Craig Crushes Ayala

_{Barry Arrington

August 15, 2012

Intelligent Design}

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

Ayala gives two objections to design: (1) The design we see is suboptimal; and (2) the cruelty we see in nature precludes an inference to a good designer.

Craig first shows a picture of a dilapidated old East German Trabant, one of the worst cars ever made. He then shows a picture of a shiny new Mercedes E Class.

Then he makes the following argument.

1. The Trabant is obviously designed.

2. The Trabant design is obviously sub-optimal.

3. Therefore, the fact that a design is sub-optimal does not invalidate the design inference.

Conclusion: Known designs exhibit various degrees of optimality. Therefore, there is simply no reason to restrict design inferences only to maximally optimal designs. If a structure meets Dembski’s criteria for inferring design, that inference is not nullified by the mere possibility that the structure could have been better designed.

Craig then shows a picture of a medieval torture device and makes the following argument.

1. The torture device is obviously designed.

2. The designer was obviously not good.

3. Therefore, the possibility that the designer is not good does not preclude a design inference.*

Conclusion: The design inference says absolutely nothing about the moral qualities of the designer.

*Theologians have answers to the “cruelty” objection, but those answers are not within the province of the ID project as such.

Comments

After all, you’ve already stated that I have “fled” a conversation, leaving that conversation “unfinished”. I would, of course, take immediate issue with that particular positioning statement, given that I was one person defending my argument against 8-12 opponents, non-stop for a period of 130+ days (surmounting well over 1100 comments in the process), while not a single person there actually demonstrated that any of the material observations I had made were false. And there it is, right?
Well, not exactly. I have tried to follow some of that conversation (certainly I haven't read every post by everyone), and as far as I can tell nobody has any problems with any of the material observations you have made at all. The complaint is instead that you have been asuming the consequent. As a vastly simplified example, consider the following argument: 1) All dogs have four legs (material observation) 2) This object has four legs (material observation) 3) Therefore, this object is a dog! (conclusion) As far as I can see, people can legitimately dispute the logic of this conclusion without the slightest question of a single material observation. As I read it, this compliant was made repeatedly, by many people, who presented their case very clearly. "Answering" them by (once again) defending the material observations is missing the point.David W. Gibson_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

H'mm: This thread seems to be astray from a pivotal main issue raised in the OP. I point to where it was raised above by JDH: _______ >> Above, Dr JDH stated:
The argument by Craig is extremely relevant [--> examples of sub-optimal design etc]. He shows that Ayala is not telling the truth in his objections. They are not anti-design arguments. As far as sub-optimal or evil designs, this is another failure. It is a religious, moral argument, not a scientific one. Once you acknowledge that it is a moral argument you have to find a basis for that morality. [--> In shoert, what is the worldview foundaitonal IS that you accept that objectively warrants OUGHT, including, rights. Without such, you are either borrowing without attribution or else you are holding to something that is amoral and/or nihilist] The terms “optimization” or “good” and “evil” can only be done in the context of what purpose the designs are trying to serve. [--> If you disagree, what is your alternative] If God is trying to demonstrate in nature the inadequacy of the natural man, and the terrible effect of sin on the natural world, then a perfect design which removed all suffering would be in fact sub-optimal.
1: Can you accurately and fairly sum up the argument in a short sentence or two? If not, then there is an issue of comprehension. I assume you can. 2: Having so summed up, do you agree, disagree or partly agree/disagree? If so, to what? 3: On what grounds? That is, why relative to facts and logic. 4: What is, in summary, your alternative, and why do you think it is warranted on the merits? >> _______ It would be interesting to see a serious response on the merits. KFkairosfocus_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

O goody, think I may need to get in a big bag of pop corn :)PeterJ_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT}

Mphillips I have a suggestion to make. Why don't you and I make a compact to do something entirely different here – perhaps something constructive, irrespective of our indivudual positions? I propose that we change the nature of this exchange. I would like to ask you to accept the proposition that we completely set aside my question to you, and instead, let us focus solely on your question(s) for me. After all, you've already stated that I have “fled” a conversation, leaving that conversation “unfinished”. I would, of course, take immediate issue with that particular positioning statement, given that I was one person defending my argument against 8-12 opponents, non-stop for a period of 130+ days (surmounting well over 1100 comments in the process), while not a single person there actually demonstrated that any of the material observations I had made were false. And there it is, right? We can argue over each others backmarkers all we want, while the core of our individual positions (their strongest points) stand uncontested, or untested, depending how you'd like to look at it. I truly ask you, what is the point in that? I am completely comfortable with the idea of suspending my pursuit of your position, and will intead stand in your target. I will forthrightly answer any question you wish to ask, and I will do so to the fullest of my ability. What do you say? This offer does not come without personal responsibility though. When you boil all this down, there is nothing here but your position, my position, the data, and our priors which we both can manage, but neither can escape. It is no more correct for me to assume my priors within my argument than it is for me to attack you for assuming your priors – if you havent. Likewise, it is no more correct for you to assume your priors within your argument than it is for you to attack me for assuming my priors – if I haven't. The argument I've made is not foreign to you. You know the limits that I've placed on my argument. Those limits are not placed there by political maneuver; they are appropriate to the evidence itself. The word “appropriate” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “especially suitable”. The limits placed on the conclusion of my argument are 'especially suitable' to the evidence at hand. I argue that the transfer of the recorded information contained within the genome demonstrates a semiotic state, and therefore will require a mechanism capable of creating a semiotic state. That's it. Either that conclusion is validated by the material evidence, or it is not validated. Either it is, or it is not. One, or the other. Arguing over issues that do not impact the evidence supporting that conclusion will not refute it. This is necessarily true, and has always been so. So, I make this suggestion. Instead of you cobbling together some idea of the transfer of recorded information without the use of a material representation, an attempt destined to fail, why not accept my offer instead? Spend that time fashioning your best three or four questions. All that is asked of you is that you exercise the discipline to target the actual argument as it is given, its conclusion, and the material evidence that supports it. If you choose otherwise, then by all means, let's hear your example. You can expect a concise and immediate rebuttal to the necessary equivocation which you force yourself into, and you'll be able to enjoy whatever honor is afforded to you for (unnecessarily) losing another argument and not admitting it. And just so we are clear, that is not a display of arrogance or undue certainty, that is the culmination of Crick, Peirce, Nirenberg, Hoagland, Polanyi, von Neumann, Pattee, the principles at work, and the material evidence. If I am wrong about that, then you should be able to point it out.Upright BiPed_{August 17, 2012
August
08
Aug
17
17
2012
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT}

tjguy: Glad we agree on the basic facts about ID. However, your expression "true IDers" is undefined, and I wonder what it could possibly mean. It seems to imply that there are a lot of people going around calling themselves ID supporters who are either not ID supporters at all, or only half-baked ID supporters. I don't understand that. ID has a fairly clear definition, and it is not that hard to say who supports it and who doesn't. I suspect that a far higher percentage of ID proponents are YECs than you imagine. If we take not just the leadership, but add in the rank and file, I wouldn't be surprised if 25-35% of ID supporters were YECs. I would expect the largest group would be the OECS, maybe 40-60% of the total. I would expect that 10-20% are either evolutionists (like Behe) or at least consider themselves open to evolution, provided the empirical evidence is there and that the evolutionary process is understood as guided or planned in some way, rather than due to randomness and natural selection. On Genesis 1, you are taking for granted something that many Biblical scholars would dispute, i.e., that the single verse in Genesis 1 from which animal vegetarianism might be inferred is a strong statement of animal vegetarianism. The verse doesn't actually state that animals are all vegetarian, and the inference, while reasonable, is not a slam-dunk, because language is used elastically by writers and not always precisely. Most of the creatures people encounter everyday are herbivorous, not carnivorous, so the writer may have had in mind the typical case; alternately, the writer may have had in mind the indirect dependency of even carnivorous animals upon plants. The case would be stronger if anything else in Genesis 1 supported the vegetarian interpretation, or even supported the view that Genesis 1 depicted a world unlike our own, i.e., more perfect than our own. But there is no indication that Genesis 1, in its general description or in its specific descriptions, has in mind anything but the world as we know it. It would be odd if in that one verse alone Genesis 1 suddenly became a "golden age narrative." The other problem is that the rest of the Old Testament gives very little support to the notion. The lion lying down with the lamb etc. can be understood as poetic language referring to the restoration of peace in the human world, and outside of such expressions in poetry, there is precious little to go on. There is no indication that the verses you quote from Revelation have anything other than human death in mind, and the same could be said of the passage you quote from Paul. Further, Job seems to be speaking about the original creation, not the fallen creation, when God describes an order of nature like the one we know today. And Genesis 2 mentions nothing about original animal vegetarianism, or about any change in animal diets after the Fall. When we take everything into account, and not just one verse in Genesis 1, the case for original animal vegetarianism in the Bible is not strong. It's a possible interpretation, but that's the most that can be said. So it's hardly binding on Christians doctrinally. And of course there's nothing about it in the Creeds. But back to the more general point: why couldn't a God who "will be what he will be" ordain animal suffering? Fundamentalists don't blink an eye when God orders the slaughter of innocent infants and the sexual enslavement of captive women after the genocide of whole peoples; why are they so troubled by the consumption of sheep by wolves or tuna by sharks? The Biblical God is clearly not a God whose main priority is to make sure that no one innocent ever suffers. I think that YECs are under the spell of a modern form of sentimentalism in their angst over the fact of death in the created world. I think that the horror of death -- other than early, violent or agonizing *human* death -- is simply not a major theme in genuine, uncontaminated Hebraic thought. So I have no problem with an order of creation that includes death from the very beginning. Not *all* death is a result of human sin. And the part that isn't the result of human sin, is in my view the duty of Christians to accept, not rail against.Timaeus_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

In the meanwhile, were you never a child? You must know how it works. I’ve answered one of your questions. I said “yes”. I’ll even expand on that tomorrow. Now you can answer one of mine? That’s typically how it works.
Yes, if you are a child and have no intention of posting in good faith...Joe_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

Or not, as from what I’ve read so far at the TSZ and here you don’t really seem interested in answers to your question, given that you abandoned the conversation and fled just as things started to get interesting.
How are you defining "interesting"? Not one of UB's critics can demonstrate how transcription and translation arose via necessity and chance. IOW it appears there was more bickering, conflating and evading on the part of his critics any any "conversation" was over long ago. That said do you have any evidence that a living organism can get by without the current transcription and translation processes? Any at all?
Yeah, that would almost be like somebody saying that Genetic Information is impossible to evolve despite the fact a well observed mechanism is in place to do so.
Petrushka, your continued equivocation gives you away. No one say s anything about "genetic information is impossible to evolve". And yes, the only well observed mechanism observed to do is is design, intelligent design. No evidence for blind and undirected processes doing so. But as for why transcription and translation support ID- Transcription and translation- what Upright Biped calls a semiotic process because we have one molecule representing another, ie a code- is evidence for Intelligent Design because it requires knowledge to carry out. Knowledge of what, when and how to transcribe as well as what, when and how to translate. And as we already know, synthetic ribosomes just do not function, which means it takes something more than matter and energy to make a functioning ribosome. The following is what one gets when one reads biology textbooks (quotes are from Bioinformatics, Genomics, and Proteomics: Getting the Big Picture by Ann Finney Batiza, PhD, which is part of a series- "Biotechnology in the 21st Century"):
It is important to note that the proteins made by an organism determine all of the characteristics that “nature” provides for that particular living thing. The enzymes allow other molecules, including proteins, fats, and carbohydrates to undergo chemical reactions, such as being put together or taken apart inside living things. … (skipping surface receptors and other structural elements) Other proteins bind DNA, the molecules of heredity, and determine which codes are going to be used to make proteins- at which time and in which type of cell. Because each protein has an important job to do, it is crucial that proteins be made to precise specifications, just like the precision parts of an expensive sports car. In fact, the blueprints for some proteins have been so good, they have been preserved through millions and even billions of years of evolution.—page 5
However no one ever says how they evolved in the first place.
The importance of these precise structures and hence functioning of protein machines like these channels cannot be understated. Potassium channels, like other channels that pass other ions from one side of the cell membrane to the other, have a particular architecture that allows them to open and close upon command. We now know that intricately designed and mechanically fine-tuned ion channels determine the rhythm and allow an electrical impulse initiated when we stub our toe to be transmitted to the brain.- page 19
Wet electricity. Whereas the electricity that powers our computers is comes from the flow of electrons through a conducter and “hates” water, the electricity that runs our bodies is designed for a wet environment and uses pumped ions to convey differing messages to our command center. Those magical mystery mutations are pretty powerful stuff!! But wait, there's more! Just for a eukaryotic cell to make an amino acid (polypeptide) chain- Transcription and Translation- Transcription: You start with a tightly wound piece of DNA. Enzymes called RNA polymerases, along with other transcription factors, begin the process by unwinding a portion of DNA near the start of a gene, which is specified by sequences called promoters. Now there are two strands exposed. One strand is the coding strand- it has the correct sequence information for the product- and the other strand is the non-coding strand. That strand contains the complimentary layout. At this point decisions have to be made. Where to start, where to stop and although it may seem counterintuitive the mRNA goes to the non-coding strand in order to reconstruct the proper codon sequence (nucleotide triplets which code for an amino acid) for the protein to be formed. Both sides of the parent DNA are exposed yet the mRNA "knows" to only form on one. This process is unidirectional (5’-3’). There is only one start codon which also codes for an amino acid (met) and therefore all amino acid sequences start with methionine. The stop codons don’t code for an amino acid. Transcription actually starts before the “start” codon and continues past the stop codon. Before the mRNA leaves the nucleus any/ all introns are cut out and the remaining exons spliced together. A chemical cap is added to the 5’ end, the non-coding stuff at the end is cut off by a special enzyme (endonuclease) and a string of A’s is added in its place. You now have a processed mRNA. So now we have this piece of processed mRNA which leaves the nucleus and has to rendezvous with a ribosome-the protein factory within the cell. On to translation: A ribosome consists of over 50 proteins and 3-4 different kinds of rRNA (ribosomal), plus free-floating tRNA (transfer). Each tRNA has a 3 nucleotide sequence- the anti-codon to the mRNA’s codon plus it carries the appropriate amino acid molecule for its anti-codon. To attach the appropriate amino acid to the correct anti-codon an enzyme called amino-acid synthetase is used.
There, large workbenches made of both protein and nucleic acid grab the mRNA so the correct amino acids can be brought up to the mRNA. Each amino acid is escorted by a module called tRNA or transfer RNA. It is important to note that the escort molecules have three bases prominently exposed on their backsides and that these molecules also use the base U instead of T. The kind of amino acid is determined precisely by the tRNA escort’s anticodon, or triplet set of bases on the escort’s backside.-pg 23
And then the chain starts forming until the stop codon terminates the process. Next is the folding process. That is what allows the protein to be useful- its spatial configuration. And guess what? Many proteins require chaperones in order to fold correctly- another egg-chicken problem. That is just the basics of what one is introduced to when reading biology textbooks. And it doesn't include the proof-reading and error correction that accompanies the process. Again all of this takes knowledge to accomplish. So the bottom-line is if biology textbooks got rid of the biased, untestable and unscientific leanings toward non-telic evolution students reading the books would come to the design inference just based on the data.Joe_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

Here's lost to moderation post 63. Upright,
You seem to need a citation for the idea that symbol systems have a material foundation.
No, you said:
The already documented physics of symbol systems, as described in peer-reviewed literature.
And I'm asking for a reference that details how the current symbol system was actually also present at the origin of life. As you mention "peer reviewed literature" you should have no problem providing a citation to a paper that supports your view that the current symbol system was present before the origin of life. It's very easy to talk about other peoples work but I'm asking why it supports an ID origin of life.
You want a citation to support the claim that Life requires organization.
No, you said:
Life requires organization. That is a universal observation, and it is at the very center of OoL research. Biological organization stems from biological information.
Therefore, as above, I'd like you to provide a citation to something that shows that at the OoL the symbol system (organization) was as it currently is. Or what relevance does your claim have to ID? Otherwise what holds now might not have held then. So your claim is pointless unless you can link it to the OoL - you simply don't know what conditions held.
You need a citation for my statement that biological organization is controlled by biological information.
Here I'd actually like you to specify what you mean by "biological information". Is that different to "information"?
You need a citation to support the suggestion that these are all “universal observations”.
No, I want you to provide evidence that these observations also held at the OoL. Otherwise what's your point?
You even ask for a citation for the rather obvious conclusion that ‘even if we don’t know’ how living systems came into being, they would eventually have to acquire the qualities that we find in them today, because that’s the way we find them.
Obvious conclusions are the bane of science. And here you admit a knowledge gap - you don't know how living systems came into being and therefore you don't know how they acquired or started to acquire the qualities that we find in them today.
The documentation behind most of your questions represents either the careers, or a substantial portion of the careers, of several researchers.
No, I don't think so really. Here, let me recap. You claim that a designer implemented the symbol system we see today in biological life. Yet you don't have an opinion that you can provide if you think that designer is in the universe (an alien) or a deity (i.e. god). You can't say how that symbol system came into being, other then to say "it was obviously the product of intelligent design as other similar systems are".
Of course, I realize that you are not really asking me to support my claims with supporting data;
Of course not. I realize that is not something you are able to do.
your entire diatribe was a tactic used for the express purpose of distancing yourself from that same data.
Data of which you can't actually bring yourself to describe why it supports ID.
Just imagine someone in the age of Genetic Information asking for proof that biological organization is controlled by the information in DNA,
Yeah, that would almost be like somebody saying that Genetic Information is impossible to evolve despite the fact a well observed mechanism is in place to do so. Or like saying that the fact a symbol system exists is evidence for ID despite not actually having any actual information about why that must be.
But I wouldn’t want to cheat you out of forcing me to provide you with a citation, so I’ll pick one
Perhaps you could find a citation that shows your symbol system was in evidence at the OoL exactly as we find it today?
While you are working your way through those authors (as I have) perhaps you could take a moment to answer the question now asked three times
Likewise, when you say A) Are you talking about the Origin of life or something else? B) Why your argument supports intelligent design I'll be happy to answer your question. Or not, as from what I've read so far at the TSZ and here you don't really seem interested in answers to your question, given that you abandoned the conversation and fled just as things started to get interesting.mphillips_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

vjtorley
That’s consistent with the hypothesis that the Intelligent Designer of Nature designed genera, but not individual species. Devolution can account for the aberrant behavior we observe in certain species.
Thanks. Given that, is the rate of devolution consistent with any particular timescale? We don't seem to be observing it now, and the "aberrant behavior" in some cases may well be traceable back for many years if preserved in fossils. If so, not devolving at all or in fits and starts if so. What's stopping it just getting "worse" and "worse", I'd expect that if devolution was really happening. I suppose the main "human scale" objection to the deteriorating genome argument, if that is in fact what you are making, is that bacteria are still around with their very high turnover. How come?
Finally, predation does not, in my opinion, count as a genuine instance of cruelty in Nature, as no-one has thought of a more humane alternative that a Designer could have come up with
Well, vegetarianism might be a start :)
apart from continual, ongoing miracles whereby the Designer would have to intervene in order to give each and every animal a painless death.
I find this to be within the tent of ID, for example Joe insists that all mutations are not random. So therefore they must be individually maintained by some sort of intelligent force, for example:
OTOH there is Intelligent Design Evolution which posits the changes are not random, rather they were directed just as a genetic/ evolutionary algorithm is directed, ie to reach a specified goal/ target.
mphillips_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

Upright, How? I'll have to save that for tomorrow I'm afraid. I'll be glad to spill all, if able. It's late. In the meanwhile, were you never a child? You must know how it works. I've answered one of your questions. I said "yes". I'll even expand on that tomorrow. Now you can answer one of mine? That's typically how it works. You can take your pick as to which question you'll attack, I simply don't have the breadth of your reading list so I'll have to trust your judgement there, then tomorrow when I've expanded on (for I'm happy to do so) the "how" you've wrung out of me you can ask another for me to answer. Then my turn again! You don’t even have to support your answer. If you like you can shorten it to a “Y” or a “N”.mphillips_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

UD Editor:
mphillips is no longer in moderation
The comments upthread can also be restored, 63-67, given that they are what I was going to say in any case. If you don't like/won't post those then there is no point in continuing in any case.mphillips_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

How?Upright BiPed_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Very well. Yes, I believe it is possible to transfer recorded information (the form of a thing) in a material universe without the use of a representation instantiated in material medium. UD Editor: mphillips is no longer in moderationmphillips_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Craig's succinct explanation was hilariously lucid and the logic, binding: Q.E.D.Axel_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

mphillips continues to refuse to debate in good faith.mphillips_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

mphillips continues to refuse to debate in good faith.mphillips_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

mphillips I've just been reading your comment (#17) about the parasitoid wasp and how it kills spiders. You write that "if anything is designed in life according to ID, this is." But then you concede that it takes place "[t]hrough some unknown mechanism." If we don't even know the mechanism, how can we infer that the mechanism was designed? ID makes no such inference in cases where the mechanism cannot be described. You also adduce this as an instance of "cruelty in nature." You should be aware that neither wasps nor spiders are sentient, hence no cruelty is involved. For more on this, see Professor James Rose's paper, The Neurobehavioral Nature of Fishes and the Question of Awareness and Pain . Finally, on the general question of suboptimality or cruelty in Nature: I think it would be useful first of all if we endeavored to identify the taxonomic level at which these imperfections or cruelties are found to occur. Is there anything suboptimal about DNA as such? It seems there isn't. Indeed, A. A. Arzamastev has even written a little paper entitled, The Nature of the Optimality of the DNA Code and Freedland and Hurst have authored a paper entitled, The genetic code is one in a million (Journal of Molecular Evolution, September 1998; 47(3): 238-48). Life, then, was not suboptimally designed. Is there anything suboptimal in the vertebrate (more precisely, chordate) body plan, or in any of the other body plans for the various animal phyla? No-one that I know of has ever said so. My question is: if the notion that each species was optimally designed is no longer sustainable, what about the notion that each phylum, class, order or family was optimally designed? Can we limit suboptimality to the lower taxonomic levels? Vestigial organs are evidence for loss of functionality, rather than suboptimality. And for those who object, "An engineer, starting from scratch, wouldn't have done it that way," I'd reply that an engineer who wanted to generate all of the life-forms we observe today through natural and/or intelligent modifications of a single ancestral life-form, probably couldn't have done it any more efficiently than what we see in Nature today. "Why do it that way?" I hear you ask. "Why not design each organism from scratch?" I reply: "That would be inefficient - a waste of effort. Too much duplication. Engineered evolution is the most efficient way to generate life." As for cases of cruelty in Nature, once again I would ask: for any given instance of cruelty, how deeply entrenched is it in the animal kingdom? Is it found in all species in a genus? in all genera in a family? in all families in an order? If we look at infanticide in animals , for instance, we find that it is a sporadic phenomenon: some species in a given genus may practice it, while others don't. That's consistent with the hypothesis that the Intelligent Designer of Nature designed genera, but not individual species. Devolution can account for the aberrant behavior we observe in certain species. Finally, predation does not, in my opinion, count as a genuine instance of cruelty in Nature, as no-one has thought of a more humane alternative that a Designer could have come up with, apart from continual, ongoing miracles whereby the Designer would have to intervene in order to give each and every animal a painless death. But if we stick to natural mechanisms, then certainly predation beats a slow, lingering death from starvation.vjtorley_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

mphillips continues to refuse to debate in good faith.mphillips_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

mphillips is in moderation.mphillips_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

mphillips is in moderation.mphillips_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

mphillips is in moderation.mphillips_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

UD Editors: mphillips is in moderation. He obviously does not want to engage in good faith debate. He can demonstrate to the contrary (and get out of moderation) when he answers Upright Biped's question, which he has dodged three times now. mphillips, it really is a simple question. As soon as you give a "yes" or a "no" you will be out of moderation. You don't even have to support your answer. If you like you can shorten it to a "Y" or a "N". Here's the question again: Do you believe it is possible to transfer recorded information (the form of a thing) in a material universe without the use of a representation instantiated in material medium? mphillips_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

In a perfect world would all baseball batters be hitting safely or would all pitchers be striking everyone out? Would all basketball shots go in or would they all be successfully defended? Would all passes in football be completed (a perfect offense) or would they too be successfully defended (a perfect defense)? The point? Perfect is boring. No knowledge to be had. Nothing to figure out. Boring. Nothing to discover. Boring. Thankfully the designer of this universe didn't want "boring". So we get perfectlly imperfect...Joe_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

My o’my, mphillips. “Citation, citation, citation!” You seem to have a thirst for knowledge; let’s look at what you need a citation for: You seem to need a citation for the idea that symbol systems have a material foundation. You need a citation for the principle of uniformitarianism. You want a citation to support the claim that Life requires organization. You need a citation for my statement that biological organization is controlled by biological information. You need a citation to support the suggestion that these are all "universal observations". You even ask for a citation for the rather obvious conclusion that 'even if we don't know' how living systems came into being, they would eventually have to acquire the qualities that we find in them today, because that's the way we find them. Wow. Perhaps it would be better to just give you a reading list – my reading list perhaps. The documentation behind most of your questions represents either the careers, or a substantial portion of the careers, of several researchers. In one direction I would suggest reading the work of Francis Crick, Marshal Nirenberg, Heinrich Matthaei, Mohlon Hoagland, Paul Zamecnik, James Shapiro, etc. And in another direction you might want to read Charles Sanders Peirce, Michael Polanyi, Alan Turing, John von Neumann, Claude Shannon, Howard Pattee, Thomas Sebeok, David Abel, Marcello Barbieri, etc. I suggest you pay particular attention to the concepts of ‘the epistemic cut’, the ‘minimum potential energy principle’, ‘semantic closure’, computational halting, physical memory, and “the measurement problem”. And for information regarding the principle of ‘uniformitarianism’, you can look to Charles Lyell. And finally, for a complete history of the term “information” from its Greek precursors to modern uses, it is probably not possible to do any better that Rafael Capurro. Of course, I realize that you are not really asking me to support my claims with supporting data; your entire diatribe was a tactic used for the express purpose of distancing yourself from that same data. (This will become evident). Just imagine someone in the age of Genetic Information asking for proof that biological organization is controlled by the information in DNA, or someone questioning whether or not what von Neumann referred to as “description-based reproduction” was even necessary for life. It’s laughable, no? But I wouldn’t want to cheat you out of forcing me to provide you with a citation, so I’ll pick one:
Physical laws and semiotic controls require disjoint, complementary modes of conceptualization and description. Laws are global and inexorable. Controls are local and conditional. Life originated with semiotic controls. Semiotic controls require measurement memory and selection, none of which are functionally describable by physical laws that, unlike semiotic systems, are based on energy, time, and rates of change. However, they are structurally describable in the language of physics in terms of non-integrable constraints, energy degenerate states, temporal incoherence, and irreversible dissipative events. – HH Pattee PhD Physics, "The physics of symbols, and the evolution of semiotic control, 1996
- - - - - - - - - - - - - While you are working your way through those authors (as I have) perhaps you could take a moment to answer the question now asked three times: Do you believe it is possible to transfer recorded information (the form of a thing) in a material universe without the use of a representation instantiated in material medium? ...Upright BiPed_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

mphillips:
Funny how you can’t help but move from “the designer” to “God” without thinking. So to you “the designer == God”.
Did you fail to read clearly, or are you purposely twisting my words? I specifically said that I do not extend the design inference to any particular deity. Ayala, Matzke and others do. That is the ironic thing about the argument -- the completely theological/religious argument -- put up by so many who are trying to argue against God from a standpoint of bad/evil/poor design. As I said, I'm happy to engage the argument and assume for purposes of the present discussion that the designer is God, but I don't get there from the design inference itself.
Either evolution created the “nasty” stuff and therefore evolution is powerful mojo, or your “designer” did it.
Yeah, so? I'm perfectly happy saying that the designer did it. You are the one who isn't happy with it. And you aren't happy with it, not because of any scientific assessment of design, but because of your religious/philosophical beliefs, as evidenced by your statement:
Yet you’ll still think it cruel were you to be infected in the eye, regardless of your ultimate beliefs. And to be honest, I think I prefer “colliding matter and energy” being all there is if the alternative is a designer that creates works that burrow into your eye.
You are projecting. I don't necessarily think it cruel to be infected. You do. Look, I get it. I understand that you (along with Ayala and others) have a squeamish stomach and a philosophical aversion to pain and misery being caused by a designer. I am glad that you have acknowledged that your real concern is not with scientific aspects of design detection, but with the religious/philosophical idea that there might be a powerful, capable designer who designs things that cause pain and suffering. But that is a limitation of your own philosophy, not a problem with design detection.Eric Anderson_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Timaus, you said: “In any case, even if Christian theology did require creation to be all sweetness and light, what has that got to do with ID? ID isn’t a specifically Christian position; it’s held by Jews, Deists, and others. Any flaws that allegedly exist in Christian theology don’t touch ID. As far as ID is concerned, if it can show there’s any design at all, even incompetent design, Ayala, Dawkins, etc. are refuted. And that was Craig’s point.” I totally agree here and tried to make that point clear in my post. I too am glad Craig takes on these guys as well. I appreciate Dr. Craig’s ministry, but I just think he comes up short here. And yes, lots of people believe the universe was intelligently designed, but the true IDers, are mostly NOT YECers. And yes, ID itself takes no stance on this issue. I understand that. It is separate from the Bible. Timaeus: “I see no contradiction between the existence of carnivorous animals and “good design.” Good design doesn’t mean the design of a world like that depicted on “Barney.” Moralizing the word “good” in the context of the design of a cosmos and its inhabitants is an unwise thing to do. “Good” in the cosmic context means functional, useful, appropriate, fitting the overall scheme, not sweet, nice, pleasant, delightful, etc.” Well, I do see a contradiction in this. First of all, we learn in Genesis one that the animals were originally vegetarian. That is interesting, is it not? This is the world that God pronounced as “very good”. Then you have the Isaiah passages which seem to indicate there will be a return to that in the future – again an indication that this is what God’s ideal world looks like. Revelation 21 gives us another picture of what eternal life will be like and here is how it reads: “3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place[a] of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people,[b] and God himself will be with them as their God.[c] 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”5 And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” The fossil record is full of death, mutations, disease, suffering, bloodshed and violence. You are aware that Paul calls death the “last enemy” in I Cor. 15, right? It seems hard to understand how God could use such a cruel process to create the variety of life we see around us today. It seems difficult to hold the position that death is the punishment for sin as well when death preceded sin by millions of years in this view. Cancer and the other diseases in the fossil record are also “very good”? I doubt too many people will agree with your understanding of the word “very good”, but if that’s your opinion, so be it. By the way, when do you think thorns first came on the scene? As a result of the curse as it says in Genesis 3 or millions of years prior to that as the fossil record dated according to the evolution timeline shows? According to the Bible, even thorns were not a part of God's original "very good" earth. In 1994, Tom Ambrose, an Anglican Priest, in an article in The Church of England Newspaper, succinctly portrayed the real god of an old earth when he stated: ‘…Fossils are the remains of creatures that lived and died for over a billion years before Homo Sapiens evolved. Death is as old as life itself by all but a split second. Can it therefore be God’s punishment for Sin? The fossil record demonstrates that some form of evil has existed throughout time. On the large scale it is evident in natural disasters. The destruction of creatures by flood, ice age, desert and earthquakes has happened countless times. On the individual scale there is ample evidence of painful, crippling disease and the activity of parasites. We see that living things have suffered in dying, with arthritis, a tumor, or simply being eaten by other creatures. From the dawn of time, the possibility of life and death, good and evil, have always existed. At no point is there any discontinuity; there was never a time when death appeared, or a moment when the evil changed the nature of the universe. God made the world as it is … evolution as the instrument of change and diversity. People try to tell us that Adam had a perfect relationship with God until he sinned, and all we need to do is repent and accept Jesus in order to restore that original relationship. But perfection like this never existed. There never was such a world. Trying to return to it, either in reality or spiritually, is a delusion. Unfortunately it is still central to much evangelical preaching.’ As someone once said, “when looking at this present world, we aren’t looking at the nature of God, but the results of our sin!” What a difference!tjguy_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

Until then, if you are looking for a conversation why not go over to TSZ where you have left the conversation unfinished.
There isn't any conversation to be had over on TSZ. Ya see if they had anything to say they would be citing the science that demonstrates necessity and chance can produce the genetic code. Yet they don't because they can't. There isn't any physio-chemical connection between the codon and the amino acid it codes for. IOW Upright Biped has said what he has to say and now you and the rest are choking on it. Do iou need the heimlich manuver?Joe_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Citation please, and please include a citation that shows that these “symbol systems” that arose at or near the OOL were designed.
It's called SCIENCE and your position doesn't have any. I take it that bothers you.Joe_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

to mphillips/ petrushka: Does translation follow any known rules of chemistry? There isn’t any physio-chemical connection between the codon and the amino acid it represents- you do realize that, petrushka? And there isn't any evidence that necessity and chamce can construct a genetic code. Perhaps you should focus on that.Joe_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

petrushka:
Except that science has no interest in discovering the answers from an ID perspective.
Only someone totally ignorant of science would say such a thing, and here you are.
Yet you reject common descent, one of the best supported scientific claims.
No, I reject universal common descent which is NOT a scientific claim. There isn't any way to scientifically test the claim. You lose, because you don't understand science.
Plus you simply deny that transitional forms exist, whereas “science” has shown that they do.
"Transitional form" = "it looks like a transitional to me"- how is that science?
Why the fear to answer the question Joe?
The "question" was equivocating evobabble. YOIR position can't explain the host nor the parasite.Joe_{August 16, 2012
August
08
Aug
16
16
2012
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply