Design Disquisitions: William Dembski Moves on From ID: Some Reflections

_{Joshua Gidney

February 19, 2017

General interest, Intelligent Design}

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

There’s a new article posted at my blog. I know this one is old news now, but my blog wasn’t around in 2015 and didn’t see any coverage on it here or at ENV. I wanted to take note of Dembski’s decision, and some of the reaction to it.

Everyone who has taken part in the intelligent design debate will know of William Dembski. For those who aren’t familiar, Dembski is the primary architect with regard to the theoretical underpinnings of ID. Since his involvement with the movement, he has published extensively in books, papers, and blogs, and has vigorously championed his ideas in many public lectures and debates.(1)

Back in 2005, Dembski wrote a sarcastic blog post on Uncommon Descent, announcing his retirement from ID, due to the ‘rancour and daily vilification'(2) by many critics of his views. Fast forward to ten years later, and again, Dembski announces that he is retiring from intelligent design, only this time it’s no joke.

Continue reading…

Comments

@TA, On page 6 of “The Evolution of the Primate, Hominid and Human Brain” the author makes anti-evolution statements. "Four 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10,000 events occurring in a row appears like planned evolution rather than Darwinian evolution with remote odds of anywhere between 1 in a trillion and 1 in 10 quadrillion. This indicates that human brain development may have been planned rather than randomly evolved through Darwinian evolution. In this respect “the CG/hyperglycosylated CG human evolution model” could be suggestive of God’s involvement in planning human creation as indicated in the Bible."EricMH_{March 11, 2017
March
03
Mar
11
11
2017
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PST}

Yes, KF, an appeal to peer review is, in fact, an appeal to authority. The reason being that whenever someone pops up with a new idea in whatever field, there will be a community of scientists with knowledge in the relevant area who will ask "can you justify what you say". If you can, you will get a hearing. If not, you will get hooted down. The latter is what has happened to ID.timothya_{March 7, 2017
March
03
Mar
7
07
2017
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PST}

TA, maybe in a few days. KFkairosfocus_{March 5, 2017
March
03
Mar
5
05
2017
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PST}

TA, I do not have time to take you up on a growing list of distractive points just now, but I do note that the DI will know better than you or I what they are saying. I suggest you need to have a look starting with Dembski's Dissertation ands the book based on it, then go on to the corpus coming out of evo info, say start with the concept of active information and how it is grounded. And I am ignoring for the monent the strong evidence of ideological domineering and censorship. Then too I am not highlighting how the appeal to peer review is appeal to authority, the actual core evidence and issue is accessible to anyone who can see the difference between text and gibberish -- jgq3ighuwjfi -- or repetitive sequences -- sdsdsdsdsd -- and pays attention to the difference between chance, design and mechanical necessity. I have come to the conclusion that we are dealing with people who are denying evidence right in front of them, who therefore have no credible standing to address subtler matters. KFkairosfocus_{March 5, 2017
March
03
Mar
5
05
2017
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PST}

I took a look at the PDF entitled "BIBLIOGRAPHIC AND ANNOTATED LIST OF PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN". I thought that Category 1: "Scientific Publications Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals, Conference Proceedings, or Academic Anthologies" would be a good place to start if I wanted to find the articles that KF complains were ignored by Judge Jones. So I scrolled down the list until I got to a date before the judgment. But before I go on, I did notice the following entry from 2015: Laurence A Cole, “The Evolution of the Primate, Hominid and Human Brain,” Journal of Primatology, Vol. 4(1), DOI:10.4172/2167-6801.1000124 (2015) The paper is open access, so you can read the entire text. Now, I defy anyone to specify in what way this paper is "supportive of intelligent design". It doesn't mention the term anywhere. It throws no spears in the direction of evolutionary theory. Which makes me wonder what criteria were used in compiling the list. I'm inclined to write to Dr Cole to ask if he agrees with its status in the list, or if he even knows it was included, but I don't want to waste his time. Another thing I noticed in the entries for the last few years was the frequency of references to the journal named BIO-complexity. If you are unfamiliar with it, BIO-complexity is a house journal of the Discovery Institute, who are the founders and primary funders of intelligent design. It seems that every article published by BIO-complexity is listed in the PDF (except one that I can find, and thereby hangs a tale, see below) Here are a few measurements of BIO-complexity's output since it began publishing (these are my own calculations, I may be wrong): Start date: 2010 Number of people on the editorial team (as currently published): 31 Number of articles published since 2010 until now: 25 Proportion of articles written by or contributed to by the editorial team: 75 per cent Impact factor (the impact factor of a journal is "a measure of the frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year. It is used to measure the importance or rank of a journal by calculating the times it's articles are cited."). Here is the impact factor of BIO-complexity . . . 0 I do not wish to be uncharitable, but that does not look to me to be a genuine scientific activity. Here is the BIO-complexity article that didn’t get included in the “supportive of intelligent design” list: http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2012.2 Please go and read it and tell me if you think this is science. BIO-complexity published that article via their version of peer review. I would say it is an exercise in numerology, but then, I had not realised that some intelligent design proponents regard astrology as a legitimate scientific endeavour until Michael Behe said so in his testimony. Never mind, backward to 2006. It gets a little difficult for me at this point because many of the articles are paywalled and I can't afford the price of seeing if the articles are, in fact "supportive of intelligent design". In passing, I'm prepared to bet that KF can't afford the subscriptions to confirm the assertion either. Doesn't stop him claiming that it is the case. Someone is being led by the nose. But here is one of the listed articles: Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) You will all remember this one. Meyer wrote a literature review (which, should you be interested, requires no original research according to the arcane procedures of scientific journals), published in the journal by Richard Sternberg, and subsequently getting banner treatment in Ben Stein's "Expelled". For the last of a tediously large number of times, I will point out that the article was repudiated by the organisation that runs the journal. That is a fact, dear onlookers. So please keep count how many times in the future KF uses that article as evidence "supportive of intelligent design". I'm getting bored, so I shall leave it here. Except for David Abel, who appears several times in the "peer-reviewed" list. In case you are unfamiliar with this person, he runs a research institute, complete with peer review, from the back yard of his house.timothya_{March 4, 2017
March
03
Mar
4
04
2017
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PST}

TA, I see you have now put up a series of points. I am busy RW just now but will quickly first note, please read the already linked document and follow the footnote references that appear therein. Later, DV. KF PS: The summarised denial given as by the judge may or may not be verbally exact but it is accurate to what I recall was claimed at the time and what was celebrated by objectors to ID as supported by him. However it is manifestly false and so on things that were happening in the courtroom in front of the judge. So, the ruling is clearly injudicious. PPS: This caught my eye, "If you have testable evidence that The ID hypothesis is supportable, I encourage you to submit it to a reputable journal. So far, nobody has done so, including Plato. " As there are now over 50 ID papers in the literature the implied criterion has been more than met. At simple level you should know as a longtime objector to ID at UD, FSCO/I (or toher similar acronyms) is readily testable, start with, set up a random text generator and see if it can provide 500 - 1,00 bits of FSCO/I. So far 20 - 24 characters worth is all that has been achieved a factor of 10^100 short of the relevant config spaces. The persistence in a longsince cogently answered objection directly implies just how weak the objections to the design inference on FSCO/I are. Gone again.kairosfocus_{March 2, 2017
March
03
Mar
2
02
2017
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PST}

From KF: F/N: For record, I will speak to several points. I find it remarkable how hard it is for some to acknowledge the force of evidence in front of them, or readily accessible. Okay, let’s go back through the unread clips from a 2006 DI PDF document on the ruling (which all serious about this issue should read in full): >>Judge Jones claimed that “ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.” Now here's the thing. Those words appears in the talk.origins archive and in a number of other commentaries on the Dover case, but I can't find them anywhere in Judge Jones' decision. Can you provide a page reference? What he did write is this: "On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe))." 15 (emphasis added) Again, the actual court record shows otherwise. University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minnich testified at trial that there are between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID, 16 and he specifically discussed 17 Stephen Meyer’s explicitly pro-intelligent design article 18 in the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. As pointed out ad nauseam, that article would be Meyer's literature review containing no original research and which was explicitly repudiated by the sponsoring organisation. Repeating this nonsense does not help your case. Additional peer-reviewed publications, including William Dembski’s peer-reviewed monograph, The Design Inference (published by Cambridge University Press), 19 were described in an annotated bibliography of peer-reviewed and peer-edited publications supporting ID submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official record of the case by Judge Jones. 20 Judge Jones’ false assertions about peer-reviewed publications simply copied the ACLU’s erroneous language in its proposed “Findings of Fact.”21>> None of the listed articles, peer-reviewed or otherwise, tested any explicitly ID hypothesis. What is your point? >>Judge Jones insisted that ID “requires supernatural creation,” 22 that “ID is predicated on supernatural causation,” 23 and that “ID posits that animals… were created abruptly by a … supernatural, designer.” 24 He further claimed that “[d]efendants’ own expert witnesses acknowledged this point.” 25 In fact, defendants’ expert witnesses did nothing of the sort. This allegation was yet another erroneous finding copied by Judge Jones from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact.” Contrary to the ACLU, ID proponents— including the defendants’ expert witnesses at the Kitzmiller trial — have consistently explained that ID as a scientific theory does not require a supernatural designer. For example, when asked at trial “whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator,” biochemist Scott Minnich replied, “It does not.”>> William Dembski: "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The Wedge Document: "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God". The Wedge Document: "Alongside a focus on the influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to popularize our ideas in the broader culture." >>Expert witness Scott Minnich testified at trial that there were between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID, 2 and he discussed a pro-intelligent design article in the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 3 Additional peer- reviewed publications were listed in an annotated bibliography submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official court record by Judge Jones.>> As I mentioned above, I have read the papers that Scott Minnich referenced in his testimony. None of them provide a scientific test of the intelligent design hypothesis. >>Microbiologist Scott Minnich testified in court showing slides of the genetic knock-out experiments he performed in his own laboratory at the University of Idaho which found that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its complement of 35 genes. 5 Judge Jones failed to mention any of Minnich’s experimental data supporting the irreducible complexity of the flagellum.>> Already answered above. These experiments are irrelevant to evolutionary theory and provide no support for intelligent design. It is time for you to produce real evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer of biological life. >>Contrary to the claim made by Judge Jones (and the ACLU), Of Pandas and People [–> itself set up as a strawman target] insists that science cannot detect the “supernatural.” It can merely determine whether a cause is intelligent. [–> that is, it speaks to the dichotomy known since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, Natural vs ART-ificial (and so intelligently designed), which can routinely be empirically detected — this has been corrected so often that to have pretended otherwise even c 2004 – 5 is a deceitful strawman misrepresentation.] Whether that intelligent cause is inside or outside of nature is a question that cannot be addressed by science according to the book. These points are made clear in the following passages from the text ignored by Judge Jones: …scientists from within Western culture failed to distinguish between intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot. I don't recall that Plato was called as a witness during the Dover proceedings. I may be mistaken. Today, we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by the current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)… Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science.>> Jones’ [false] claim in the ruling: >>4. Whether ID is Science After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation [–> this is a deceitful strawman misrepresentation, both of ID and the historic nature of science and its methods]; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s [–> Irreducible complexity is an utterly commonplace phenomenon where several key parts are jointly necessary, in correct arrangement, for a function to emerge.] ; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. [–> “Refuted” is the wrong word (and is a fallacy of confident manner assertion), and attacks on “evolution” is a distortion, design is opposed to blind chance and necessity-driven bodyplan level macroevolution, but even the co-founder of the modern theory of Evolution, Wallace, disagreed with this evolutionary materialist account] As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence [–> coherence is a matter of logic and/or [process dynamics], has been the measure of a scientific idea’s worth. [–> the criteria for evaluating theories are much broader than is represented by a judge ignorant of philosophy of science and copying what we can freely term irresponsible, dishonest advocates perfectly willing to distort the vexed technical issues]>> This appears to be a straight quote from the judge's decision. It would help the famous onlookers if you were to mark it as such. This is a mere start-point. Let me clip my 2006 remarks, citing Plato in The Laws, Bk X: Ath. . . . we have . . . lighted on a strange doctrine. Cle. What doctrine do you mean? Ath. The wisest of all doctrines, in the opinion of many. Cle. I wish that you would speak plainer. Ath. The doctrine that all things do become, have become, and will become, some by nature [–> necessity of nature, phusis], some by art, and some by chance. Cle. Is not that true? Ath. Well, philosophers are probably right; at any rate we may as well follow in their track, and examine what is the meaning of them and their disciples. Cle. By all means. Ath. They say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art, which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . . . fire and water, and earth and air, all exist by nature and chance . . . The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them . . . After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . . Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [i.e. mind], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul’s kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? . . . . if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise. Plato wasn't available for cross-examination at the Dover proceedings, so this is just tendentious special pleading. This of course is the context of the contrast between chance and necessity on the one hand and intelligently directed, ART-ificial configuration (design) on the other. C 1970, Monod published a famous book, Chance and Necessity, showing the longstanding context of thought. Wonderful book. I own a copy and can particularly recommend Chapter 4. Evolutionary materialism tries to explain all phenomena on blind chance and mechanical necessity, but utterly fails. No it does not. Get it right for once. Indeed, once it touches the conscious, rationally free and responsible mind, it falls into irretrievable self referential incoherence. It is necessarily and irretrievably false. Where is the scientific evidence that a "rationally free and responsible mind" actually exists? It seeks to block this by imposing arbitrary rules on scientific methods and reasoning as touching origins, usually termed methodological naturalism. In effect, science is redefined as the best of the evolutionary materialistic accounts of the world from hydrogen to humans. This is grand ideological question-begging backed by institutional dominance and utter, deceitful ruthlessness. This reflects exactly the sort of ruthless, amoral, might and manipulation make right factionalism Plato warned about in The Laws Bk X passage already cited. If you have testable evidence that The ID hypothesis is supportable, I encourage you to submit it to a reputable journal. So far, nobody has done so, including Plato. This is likely to be challenged, so I will clip the US National Science Teachers Association Board statement of July 200: The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts [–> ideological imposition of a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism, aka natural-ISM; this is of course self-falsifying at the outset] . . . . [S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific [–> loaded word that cannot be properly backed up due to failure of demarcation arguments] methods, explanations, generalizations and products [–> declaration of intent to ideologically censor education materials] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work [–> undermined by the question-begging ideological imposition and associated censorship] . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [–> question-begging false dichotomy, the proper contrast for empirical investigations is the natural (chance and/or necessity) vs the ART-ificial, through design . . . cf UD’s weak argument correctives 17 – 19, here] in the production of scientific knowledge. The pattern is clearly demonstrated and as an institutional imposition. The same pattern is reflected in the misbehaviour of ACLU, NCSE and Judge Jones in the trial. Of course it is a "pattern". That is what science is: a pattern of hypothesis testing. ID refuses to test its hypothesis. That's what makes it outside the realm of science. Much more can be said, later. KF PS: The issue is not just what one says but what one suggests, esp. in the teeth of readily available evidence. Ask yourself, what a reasonable person not separately knowing the truth of a 2-minute time stamp difference, cross-post, would conclude from what you said. As for ducking and/or dismissal, your continued response to evidence speaks for itself. I trust that if you still cannot [???] read the clips, you will follow the link and will take some time to see for yourself. I frankly don't know what you are talking about. Your honour is not my concern.timothya_{March 2, 2017
March
03
Mar
2
02
2017
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PST}

Folks, it is now quite evident that TA has declined to further follow up on the point, once the substantiating points in 63 above were put on the table. RVB8 is busy in other UD threads but has equally studiously avoided this one. These actions speak for themselves, sadly but tellingly. KFkairosfocus_{February 28, 2017
February
02
Feb
28
28
2017
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PST}

RVB8, kindly note nos 58, 63 and 70 just above before further propagating the false Dover narrative promoted by evolutionary materialist activists and fellow travellers ever since the grossly injudicious and falsity-based decision at Dover in 2005. KFkairosfocus_{February 27, 2017
February
02
Feb
27
27
2017
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PST}

TA, I find it significant to observe what appears to be a lack of response on your part, once I took time in 63 to lay out what you complained of as claimed unreadable on your device in my comment no. 58 (Feb 23rd). The substance, of course fills out to first level detail, the fact that ID researchers were physically present, testifying and presenting their research and findings in the Dover trial, findings that -- per Scott Minnich -- specifically used knockout studies to confirm the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Further, it was clearly shown that the design inference is not an inference to supernatural cause but instead to intelligently directed configuration that in relevant cases leaves empirically observable, tested, reliable signs of such design as best explanation for the causal process. Also, it was pointed out that Minnich spoke to 7 - 10 relevant ID publications at that time (where the number is now in excess of fifty, and where it has also been shown that censorship and improper harassment are implicated), and a list of such publications was presented to the court. Therefore, it is quite evident that -- despite the sustaining of a narrative to the contrary down to today -- Judge Jones' action of sweeping away evidence in front of him to put up a dubious post trial submission from ACLU/NCSE as his core ruling on ID, is patently grossly injudicious and highly misleading. In particular, setting up and knocking over a strawman caricature is inexcusable violation of sound jurisprudence. And, it is noteworthy that your unresponsiveness seems to further illustrate the issue of evident or at least apparent evasiveness regarding substance I raised already; the context of the exchange on a cross-post. I await your substantial response to what appears in 63 and in the onward linked. KFkairosfocus_{February 26, 2017
February
02
Feb
26
26
2017
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PST}

Origines, Truth is what says of what is, that it is, and of what is not that it is not. Truth does not exist without symbolic, rational, aware representation. It is premised on consciousness. They are inextricably entangled and the incoherence and ignorance manifested in the attempt to sever the two speak telling volumes. KF PS: I found the article to be telling (as are many others by the same person). A key clip:
Consciousness is not only presupposed by the distinction between reality and illusion, it is also presupposed by the quest for explanation. For where would explanations reside if not in the minds of conscious beings? So I say consciousness cannot be an illusion. One cannot explain it the way Dennett wants to explain it, which involves explaining it away. For details, see Can Consciousness be Explained? Dennett Debunked. But if consciousness, per impossibile, were an illusion, why wouldn't truth also be an illusion? Consciousness is an illusion because naturalism has no place for it. Whatever is real is reducible to the physical; consciousness is not reducible to the physical; ergo, consciousness does not exist in reality: it is an illusion. By the same reasoning, truth ought also to be an illusion since there is no place for it in the natural world. Note also that Dennett obviously thinks that truth is objectively valuable and pursuit-worthy. Where locate values in a naturalist scheme? Wouldn't it be more consistent for Dennett to go whole hog and explain away both consciousness and truth? Perhaps he ought to go POMO. There is no truth; there are only interpretations and perspectives of organisms grubbing for survival. What justifies him in privileging his naturalist narrative? It is one among many. I say consciousness and truth are on a par: neither can be explained away. Neither is eliminable. Neither is an illusion. Both are part of what we must presuppose to explain anything.
kairosfocus_{February 25, 2017
February
02
Feb
25
25
2017
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PST}

KF, as a follow-up, I recommend 'Consciousness is an Illusion but Truth is Not?' by Bill Vallicella.Origenes_{February 25, 2017
February
02
Feb
25
25
2017
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PST}

Origines, strictly, there would be no person. Indeed, here is Alex Rosenberg:
Alex Rosenberg as he begins Ch 9 of his The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: >> FOR SOLID EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, WE’VE BEEN tricked into looking at life from the inside. Without scientism, we look at life from the inside, from the first-person POV (OMG, you don’t know what a POV is?—a “point of view”). The first person is the subject, the audience, the viewer of subjective experience, the self in the mind. Scientism shows that the first-person POV is an illusion. [–> grand delusion is let loose in utter self referential incoherence] Even after scientism convinces us, we’ll continue to stick with the first person. But at least we’ll know that it’s another illusion of introspection and we’ll stop taking it seriously. We’ll give up all the answers to the persistent questions about free will, the self, the soul, and the meaning of life that the illusion generates [–> bye bye to responsible, rational freedom on these presuppositions]. The physical facts fix all the facts. [--> asserts materialism, leading to . . . ] The mind is the brain. It has to be physical and it can’t be anything else, since thinking, feeling, and perceiving are physical process—in particular, input/output processes—going on in the brain. We [–> at this point, what "we," apart from "we delusions"?] can be sure of a great deal about how the brain works because the physical facts fix all the facts about the brain. The fact that the mind is the brain guarantees that there is no free will. It rules out any purposes or designs organizing our actions or our lives [–> thus rational thought and responsible freedom]. It excludes the very possibility of enduring persons, selves, or souls that exist after death or for that matter while we live.>>
The fact no 1 of our existence, conscious, responsible, rational freedom, is the standing refutation of and expose against evolutionary materialism. Especially, once it is stripped of the poof-magic of emergentisms. KFkairosfocus_{February 25, 2017
February
02
Feb
25
25
2017
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PST}

Kairosfocus: On the self-referential incoherence of evolutionary materialism ...
I completely agree and would like to add that, under materialism, there is no personal control over thoughts, behavior and actions. Materialism offers either 'determined events', which are consequences of events and laws of nature in the remote past before we were born, or 'undetermined events', which are equally beyond our control, as an "explanation" for rationality.Origenes_{February 24, 2017
February
02
Feb
24
24
2017
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PST}

KF @ 63: Bravo!Truth Will Set You Free_{February 24, 2017
February
02
Feb
24
24
2017
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PST}

F/N: On the self-referential incoherence of evolutionary materialism, let us start with Haldane:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
This specific insight was built upon by both C S Lewis and Victor Reppert. In short, immediately, the Darwinist IOU on mindedness has been on the table for 80+ - 150+ years and so has lost a lot of its credibility. Pleas for more and more time begin to sound hollow after that much time. However that is not the core challenge. Haldane rightly and aptly spoke to the powers and limitations of computing substrates, in ways that are independent of digital, analogue, neural network etc architecture: . . . They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically, so also hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In short, computing substrates do not work by rational insight and responsible freedom. They are mechanical, organised, implicitly or explicitly programmed devices that are working from blindly mechanical cause-effect chains and some influence or involvement of equally blind stochastic chance. They do not understand per logical ground-consequent inference or inductive connexion or abductive explanatory inference. Blind, mechanical and/or chance cascades leading to results driven and controlled by GIGO. That is why this is the heart of Reppert's argument:
It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
No, it is not undue lack of confidence in yellowed intellectual IOU's; in the end it is that there is a categorical difference between blindly mechanical computational substrates and the responsible, rational freedom required to engage in reasoned discussion. So, properly, we point to the self-referential character and the indicators at the self-refutation end of the scale. Unless evolutionary materialism can cogently answer this, it cannot even properly sit at the discussion table as of right. KFkairosfocus_{February 24, 2017
February
02
Feb
24
24
2017
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PST}

F/N: For record, I will speak to several points. I find it remarkable how hard it is for some to acknowledge the force of evidence in front of them, or readily accessible. Okay, let's go back through the unread clips from a 2006 DI PDF document on the ruling (which all serious about this issue should read in full):
>>Judge Jones claimed that “ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.” 15 (emphasis added) Again, the actual court record shows otherwise. University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minnich testified at trial that there are between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID, 16 and he specifically discussed 17 Stephen Meyer’s explicitly pro-intelligent design article 18 in the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Additional peer-reviewed publications, including William Dembski’s peer-reviewed monograph, The Design Inference (published by Cambridge University Press), 19 were described in an annotated bibliography of peer-reviewed and peer-edited publications supporting ID submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official record of the case by Judge Jones. 20 Judge Jones’ false assertions about peer-reviewed publications simply copied the ACLU’s erroneous language in its proposed “Findings of Fact.”21>> >>Judge Jones insisted that ID “requires supernatural creation,” 22 that “ID is predicated on supernatural causation,” 23 and that “ID posits that animals… were created abruptly by a … supernatural, designer.” 24 He further claimed that “[d]efendants’ own expert witnesses acknowledged this point.” 25 In fact, defendants’ expert witnesses did nothing of the sort. This allegation was yet another erroneous finding copied by Judge Jones from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact.” Contrary to the ACLU, ID proponents— including the defendants’ expert witnesses at the Kitzmiller trial — have consistently explained that ID as a scientific theory does not require a supernatural designer. For example, when asked at trial “whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator,” biochemist Scott Minnich replied, “It does not.”>> >>Expert witness Scott Minnich testified at trial that there were between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID, 2 and he discussed a pro-intelligent design article in the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 3 Additional peer- reviewed publications were listed in an annotated bibliography submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official court record by Judge Jones.>> >>Microbiologist Scott Minnich testified in court showing slides of the genetic knock-out experiments he performed in his own laboratory at the University of Idaho which found that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its complement of 35 genes. 5 Judge Jones failed to mention any of Minnich’s experimental data supporting the irreducible complexity of the flagellum.>> >>Contrary to the claim made by Judge Jones (and the ACLU), Of Pandas and People [--> itself set up as a strawman target] insists that science cannot detect the “supernatural.” It can merely determine whether a cause is intelligent. [--> that is, it speaks to the dichotomy known since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, Natural vs ART-ificial (and so intelligently designed), which can routinely be empirically detected -- this has been corrected so often that to have pretended otherwise even c 2004 - 5 is a deceitful strawman misrepresentation.] Whether that intelligent cause is inside or outside of nature is a question that cannot be addressed by science according to the book. These points are made clear in the following passages from the text ignored by Judge Jones:
…scientists from within Western culture failed to distinguish between intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot. Today, we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by the current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)… Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science.>>
Jones’ [false] claim in the ruling: >>4. Whether ID is Science After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation [--> this is a deceitful strawman misrepresentation, both of ID and the historic nature of science and its methods]; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s [--> Irreducible complexity is an utterly commonplace phenomenon where several key parts are jointly necessary, in correct arrangement, for a function to emerge.] ; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. [--> "Refuted" is the wrong word (and is a fallacy of confident manner assertion), and attacks on "evolution" is a distortion, design is opposed to blind chance and necessity-driven bodyplan level macroevolution, but even the co-founder of the modern theory of Evolution, Wallace, disagreed with this evolutionary materialist account] As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence [--> coherence is a matter of logic and/or [process dynamics], has been the measure of a scientific idea’s worth. [--> the criteria for evaluating theories are much broader than is represented by a judge ignorant of philosophy of science and copying what we can freely term irresponsible, dishonest advocates perfectly willing to distort the vexed technical issues]>>
This is a mere start-point. Let me clip my 2006 remarks, citing Plato in The Laws, Bk X:
Ath. . . . we have . . . lighted on a strange doctrine. Cle. What doctrine do you mean? Ath. The wisest of all doctrines, in the opinion of many. Cle. I wish that you would speak plainer. Ath. The doctrine that all things do become, have become, and will become, some by nature [--> necessity of nature, phusis], some by art, and some by chance. Cle. Is not that true? Ath. Well, philosophers are probably right; at any rate we may as well follow in their track, and examine what is the meaning of them and their disciples. Cle. By all means. Ath. They say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art, which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . . . fire and water, and earth and air, all exist by nature and chance . . . The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them . . . After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . . Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [i.e. mind], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? . . . . if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise.
This of course is the context of the contrast between chance and necessity on the one hand and intelligently directed, ART-ificial configuration (design) on the other. C 1970, Monod published a famous book, Chance and Necessity, showing the longstanding context of thought. Evolutionary materialism tries to explain all phenomena on blind chance and mechanical necessity, but utterly fails. Indeed, once it touches the conscious, rationally free and responsible mind, it falls into irretrievable self referential incoherence. It is necessarily and irretrievably false. It seeks to block this by imposing arbitrary rules on scientific methods and reasoning as touching origins, usually termed methodological naturalism. In effect, science is redefined as the best of the evolutionary materialistic accounts of the world from hydrogen to humans. This is grand ideological question-begging backed by institutional dominance and utter, deceitful ruthlessness. This reflects exactly the sort of ruthless, amoral, might and manipulation make right factionalism Plato warned about in The Laws Bk X passage already cited. This is likely to be challenged, so I will clip the US National Science Teachers Association Board statement of July 200:
The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts [--> ideological imposition of a priori evolutionary materialistic scientism, aka natural-ISM; this is of course self-falsifying at the outset] . . . . [S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific [--> loaded word that cannot be properly backed up due to failure of demarcation arguments] methods, explanations, generalizations and products [--> declaration of intent to ideologically censor education materials] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work [--> undermined by the question-begging ideological imposition and associated censorship] . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> question-begging false dichotomy, the proper contrast for empirical investigations is the natural (chance and/or necessity) vs the ART-ificial, through design . . . cf UD's weak argument correctives 17 - 19, here] in the production of scientific knowledge.
The pattern is clearly demonstrated and as an institutional imposition. The same pattern is reflected in the misbehaviour of ACLU, NCSE and Judge Jones in the trial. Much more can be said, later. KF PS: The issue is not just what one says but what one suggests, esp. in the teeth of readily available evidence. Ask yourself, what a reasonable person not separately knowing the truth of a 2-minute time stamp difference, cross-post, would conclude from what you said. As for ducking and/or dismissal, your continued response to evidence speaks for itself. I trust that if you still cannot [???] read the clips, you will follow the link and will take some time to see for yourself.kairosfocus_{February 24, 2017
February
02
Feb
24
24
2017
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PST}

KF: TA, you need to look again at the timeline above, then at your reaction to a cross-post, and what it clearly suggests. When you show us that you can process what is right in front of you, then we have a real basis for dealing with more difficult cases. KF PS: I expect to deal with a load shedding hours long power dropout shortly, so I will be brief. Later, when I have reason to think power will be there for some time. Please give it a break. I did not accuse you of dishonesty. Anyone reading the thread can see that.timothya_{February 24, 2017
February
02
Feb
24
24
2017
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PST}

TA, you need to look again at the timeline above, then at your reaction to a cross-post, and what it clearly suggests. When you show us that you can process what is right in front of you, then we have a real basis for dealing with more difficult cases. KF PS: I expect to deal with a load shedding hours long power dropout shortly, so I will be brief. Later, when I have reason to think power will be there for some time.kairosfocus_{February 24, 2017
February
02
Feb
24
24
2017
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PST}

My previous comment should have indicated that the plain text came from Kairosfocus. The bolded text is mine.timothya_{February 24, 2017
February
02
Feb
24
24
2017
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PST}

TA, I again snatch a few moments: 1: it is you who after the timeline I put up, suggested that I failed to respond to your 9-pointer. I pointed out that there was an obvious cross-post event, which you then have patently tried to evade. I suggested earlier and continue to do so now, that you need to consider eventualities like that. 2: The tactic you “just” used is the turnabout projection, whereby you have projected to me what you demonstrably did in reaction to my setting the record straight. 3: this may seem minor, but it shows how you respond to direct, readily observable evidence that does not fit your preferred stance. If you cannot respond reasonably to things that are as simple and obvious as a timeline, that is something you will need to deal with. I do not say this to dismiss you, but to call you up to what is required to address these sorts of more vexed questions. I did not accuse you of dishonesty. Stop clutching your pearls. 4: Exhb A: Functionally Specific, Complex Organisation and associated Information is not an invention, much less that of that IDiot who hangs around UD. It is a description and abbreviation for a readily observed phenomenon. Indeed, it is the operative form of the complex specified information of Dembski and all the way back to Orgel in 1973. You seem to imagine that you can make it go away by pretending that I came up with a dubious notion that you can caricature and dismiss. Fail. "Indeed, it is the operative form of the complex specified information of Dembski and all the way back to Orgel in 1973." The key word here is "operative". Not sure what meaning you assign to it, but i would interpràet "operative form" as "an idea that can be formulated in a way that can be used to calculate". Can you point me to any research paper that uses your idea "operatively"? 5: Exhb B: Examples of FSCO/I include the text of posts in this thread, and the TEXT in DNA. 6: Exhb C: Likewise, something like the Abu 6500 C3 fishing reel, its drawing and an Autocad DWG file for same, illustrate how complex 3-d functional entities may in principle be reducible to textual, digitally coded descriptions. As a direct result, description on strings is WLOG. Yes. So what? You are describing demonstratively human artefacts. If you want to extend the notion to non-human objects then "you still have all of your work before you". Science by analogy is almost never successful. 7: Again, we see rhetorical dismissiveness in the teeth of readily observed facts, a manifestation of selective hyperskepticism. (And I do accept that I am one of the first to use this coinage, which describes a commonly met with attitude of the indoctrinated in skepticism. I note that it has cropped up, notoriously, in the Elevatorgate scandal regarding atheist gropers and grabbers.) Sorry but I have no idea what you are aiming to achieve by deploying this rhetorical device. Well, actually I and my epistemologically challenged pig (see below) know exactly why you are doing it. The pig is outraged. 8: You clearly refuse to address the similarly patently objective phenomenon of irreducible complexity, which was pivotal to the truth about the Dover trial. Behe championed the term, and Minnich demonstrated it in the lab in bacteria. Never mind, it is the heart of gene knockout studies. No competent biologist denies that "irreducible complexity" exists in organisms today. That isn't the argument (nor was it at the time of Dover). The argument is: could the irreducibly complex objects have arisen by natural, undirected processes. Knockout studies are useless in addressing this question. Other studies have shown how such showcase examples of irreducible complexity can be bootstrapped by ordinary evolutionary processes. 9: The fact that these phenomena have been identified, researched and published in peer reviewed materials and peer edited books before Dover and the linked fact that such is research on ID, multiplied by the fact that such was present in the courtroom live and in lists, gives the lie to any artful question used to set up a half truth then used to pretend that what was there did not exist C 2004 – 5. Namely, scientific ID research, thought and argument. I've read all of the papers that the ID proponents referenced in their Dover testimony. Not once is there any statement that affirms that any specific phenomenon must be the product of an intervention by an intelligence. If their work truly supported the ID hypothesis, then surely they would have said so. 10: In short, the whole Dover ruling insofar as it addresses science, turned on a lie backed by the institutional power used ever since to create and spread the falsehoods used to dismiss ID and to prejudice minds against it. Yes, well, it is a terrible thing for a court to ask for, you know, evidence. 11: Peer review, notoriously, is in trouble. In your dreams. But let's grant your assertion: what do you propose should replace it? Be specific please. 12: Dover School board’s failures and follies — entered into in the teeth of strong warning to the contrary — have nothing to do with the lies being projected to dismiss the scientific and properly inductive nature of the design inference on tested, reliable sign. That is why I have said all but nil about the Board. The Discovery Institute decided to get in the ring and help the Dover school board pig wrestle. When the pig lost, they decided to paint it with lipstick. You are still at it. 13: Methodological naturalism is patently a question-begging ideological imposition on science, as the Lewontin clip above abundantly shows. Begging questions by imposing agendas is a big logic fail. If methodological naturalism is as you say, then why is its application by scientists, religious and atheist alike, so successful? 14: We understand that you are epistemologically challenged in the context of inductive reasoning and provisional warrant for empirically grounded knowledge claims. Thank you for your gratuitous insult. And my epistemologically challenged wrestling pig thanks you as well. The pig wishes to contribute his own gratuitous insult: may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits. 15: In this context, the detection THAT intelligently directed configuration occurred is plainly independent of being able to satisfy an arbitrarily hyperskeptical objector that you have demonstrated HOW it occurred etc. In short the clip you give is a clear instance of a loaded, complex, abusive and dishonest question. Do you imagine that any practising scientist would be happy to stop their investigation at the point where they establish a correlation between an observed effect and a putative cause? Having worked in a large and diverse scientific research organisation, I can honestly say that I never encountered such a person. In every case that I know of, the researchers immediately proceeded to questions of how the proposed cause is connected to the effect. The fact that ID refuses to do so is a signal that is not scientifically serious. 16: Had you bothered to read my long since linked comment from Dec 2006, you would have seen this note from DI: In December of 2005, critics of the theory of intelligent design (ID) hailed federal judge John E. Jones’ ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which declared unconstitutional the reading of a statement about intelligent design in public school science classrooms in Dover, Pennsylvania. Since the decision was issued, Jones’ 139-page judicial opinion has been lavished with praise as a “masterful decision” based on careful and independent analysis of the evidence. However, a new analysis of the text of the Kitzmiller decision reveals that nearly all of Judge Jones’ lengthy examination of “whether ID is science” came not from his own efforts or analysis but from wording supplied by ACLU attorneys. In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Judge Jones even copied several clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU. The finding that most of Judge Jones’ analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones’ examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design. 17: You would have seen a link to the paper, which includes notes as follows: >Judge Jones claimed that “ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.” Read and previously answered. Repetition of a fallacious argument doesn't advance your case. 15 (emphasis added) Again, the actual court record shows otherwise. University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minnich testified at trial that there are between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID, See above. Scott Minnich provided no scientific evidence supporting the existence of an intelligent designer of biological life. 16 and he specifically discussed 17 Stephen Meyer’s explicitly pro-intelligent design article 18 in the peer- reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington . Which was repudiated by the organisation that owns the journal. What follows in KF's commentary is unreadable on my device, so I must let it pass. Additional peer-reviewed publications, including William Dembski’s peer-reviewed monograph, The Design Inference (published by Cambridge University Press), 19 were described in an annotated bibliography of p eer-reviewed and peer-edited publications supporting ID submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official record of the case by Judge Jones. 20 Judge Jones’ false assertions about peer-reviewed publications simply copied the ACLU’s erroneous language in its proposed “Findings of Fact.” 21>> >>Judge Jones insisted that ID “requires supernatural creation,” 22 that “ID is predicated on supernatural causation,” 23 and that “ID posits that animals… were created abruptly by a … supernatural, designer.” 24 He further claimed that “[d]efendants’ own expert witnesses acknowledged this point.” 25 In fact, defendants’ expert witnesses did nothing of the sort. This allegation was yet anothe r erroneous finding copied by Judge Jones from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact.” Contrary to the ACLU, ID proponents— including the defendants’ expert witnesses at the Kitzmiller trial — have consistently explained tha t ID as a scientific theory does not require a supernatural designer. For example, when asked at trial “whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator,” biochemist Scott Minnich replied, “It does not.”>> >>Expert witness Scott Minnich testified at trial that there were between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID, 2 and he discussed a pro-intelligent design article in the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington . 3 Additional peer- reviewed publications were listed in an annotated bibliography submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official court record by Judge Jones.>> >>Microbiologist Scott Minnich testified in court showing slides of the genetic knock-out experiments he performed in his own laboratory at the University of Idaho which found that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its complement of 35 genes. 5 Judge Jones failed to mention any of Minnich’s experimental data supporting the irreducible complexity of the flagellum.>> >>Contrary to the claim made by Judge Jones (and the ACLU), Of Pandas and People insists that science cannot detect the “supernatural.” It can merely determine whether a cause is intelligent. Whether that intelligent cause is inside or outside of nature is a question that cannot be addressed by science according to the book. These points are made clear in the following passages from the text ignored by Judge Jones: …scientists from within Western culture failed to distinguish between intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot . Today, we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by the current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)… Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science.>> Jones’ [false] claim in the ruling: >>4. Whether ID is Science After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea’s worth.>> The assertion Jones copied, Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena, tendentiously redefines science and begs the pivotal issue that science seeks the truth about our world based on empirical investigations unfettered by a priori impositions. The problem with the above is readily evident from my remarks on Lewontin above. A sounder basic view of science can be found in College level dictionaries in the generation before this radical imposition was pushed and has been spun into an historically false myth: science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [Concise Oxford, 1990 — and yes, they used the “z” Virginia!] scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge [”the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind”] involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [Webster’s 7th Collegiate, 1965] I trust this first level cluster of detail will help to clarify the matter. At least, for those seeking clarity. Okay, RW calls, literally. KFtimothya_{February 24, 2017
February
02
Feb
24
24
2017
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PST}

TA, I again snatch a few moments: 1: it is you who after the timeline I put up, suggested that I failed to respond to your 9-pointer. I pointed out that there was an obvious cross-post event, which you then have patently tried to evade. I suggested earlier and continue to do so now, that you need to consider eventualities like that. 2: The tactic you "just" used is the turnabout projection, whereby you have projected to me what you demonstrably did in reaction to my setting the record straight. 3: this may seem minor, but it shows how you respond to direct, readily observable evidence that does not fit your preferred stance. If you cannot respond reasonably to things that are as simple and obvious as a timeline, that is something you will need to deal with. I do not say this to dismiss you, but to call you up to what is required to address these sorts of more vexed questions. 4: Exhb A: Functionally Specific, Complex Organisation and associated Information is not an invention, much less that of that IDiot who hangs around UD. It is a description and abbreviation for a readily observed phenomenon. Indeed, it is the operative form of the complex specified information of Dembski and all the way back to Orgel in 1973. You seem to imagine that you can make it go away by pretending that I came up with a dubious notion that you can caricature and dismiss. Fail. 5: Exhb B: Examples of FSCO/I include the text of posts in this thread, and the TEXT in DNA. 6: Exhb C: Likewise, something like the Abu 6500 C3 fishing reel, its drawing and an Autocad DWG file for same, illustrate how complex 3-d functional entities may in principle be reducible to textual, digitally coded descriptions. As a direct result, description on strings is WLOG. 7: Again, we see rhetorical dismissiveness in the teeth of readily observed facts, a manifestation of selective hyperskepticism. (And I do accept that I am one of the first to use this coinage, which describes a commonly met with attitude of the indoctrinated in skepticism. I note that it has cropped up, notoriously, in the Elevatorgate scandal regarding atheist gropers and grabbers.) 8: You clearly refuse to address the similarly patently objective phenomenon of irreducible complexity, which was pivotal to the truth about the Dover trial. Behe championed the term, and Minnich demonstrated it in the lab in bacteria. Never mind, it is the heart of gene knockout studies. 9: The fact that these phenomena have been identified, researched and published in peer reviewed materials and peer edited books before Dover and the linked fact that such is research on ID, multiplied by the fact that such was present in the courtroom live and in lists, gives the lie to any artful question used to set up a half truth then used to pretend that what was there did not exist C 2004 - 5. Namely, scientific ID research, thought and argument. 10: In short, the whole Dover ruling insofar as it addresses science, turned on a lie backed by the institutional power used ever since to create and spread the falsehoods used to dismiss ID and to prejudice minds against it. 11: Peer review, notoriously, is in trouble. 12: Dover School board's failures and follies -- entered into in the teeth of strong warning to the contrary -- have nothing to do with the lies being projected to dismiss the scientific and properly inductive nature of the design inference on tested, reliable sign. That is why I have said all but nil about the Board. 13: Methodological naturalism is patently a question-begging ideological imposition on science, as the Lewontin clip above abundantly shows. Begging questions by imposing agendas is a big logic fail. 14: We understand that you are epistemologically challenged in the context of inductive reasoning and provisional warrant for empirically grounded knowledge claims. 15: In this context, the detection THAT intelligently directed configuration occurred is plainly independent of being able to satisfy an arbitrarily hyperskeptical objector that you have demonstrated HOW it occurred etc. In short the clip you give is a clear instance of a loaded, complex, abusive and dishonest question. 16: Had you bothered to read my long since linked comment from Dec 2006, you would have seen this note from DI:
In December of 2005, critics of the theory of intelligent design (ID) hailed federal judge John E. Jones’ ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which declared unconstitutional the reading of a statement about intelligent design in public school science classrooms in Dover, Pennsylvania. Since the decision was issued, Jones’ 139-page judicial opinion has been lavished with praise as a “masterful decision” based on careful and independent analysis of the evidence. However, a new analysis of the text of the Kitzmiller decision reveals that nearly all of Judge Jones’ lengthy examination of “whether ID is science” came not from his own efforts or analysis but from wording supplied by ACLU attorneys. In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Judge Jones even copied several clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU. The finding that most of Judge Jones’ analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones’ examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design.
17: You would have seen a link to the paper, which includes notes as follows:
>Judge Jones claimed that “ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.” 15 (emphasis added) Again, the actual court record shows otherwise. University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minnich testified at trial that there are between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID, 16 and he specifically discussed 17 Stephen Meyer’s explicitly pro-intelligent design article 18 in the peer- reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington . Additional peer-reviewed publications, including William Dembski’s peer-reviewed monograph, The Design Inference (published by Cambridge University Press), 19 were described in an annotated bibliography of p eer-reviewed and peer-edited publications supporting ID submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official record of the case by Judge Jones. 20 Judge Jones’ false assertions about peer-reviewed publications simply copied the ACLU’s erroneous language in its proposed “Findings of Fact.” 21>> >>Judge Jones insisted that ID “requires supernatural creation,” 22 that “ID is predicated on supernatural causation,” 23 and that “ID posits that animals... were created abruptly by a ... supernatural, designer.” 24 He further claimed that “[d]efendants’ own expert witnesses acknowledged this point.” 25 In fact, defendants’ expert witnesses did nothing of the sort. This allegation was yet anothe r erroneous finding copied by Judge Jones from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact.” Contrary to the ACLU, ID proponents— including the defendants’ expert witnesses at the Kitzmiller trial — have consistently explained tha t ID as a scientific theory does not require a supernatural designer. For example, when asked at trial “whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator,” biochemist Scott Minnich replied, “It does not.”>> >>Expert witness Scott Minnich testified at trial that there were between “seven and ten” peer-reviewed papers supporting ID, 2 and he discussed a pro-intelligent design article in the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington . 3 Additional peer- reviewed publications were listed in an annotated bibliography submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official court record by Judge Jones.>> >>Microbiologist Scott Minnich testified in court showing slides of the genetic knock-out experiments he performed in his own laboratory at the University of Idaho which found that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its complement of 35 genes. 5 Judge Jones failed to mention any of Minnich’s experimental data supporting the irreducible complexity of the flagellum.>> >>Contrary to the claim made by Judge Jones (and the ACLU), Of Pandas and People insists that science cannot detect the “supernatural.” It can merely determine whether a cause is intelligent. Whether that intelligent cause is inside or outside of nature is a question that cannot be addressed by science according to the book. These points are made clear in the following passages from the text ignored by Judge Jones: ...scientists from within Western culture failed to distinguish between intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot . Today, we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by the current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)... Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science.>> Jones' [false] claim in the ruling: >>4. Whether ID is Science After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth.>>
The assertion Jones copied, Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena, tendentiously redefines science and begs the pivotal issue that science seeks the truth about our world based on empirical investigations unfettered by a priori impositions. The problem with the above is readily evident from my remarks on Lewontin above. A sounder basic view of science can be found in College level dictionaries in the generation before this radical imposition was pushed and has been spun into an historically false myth:
science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [Concise Oxford, 1990 -- and yes, they used the "z" Virginia!] scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge [”the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind”] involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [Webster's 7th Collegiate, 1965]
I trust this first level cluster of detail will help to clarify the matter. At least, for those seeking clarity. Okay, RW calls, literally. KFkairosfocus_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PST}

Timothya, Eric's presence reminds me of the following:
Eric Anderson: 1. The question of how something was designed is logically separate from, and subsequent to, the question of whether it was designed. ID is not an attempt to answer all questions. It is a limited inquiry into whether something was designed. Questions about who, why, how, when are all interesting second-order questions that can be asked only after an inference to design is drawn. You may want, deeply in your heart of hearts, for ID to answer all of those questions. But that is a failure of your expectations, not ID itself. 2. Design does not have to answer a “how” in the same way that purely natural explanations need to. That is because we are dealing with two different domains. Design is not a mechanistic theory. It is a theory about choice, about intentionality, about intelligence. You don’t need to know how the ancients built the pyramids or stonehenge, or the precise design and manufacturing process for how a solid state flash drive was built, to know that such things were designed. In stark contrast, chance and natural-law-driven processes are all about the mechanism. They are purely mechanistic theories that live or die by identifying a natural physical mechanism. Many materialists (because, again, they can’t see past their materialism), want to demand that ID provide some kind of detailed mechanistic explanation for design. That demand is based on a misunderstanding, because ID is not a mechanistic theory. That is not a failure of ID. It is a failure by the materialist to understand the different domains we are dealing with.
Origenes_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PST}

Funny to see all the misrepresentations and spin by the anti-ID crowd over the Dover fiasco. Judge Jones was out of his depth, didn't understand the issues, apparently had an agenda and wanted to make a name for himself, and relied on terrible advice in preparing his rubber-stamp opinion. Very poor judicial precedent. Yes, the school board may not have had a very good case on the specific facts in the first place, and he could have ruled against them in a more narrow and succinct manner. But to pretend that Dover somehow adjudicated the truth, the method, the relevance, or the importance of intelligent design is nothing but naive wishful thinking and spin doctoring.Eric Anderson_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PST}

Timotya:
Origenes: “How about ‘something that seems to be an alien battleship’, does that help you?”
It certainly doesn’t help you, since it encapsulates the same a priori assumption.
How about 'something that, after examination, proves to be able to function as a battleship' — not saying that it is a battleship? Does that help you?Origenes_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PST}

Timothya, Suppose that next year we travel to some lifeless exoplanet and discover 'something', that, after examination, proves to be an exact copy of the passenger airship LZ 129 Hindenburg. Okay, we have not assumed our conclusion here, right? My question to you is: can we infer design even if we have no answer to the questions ‘what (who), when, where and how’?Origenes_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PST}

TA, you refuse to accept that there was a cross-posting and that your remark at "33 timothyaFebruary 23, 2017 at 12:56 am" did not reckon with the likely fact that I likely would not have seen something that crossed my brief comments before returning to sleep and the like. So, there was a very obvious reason why I did not see your nine points of reply at that time. When I woke up for the morning, I saw and responded on points, noting I have other priorities that must take precedence, even this is in a pause to catch a breath or two. I suggest that onward you bear that sort of fairly obvious eventuality in mind. KFkairosfocus_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PST}

Origenes: "How about ‘something that seems to be an alien battleship’, does that help you?" It certainly doesn't help you, since it encapsulates the same a priori assumption.timothya_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PST}

KF: "TA, I came back for a moment. I deal with just one point for now: 32 kairosfocusFebruary 23, 2017 at 12:17 am 31 timothyaFebruary 23, 2017 at 12:15 am 27 kairosfocusFebruary 22, 2017 at 6:18 pm 25 timothyaFebruary 22, 2017 at 3:13 pm –> This timeline tells the key story. KF" I still have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest that you let it drop.timothya_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PST}

Oh, for heaven’s sake can’t you see the fault in your reasoning? You’ve already assumed your conclusion by using the term “alien battleship”.
How about 'something that seems to be an alien battleship', does that help you?Origenes_{February 23, 2017
February
02
Feb
23
23
2017
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PST}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply