Disappointed with Shermer

_{idnet.com.au
April 6, 2009

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

From EXPELLED Dr Caroline Crocker.

“Recently I attended a lecture by Michael Shermer at the UCSD Biological Science Symposium (4/2/09). His title was, “Why Darwin Matters,” but his topic was mostly religion. He started by defining science as “looking for natural explanations for natural phenomena” and said that his purpose was to “debunk the junk and expose sloppy thinking.”

We were all subjected to an evening of slapstick comedy, cheap laughs, and the demolition of straw men.

His characterization of ID was that the theory says, 1) If something looks designed, 2) We can’t think how it was designed naturally, 3) Therefore we assert that it was designed supernaturally. (God of the gaps.) Okay everyone, laugh away at the stupid ID theorists.

I was astonished at how a convinced Darwinist, who complains about mixing science and religion, spent most of his time at the Biological Science Symposium talking about religion.”

Get the full text here.

Comments

----faded glory: "No. I would attribute it to a person who can’t be bothered to read and understand other people’s positions before sneering at them in an uncalled for outburst of rudeness. It would not convey the slightest information about intelligence." That really was a bit on the rude side. I wish it had not happened, but fortunately I did not write that post. I know that it has my blogger name on it, but let me assure you that it happened solely as a result of natural forces. I don't understand why you would attribute it to anything else. As you pointed out, agency cannot be detected from those kinds of patterns. I just wish things hadn't turned out the way they did.StephenB_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Faded Glory I thought we were getting somewhere in my conversation with tribune7 but he too now seems to have gone hostile and responds in a frankly silly way to my questions about falsifiability. There was nothing hostile in my intent. In fact, my dialogue, I thought, was respectful and quite patient. There is nothing wrong with you not agreeing with us but your inability to understand our position seemed almost willful. With regard to falsifiability, it seems you want us to falsify ID before you accept that it can be falsifiable. That's not what Popper meant with regard to scientific falsifiability.tribune7_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Well, I’ve been out all day and lots has gone on. In browsing the posts, I find at 241 some thoughts by Diffaxial that I like, and are a different way of saying something I said previously. Diffaxial wrote,
StephenB, for example states the following: When I say that the creator contains “within himself” the principle of “being,” I am making a significant philosophical statement. I am saying that this same creator depends on nothing for his existence. That is another way of saying that he is “necessary,” that he “must” exist, that he “cannot not exist.” By means of this and several similar arguments Stephen concludes that God must exist, and that anyone who doubts that is not a rational person. I am skeptical of the apparent decisiveness of this sort of argument for the following reason: What is given is that we are here and capable of creating utterances and statements such as invoked by Stephen. What is to be demonstrated is whether or not we live in a universe that was authored by God. Presumably, it would be possible to utter these ostensibly decisive statements in a universe that is actually devoid of God. In that instance, although the logic of the argument is unchanged, it would be apparent from some remove to be mistaken, nevertheless. The question then becomes, by what means is it decidable in which sort of universe we are uttering these “decisive” arguments? A similar objection could be raised vis a logical argument that putatively decisively proved, by means of reasoning from premises, that there is NO God.
This is good. The arguments for God being presented derive their seeming logicality from the fact that they are based on concepts for which we have assumed exactly the properties that make our logic appear valid. But we have no way of actually testing whether those entities exist with the properties we assume they have. Logic without a valid referent - one which is accessible by something other than logic - can’t tell us anything other than what is internally embedded in the logical system itself. So reasoning about God as we think he must be, and thinking that we know what properties he must have, is only reasoning about our concept of God, which doesn’t prove at all whether God exists or not. Here is a specific example. There has been lots of talk about a first cause, and about how you can’t have an infinite regression of causes so there must be an uncaused cause, etc. How causation is an idea that we have developed by being in this physical world, watching time go by and observing the local effects of various entities within time. Cause and effect is an idea based on our human experience. Now do we know that this idea of cause even applies to God, or whatever other metaphysical realm there might be (if there is one)? We don’t. If there is a God etc., it is unlikely that we could even comprehend how God interacts with/pervades the world (or whatever he/it does): to think that our understanding of cause and effect is applicable to him is misguided, I think. So, to summarize, brute logic, without any evidence that God is as we conceive him, cannot prove anything about God. And, I might add, to try and think one has succeeded is an act of hubris.hazel_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

faded_glory:
Joseph now insists that I buy a bunch of books before he wants to converse with me and calls me names for wanting to discuss a statement made by Behe.
I say you should come to a discussion prepared. Reading those books- at least the first one- would go a long way to preparing you for a discussion about science and ID. Also you didn't want to discuss Behe's comment. You just hand-waved it away. But anyway when I wanted to find out about evolution I did not go to blogs for information. I read textbooks and books on the topic written by evolutionists- scientists who allegedly know about the subject. I bought their books or I got them from a library. That is just the way it is. Deal with it.Joseph_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

Faded, I posted the conclusion of a peer-reviewed paper that investigates the scientifically observable evidence of volitional agency in nucleic sequencing. You described it as "vapid" and then misrepresented the the hypothesis to suit your own argument. Sorry I didn't roll over for ya.Upright BiPed_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

That's a shame, faded Glory. Try Telic Thoughts. Allen MacNeill posts there, and his comments are usually worth reading.Alan Fox_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

I am sorry to say that I get the distinct feeling that I have overstayed my welcome here. As I said earlier I have no objection to the ID inference whatsoever, although I don't share it myself. I do have doubts about the claims that the ID inference is scientific and I tried to explore this issue by talking to some of you. The responses I am getting now are becoming more and more hostile and I can't say I am particulary enjoying this. StephenB came out of nowhere with a nasty attack presuming a lot about my background. Joseph now insists that I buy a bunch of books before he wants to converse with me and calls me names for wanting to discuss a statement made by Behe. Upright Biped openly questions my motives for posting here in the first place. I thought we were getting somewhere in my conversation with tribune7 but he too now seems to have gone hostile and responds in a frankly silly way to my questions about falsifiability. Guys, as far as I can tell I have been polite and civil and focused on arguments. If that makes you uncomfortable to the point where you have to go all personal on me I think it is best if I leave. Have a good day, fGfaded_Glory_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

prose....Joseph_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
The question you pose is not a question of first cause.
At the very least it involves first cause. The argument is something like: If the universe had a beginning it had a (first) cause. The universe had a beginning. Therefor... And that first cause matters a great deal to "how did the universe come to be the way it is?". But thanks for restructuring my pose. I almost forget what I am dealing with when trying to have a discussion with you.Joseph_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

faded, In your first comment on this board, you said:
My concern is with the claim that ID in its current formulation is a scientific theory or enterprise, a claim that I don’t think is warranted given the formulation of ID and the type of work and results flowing from it
This is not a new position. From the very start the honorguard have been trying to get ID extinguished as "science". And for all the hand waving about the integrity of the scientific process, the real reason has always been the same - the quesions raised by ID advocates are a real and valid scientific threat to materialist ideologues and their institutions. So this is your "concern" is it? Specifically, what ID literature have you read?Upright BiPed_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

I wrote:
when scientists speak of first cause, they aren’t doing science.
Joseph [218] responded:
I say that is an unfair and unwarranted limitation to science and scientists. “How [did] the universe [s]came[/s] [come] to be the way it is?” should always be on the science table because it matters a great deal to how we explore it.
(Correction so it's an actual question.) The question you pose is not a question of first cause. A first cause question might be "How did the universe come to be at all?" or "Why is there a universe instead of no universe?"David Kellogg_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

---Mark: "If so, I cannot see how your response answers my question or in what sense it is the “reciprocal” of my argument." You were not making an argument; you were questioning my argument. So, my response was the reciprocal of my argument. Originally you asked, -----"What is the context when you talk about God necessarily existing?" So, I provided the context in this way: "The argument is that IF we exist as “contingent” beings, (dependent on something or someone outside ourselves AND that we need not have existed), then a “necessary”,(cannot not exist) self existent (depends on nothing or no one else) creator is required." I thought that my answer was quite clear, but then you followed up with this: ----"My question is - what is the corresponding “if clause” when you say a creator necessarily exists. What are the rules that are broken if it doesn’t? Is it the laws of logic? I cannot see which laws are broken." So, I provided a reciprocal version of MY argument: "If the creator doesn’t confer “being” then the creature cannot have “being.” Translation: To say that the creature can have being without a creator to confer it is illogical. The creature must get its being from some source, and that source can only be some entity that "is" being. If the creator merely "had" being it would be just another dependent creature. Or, if that is too cumbersome, just do it in a less formal way: If the creator doesn't create, the creature can't exist. Something cannot come from nothing.StephenB_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

Faded Glory-- I observed earlier that CSI hasn’t had a lot of traction in science in the 10 years since it was presented by Dembski. It's doing fine with science. It's not doing so well in the politics that infest the institutions that speak for the scientific establishment. Natural science looks for causal mechanisms, Natural science looks to describe nature. Sometimes this involves casual mechanisms. Sometimes it doesn't. You're not suggesting taxonomy is not a science are you? (Do you actually think there could be a counterexample of a high CSI object that has a truly unknown origin, yet might potentially be accepted as falsifying ID?) . . .Sure.’ . . .That is good. Can you help me out a bit more? What kind of object could that be? An electromagnetic signal from space that perfectly translates to a C+ "hello world" program that you determine happened via chance and law, which you then duplicate using your the Nobel prize-winning method you are now working on. How would it be possible to falsify a claim that such an object came about by chance and the laws of physics?” . . .CSI is a thorny subject. I have used it here by way of common language . . . Although I think I understand the general concept of CSI, I don’t understand how it can actually be measured or computed on biological objects When did I stipulate that it had to be a biological object? Would you be interested in learning how it can be computed on biological objects.tribune7_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

StephenB said: "What if you visited the planet Mars and saw the following characters formed on the ground surface: “Faded glory, who has been grounded in postmodernist philosophy, hyper-subjectivism, and hyperskepticism, labors under the misconception that a design inference requires prior knowledge of the design event and assumes the designer must be known in order to draw an inference to design.” Would you attribute that message to naturalistic forces." No. I would attribute it to a person who can't be bothered to read and understand other people's positions before sneering at them in an uncalled for outburst of rudeness. It would not convey the slightest information about intelligence.faded_Glory_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

Re #233 StephenB Am I the "Mark" you referring to in this comment? And, if so, are you responding to my comment #220? If so, I cannot see how your response answers my question or in what sense it is the "reciprocal" of my argument. But maybe you were responding to some other comment???Mark Frank_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

The level of game playing disguised as enlightened discourse is off the charts. David Abel (et al) asks for a single non-trivial observation of C+N creating an integrated circuit or organizing a single algorithm (those phenomena repeatedly observed at the molecular level of living tissue); providing a single refutation of the central ID theme - and just look at the reaction. There has never been -to my knowledge- a single ID critic on this website that will actually address the front and center of this question. Not even one. I think this explains things very well, certainly more than critics wished. No wonder this website is the bane of the opposition.Upright BiPed_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

YouTube has an October 2006 debate between Michael Shermer and Jonathan Wells that was originally aired on CSPAN. Here's the link for those interested: Shermer vs Wells Perhaps I'm biased, but I thought Wells handled his business quite well, including addressing a couple of absurd questions from Darwin-worshipers during the Q&A with the audience.ShawnBoy_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

faded_glory:
What you don’t seem to grasp is that this limitation (self-imposed or not) causes some real problems for the scientific status of ID.
What you fail to grasp is that limitation is grounded in reality. The reality being that we do NOT have to know the designer(s) BEFORE we can make a design inference. As a matter of fact in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY possible way to make ANY scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, is by studying the design in question. People who fail to grasp that just ain't worth wasting the time talking to. And when a leading IDist who is also a scientist states what it will take to falsify ID and you respond with "no it won't" it just makes you seem like a little whiny baby. Is that the image you are going for?Joseph_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

----faded glory: We all know that books are written by people so clearly a book is not a suitable counterexample when the question is about unknown origins. What if you visited the planet Mars and saw the following characters formed on the ground surface: "Faded glory, who has been grounded in postmodernist philosophy, hyper-subjectivism, and hyperskepticism, labors under the misconception that a design inference requires prior knowledge of the design event and assumes the designer must be known in order to draw an inference to design." Would you attribute that message to naturalistic forces.StephenB_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

faded_Glory:
how on earth can you ever hope to falsify the proposition that (s)he was there?
I don't believe the existence of designer is the central proposition of ID. It's a corollary. The underlying premise, that intelligence is a detectable cause, is falsifiable. But the corollary is not falsifiable.ScottAndrews_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Joseph, I definitely grasp the fact that ID is about the design and not about the designer. What you don't seem to grasp is that this limitation (self-imposed or not) causes some real problems for the scientific status of ID. Bluster alone won't wash this away.faded_Glory_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

tribune7 said: "(Do you actually think there could be a counterexample of a high CSI object that has a truly unknown origin, yet might potentially be accepted as falsifying ID?) Sure.' That is good. Can you help me out a bit more? What kind of object could that be? Where might we possibly find one? tribune7 said: "Now, is it foolish to think that objects exhibiting CSI can come about by chance and the laws of physics?” How would it be possible to falsify a claim that such an object came about by chance and the laws of physics?" CSI is a thorny subject. I have used it here by way of common language. I observed earlier that CSI hasn't had a lot of traction in science in the 10 years since it was presented by Dembski. Although I think I understand the general concept of CSI, I don't understand how it can actually be measured or computed on biological objects and I haven't seen a lot of reference to such efforts either. But perhaps that is not so important. Is it foolish to believe that objects with high CSI can come about by the laws of chance and physics? Another thorny subject. First of all this suggest a dichotomy between laws and chance on the one hand, and something else (intelligence, I suppose) on the other. Is this dichotomy real? Is intelligence qualitatively different from law + chance? I don't think anybody really knows. Then, is law + chance, or intelligence, a causal force? I have always felt uneasy about this. To me law and chance, and probably intelligence as well, are descriptors, labels we assign to certain processes. I don't actually think they can be reified and invoked as causes in their own right. Not many natural scientists would be happy with studies that concluded 'and the cause for this phenomenon is law + chance'. I have certainly never seen a study like that. Natural science looks for causal mechanisms, for processes that explain in some detail how observed phenomena originated. It is not looking for the metaphysical nature of such causes. Chemistry and physics are the basic building blocks of our explanations, not laws, chance or intelligence. This is where I am coming from, and why I sense some strangeness about the whole ID effort. I can't put my finger on it but somehow it feels very different from what we do in natural sciences. Hence my questions about the falsifiability. Am I having a scientific discussion or a metaphysical one? Not clear to me.faded_Glory_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

I've been following this discussion with interest, but staying silent because I am not well versed in the philosophical traditions and arguments being invoked on both sides of the above theological discussion. But as more or less an agnostic I need some guidance. StephenB, for example states the following:
When I say that the creator contains “within himself” the principle of “being,” I am making a significant philosophical statement. I am saying that this same creator depends on nothing for his existence. That is another way of saying that he is “necessary,” that he “must” exist, that he “cannot not exist.”
By means of this and several similar arguments Stephen concludes that God must exist, and that anyone who doubts that is not a rational person. I am skeptical of the apparent decisiveness of this sort of argument for the following reason: What is given is that we are here and capable of creating utterances and statements such as invoked by Stephen. What is to be demonstrated is whether or not we live in a universe that was authored by God. Presumably, it would be possible to utter these ostensibly decisive statements in a universe that is actually devoid of God. In that instance, although the logic of the argument is unchanged, it would be apparent from some remove to be mistaken, nevertheless. The question then becomes, by what means is it decidable in which sort of universe we are uttering these "decisive" arguments? A similar objection could be raised vis a logical argument that putatively decisively proved, by means of reasoning from premises, that there is NO God. Any help?Diffaxial_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

And faded_glory, If you were REALLY interested you would read the books I listed and THEN ask questions. But to come here unprepared exposes the fact that you really are not interested.Joseph_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

faded_glory:
I haven’t heard much, so far, and I think this is mainly because of the unspecified nature of the designer.
ID is about the DESIGN not the designER. You don't seem to be able to grasp that simple fact. How do we know their were people who could build Stonehenge? We observed the remains of the structure and deduced that nature, operating freely, could NOT have done it. AND it has specificity.
If you can’t tell what (s)he is, what (s)he did, when, where or how - if (s)he could be present without being detectable - how on earth can you ever hope to falsify the proposition that (s)he was there?
Umm THAT is what SCIENCE is for- to help us answer those questions. As for detection- the design is the detectable part. How do we know if someone was murdered or suffered a natural death? Investigation. Ya see if we didn't observe IC nor CSI then there wouldn't be any reason to infer ID. If we observed IC and CSI but also observed them coming from something other than an agency there wouldn't be any reason to infer ID. We exist and there is only one reality behind that existence. The way to falsify ID is the SAME way the design inference has been falsified throughout history. That you refuse to understand that is YOUR problem, not mine.Joseph_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Joseph said: "So you are saying that your position is not testable." My position? What is my position? What I am after, here, is to understand if the ID inference can rightly claim to be scientific. I am searching for a clear and practical falsification method. As for all scientific theories, this should logically and necessarily flow from the predictions of the theory. Not the schoolground variety of 'I'm right until you prove me wrong'. I haven't heard much, so far, and I think this is mainly because of the unspecified nature of the designer. If you can't tell what (s)he is, what (s)he did, when, where or how - if (s)he could be present without being detectable - how on earth can you ever hope to falsify the proposition that (s)he was there? Still looking...faded_Glory_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

No, I’m asking you: ‘Do you actually think there could be a counterexample of a high CSI object that has a truly unknown origin, yet might potentially be accepted as falsifying ID?’ Sure. Now, is it foolish to think that objects exhibiting CSI can come about by chance and the laws of physics?” How would it be possible to falsify a claim that such an object came about by chance and the laws of physics?tribune7_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

“(If a person gets struck by lightning and dies, would you say that God had nothing to do with this?)
Yes.
How do you know this?
There is no reason to envoke "God". I also seriously doubt that "God" would require a bolt of lightning to kill someone. However if said bolt of lightning came from an absolutely clear and calm sky, I would change my opinion.Joseph_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

faded_glory:
Indeed, and I think the problem lies with the unspecified nature of the designer, meaning that he (she? it?) can never be excluded, therefore making experiments a waste of time.
That is your problem. However reality demonstrates otherwise.
You are saying that ID was invoked for all sorts of things in the past, yet it was replaced by non-ID explanations as our knowledge of the world increased?
Not all sorts. And in many more cases the design inference has been upheld. Again that is the nature of science. So what is your problem?
Seriously though, how does one eliminate an unspecified, immaterial, remarkably powerful designer from any natural phenomenon?
So you are saying that your position is not testable. Thank you.Joseph_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Joseph says: "And if you are not prepared for a discussion don’t join in." Well, thank you for your warm welcome... I guess... Joseph then said: "Also the only weakness to what Behe said is your inability to produce such an experiment." Indeed, and I think the problem lies with the unspecified nature of the designer, meaning that he (she? it?) can never be excluded, therefore making experiments a waste of time. Joseph also said: "(If a person gets struck by lightning and dies, would you say that God had nothing to do with this?) Yes." How do you know this? Joseph finally said: "What is wrong with the methododlogy used throughout history?" Let me get this clear. You are saying that ID was invoked for all sorts of things in the past, yet it was replaced by non-ID explanations as our knowledge of the world increased? How does this differentiate ID from superstition? Seriously though, how does one eliminate an unspecified, immaterial, remarkably powerful designer from any natural phenomenon? I don't think it can be done.faded_Glory_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 15 16 17 18 19 … 25 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply