you're using their results as evidence for intelligent design. You trust the researchers to come up with the results but not the proper interpretation? Something like that? It seems to me that you need to be a bit more specific and thorough in reinterpreting the work. Which parts do you accept and which parts do you reject? You accept the basic results? But you think that clearly implies intelligence?JVL_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

intelligent design is not endorsed by anyone actively working in biosemiotics
:))) Nonsense. Biosemiotics is ID all the way. Atheists also occupied and infected this scientific niche and keep it frozen . There is no conceivable natural mechanism that would produce functional signs and symbols so the only alternative is Intelligence.whistler_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

@Jblais
... the reason why modern biology makes this assumption is simply because the behavior of molecules involved in chemical reactions is governed by electromagnetism and thermodynamics, not systems of symbolic representations (aka codes) ! Thus, the reason why the philosophical implications of the symbolism at the heart of life have been ignored by biology is simply because under reductionist naturalism, a code simply doesn’t make any sense!
Naturalistic science seeks a physical explanation for life. Information, in the true sense, is not part of physics.
Outside of living cells, do you know of any other chemical reaction governed by a code ?! Of course, there is none. People like Deacon and Pattee and the whole biosemiotics field, are like these brave neuroscientists that keep writing papers hoping to someday solve the hard problem of consciousness by studying the details of sodium, potassium and calcium ions moving back and forth cells and organelles membranes and neurotransmitter molecules released from vesicles into synaptic clefts. Unfortunately, these people are deluded. The problem is indeed philosophical as it involves analysing the philosophical implications of the concepts involved.
A very apt comparison. Rationality requires a person who is in control of his thoughts. For this there is no conceivable physical explanation.
JVL: just because you can’t conceived of a step-by-step process doesn’t mean no one can or that no one is working on the problem.
You can work on the ‘problem’ till the cows come home JVL.
They simply fail to understand that symbolism implies intentionality but physico-chemical dynamical laws are devoid of intentionality. Therefore, you can’t get symbolism like the genetic code from physico-chemical laws. It’s a qualitative difference, not a quantitative one. To think otherwise is a category mistake. Abstract philosophical thinking is not for everyone, and many people, especially scientists, are quite bad at it.
Perhaps it can be said that intentionality (and rationality) point to a different ontological level. In other words, it points to wholes on a different level (and of a different kind) than the wholes allowed for by naturalism, which are fermions and bosons.
It’s the same situation in the philosophy of mind where you have people failing to grasp that you can’t get first person subjectivity from physical objects obeying the laws of physics because the difference is qualitative, not quantitative.
Hear! Hear!
Some naturalists do understand this and become eliminativists despite the absurdity of the view, because their naturalistic, atheistic metaphysics/worldview is more important than reason itself.
Absurd and destructive.Origenes_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Some here seem to grossly underestimate the grip of metaphysical naturalism that permeates academia at both the conscious and unconscious level. Biosemiotics is a field created because although the idea that "life is based on signs and codes, ... has been strongly suggested by the discovery of the genetic code, but so far it has made little impact in the scientific world and is largely regarded as a philosophy rather than a science." Marcello Barbieri, Biosemiotics: a new understanding of life. Naturwissenschaften. 2008 Jul;95(7):577-99. In other words, this field was created by people that recognized that a code, and therefore symbolism, cannot be eliminated as the foundation of biology. The reason why this inconvenient fact has been ignored according to Barbieri is that “…modern biology assumes that signs and meanings do not exist at the molecular level…”. And of course the reason why modern biology makes this assumption is simply because the behavior of molecules involved in chemical reactions is governed by electromagnetism and thermodynamics, not systems of symbolic representations (aka codes) ! Thus, the reason why the philosophical implications of the symbolism at the heart of life have been ignored by biology is simply because under reductionist naturalism, a code simply doesn’t make any sense! Outside of living cells, do you know of any other chemical reaction governed by a code ?! Of course, there is none. People like Deacon and Pattee and the whole biosemiotics field, are like these brave neuroscientists that keep writing papers hoping to someday solve the hard problem of consciousness by studying the details of sodium, potassium and calcium ions moving back and forth cells and organelles membranes and neurotransmitter molecules released from vesicles into synaptic clefts. Unfortunately, these people are deluded. The problem is indeed philosophical as it involves analysing the philosophical implications of the concepts involved. They simply fail to understand that symbolism implies intentionality but physico-chemical dynamical laws are devoid of intentionality. Therefore, you can’t get symbolism like the genetic code from physico-chemical laws. It’s a qualitative difference, not a quantitative one. To think otherwise is a category mistake. Abstract philosophical thinking is not for everyone, and many people, especially scientists, are quite bad at it. It’s the same situation in the philosophy of mind where you have people failing to grasp that you can’t get first person subjectivity from physical objects obeying the laws of physics because the difference is qualitative, not quantitative. Some naturalists do understand this and become eliminativists despite the absurdity of the view, because their naturalistic, atheistic metaphysics/worldview is more important than reason itself. So, yes, biosemiotics researchers are committed to trying to make sense of coding/symbolism in biology under a naturalistic worldview, that’s precisely why the field was created. But like the valorous naturalists trying to make sense of consciousness or free will, they have failed, they are failing, and they will continue to fail. Their failure is the sad result of their fundamental inability to understand the mental nature of intentionality, and its necessary causal connection to symbolism itself. So yes, individual researchers and entire academic fields can be, and often are, completely blind to the philosophical implications of the concepts they’re using in their own research. Sometimes consciously and willingly because the implications threaten their worldview and this is a priori more intolerable than willfull blindness, sometimes unconsciously and sometimes simply because of a lack of philosophical understanding and insight.Jblais_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

@196
You seem to labor under the assumption that you cannot understand/interpret the evidence yourself; that you have no choice but to trust/believe someone else’s judgment.
I don't think there's any room for doubt about JVL's main contention, which is that intelligent design is not endorsed by anyone actively working in biosemiotics (writing papers that cite other biosemioticians, getting published in journals like Biosemiotics, teaching classes in the field, contributing to edited volumes like Introduction to Biosemiotics, etc. -- doing the work that advances the discipline). That said, it's of course a separate question whether they should endorse it. Should Pattee, Hoffmeyer, Deacon, Kull, Barbieri be ID supporters? Are they being inconsistent or irrational in not endorsing ID? I myself couldn't say -- I've only started reading Pattee this morning ("How a Molecule Becomes a Message" and "The Necessity of Biosemiotics"). I'm very intrigued by it, due to my interest in Deacon. Aside: one aspect of Peirce that Pattee picks up on and that Deacon seems to ignore is the role of the community in interpretation: nothing can function as a sign except insofar as it is used to communicate. So Pattee emphasizes (in his 1969 paper) the idea of a primeval prebiotic network that can function as a proto-interpretative community.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

PyrrhoManiac1: You’re missing the point — we know that everyone in the biosemiotics community is blinded by their a priori dogmatic commitment to materialism because if they weren’t, they would have followed the evidence and concluded that intelligent design is a far more plausible explanation of abiogenesis than any naturalistic explanation could be. Their refusal to accept ID is the evidence of their dogmatic commitment to materialism. No other evidence is required. Of course you're right, how could I have been so blinded by my a priori assumptions.JVL_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Origenes: You seem to labor under the assumption that you cannot understand/interpret the evidence yourself; that you have no choice but to trust/believe someone else’s judgment. Nice assumption. Yours I mean. I have asked you to judge the facts yourself. In response, you, again, start yelling about how “no one in the semiotics community, including Dr Pattee, has said their work supports ID.” I didn't yell, funny you interpreted it that way. Almost like you see me as some kind of raving lunatic. Is that one of your a priori assumptions? Perhaps a genuinely modest person, like you, recognizes his limitations, and shies away from forming an independent judgment, but don’t expect others to follow your lead. Which are you, good cop or bad cop? Do you have any actual evidence that the semiotics community is blinded by their a priori assumptions, yes or no? Saying they must be because of their conclusion is just a circular argument based on your a priori assumptions.JVL_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

@195
Despite there being no evidence that the semiotic community is blinded by their biases (except for a few anonymous ID proponents who clearly do have a priori commitments and are not professional semiotic researchers) you choose to believe that that is the case. Do you think that your stance would stand up in a court of law let alone the scientific community?
You're missing the point -- we know that everyone in the biosemiotics community is blinded by their a priori dogmatic commitment to materialism because if they weren't, they would have followed the evidence and concluded that intelligent design is a far more plausible explanation of abiogenesis than any naturalistic explanation could be. Their refusal to accept ID is the evidence of their dogmatic commitment to materialism. No other evidence is required.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

JVL@
Should I believe a you and some anonymous commenters on a pro-ID website or a community of professional, published researchers ....
You seem to labor under the assumption that you cannot understand/interpret the evidence yourself; that you have no choice but to trust/believe someone else's judgment. I have asked you to judge the facts yourself. In response, you, again, start yelling about how "no one in the semiotics community, including Dr Pattee, has said their work supports ID." Perhaps a genuinely modest person, like you, recognizes his limitations, and shies away from forming an independent judgment, but don't expect others to follow your lead.Origenes_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Barry: The researchers, like JVL, were blinded by their a priori metaphysical commitments. They literally could not see where their own work was leading. Really? You think that after decades of work by hundreds of semiotic researchers that they are all blinded by their a priori commitments? Not one has broken cover (as happened in your example remember) to own up to the truth? I haven't reasoned incorrectly. Despite there being no evidence that the semiotic community is blinded by their biases (except for a few anonymous ID proponents who clearly do have a priori commitments and are not professional semiotic researchers) you choose to believe that that is the case. Do you think that your stance would stand up in a court of law let alone the scientific community? You are not a semiotic expert. I am not a semiotic expert. Upright BiPed is not a semiotic expert. ALL the evidence (including some articles that are clearly in support of unguided evolution) supports that the entire semiotic community agrees that semiotics bolsters the case for non-intelligent intervention. You think the entire semiotic community can't see the implications of their own work. No doubt they would disagree. Should I believe a you and some anonymous commenters on a pro-ID website or a community of professional, published researchers who share their theories and discuss them in journals and at publicly held conferences? Professionals who are not under threat by the Church with condemnation and even torture to toe the party line (you left that out of your example didn't you?). Your hypothesis has no evidence to support it. None. Your own a priori convictions don't count as support.JVL_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

JVL
What I said is true: No one in semiotic community, including Dr Pattee, has said their work supports ID. Not a single one. If it was as clear as you seem to think then surely someone by now would have broken cover and admitted it.
I wrote a post showing why your reasoning is wrong JVL. If you are interested in knowing why you are wrong and UB is right, go over there.Barry Arrington_{December 29, 2022
December
12
Dec
29
29
2022
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply