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

Mark, fair enough. Thanks for the precision. Using your formulation, I would use the reciprocal of the argument, i.e. If the creator doesn't confer "being" then the creature cannot have "being."StephenB_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

faded_glory:
We still haven’t agreed on a viable way to falsify ID.
What is wrong with the methododlogy used throughout history? Please be specific.Joseph_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

faded_glory:
If you won’t clarify what you mean by ‘nature operating freely’ there is not much point using the phrase in our discussions.
And if you are not prepared for a discussion don't join in. Also the only weakness to what Behe said is your inability to produce such an experiment.
If a person gets struck by lightning and dies, would you say that God had nothing to do with this?
Yes. And as far as "unknown origins" goes, well that is the nature of science. We make the best inference we can given our current state of knowledge knowing that future research can either confirm or refute that inference.Joseph_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

tribune7 said: "Are you telling me it is foolish to think that objects exhibiting CSI can come about by chance and the laws of physics?" 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?' Do you think there could be such a thing, or not? This matters, you know. tribune7 also said: "This is an important point. What you write is correct. You can falsify ID and still have faith in God. In fact, there are those who express a belief in God yet reject ID." On this we agree. tribune7 then said: "But ID is a method. It can be falsified. And it has nothing to do with God." We still haven't agreed on a viable way to falsify ID. I didn't bring up God.faded_Glory_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

faded_Glory:
So you go away and come back a little later with a green tree, and you say ‘Ha, here is one without the X factor. Your theory has been falsified’.
Perhaps a more accurate analogy would be an observable case in which something other than the X factor makes the tree green. And the X factor isn't something entirely unknown; it's a green dye, known to turn things green. The unknown factors are who applied it to the tree, and how.ScottAndrews_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Faded Glory 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 Are you telling me it is foolish to think that objects exhibiting CSI can come about by chance and the laws of physics? I believe that as long as the object’s origin is unknown there will always be the loophole of the invisible, immaterial and powerful designer at work. This is an important point. What you write is correct. You can falsify ID and still have faith in God. In fact, there are those who express a belief in God yet reject ID. But ID is a method. It can be falsified. And it has nothing to do with God.tribune7_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Without such evidence, we simply have to stop using words that imply temporal relations... Well, when are you going to stop?mynym_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed says: "X has never been observed causing Z, and Z has never been observed without the input of Y. Therefore, only X may the proposed as the cause of Z." I see what you are doing here. Cynical, what? Actually, I am not worried about someone proposing Y instead of X, I am worried about a potential logical impossibility of ever disproving, even in principle, that Y is always required for Z. I think that may largely depend on what we mean by Y.faded_Glory_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

tribune7 said: "(How would we conclusively establish that a particular counterexample is not designed) You would find an object with high CSI — say a book by an unknown author and unknown publisher — and using this methodology that you create, demonstrate how it came about by chance and the laws of physics." But this is not a good example. 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. 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? I really struggle to think of anything, to be honest. I believe that as long as the object's origin is unknown there will always be the loophole of the invisible, immaterial and powerful designer at work. Am I wrong?faded_Glory_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

DK, “…there is no developed science of abiogenesis. If there were such a science, the answers it provided would still be proximate and provisional, like all science.” No one in ID is asking for science to do away with future knowledge. However, from an institutional standpoint, the conclusions are already in - there will be no talk of any artifacts of agency. Agency (and any artifacts of it) will be removed from the lexicon of known causal mechanisms regarding the cause of life. Despite the arguments either way, is this or is this not correct? (...please don't make me spend the next hour posting quote after quote after quote from scientists making the exact claim that only material causes are at the edifice of life) “A developed science of abiogenesis would provide a plausible account of how life on Earth could have arisen materially.” This, of course, is the answer to my question. The fact that the artifacts of agency are purely material (and therefore open to science) doesn’t matter, does it?Upright BiPed_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Joseph also said: "Most likely the same way we have determined that lightning is not the anger of the gods." This is actually an interesting point. If a person gets struck by lightning and dies, would you say that God had nothing to do with this?faded_Glory_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Joseph, If you won't clarify what you mean by 'nature operating freely' there is not much point using the phrase in our discussions. Behe's objection: "To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved." This has the same weakness I pointed out before. If at any time I would show such a complex system, the ID proponent could simply say 'but how do you know the designer was not at work here?'. And obviously I could not know this because the designer is unconstrained, invisible, immaterial and remarkably powerful. Which brings us straight back to square one, and round and round we go in circles. Let me illustrate the problem in another way. I present a new theory that holds 'all green trees are green because they contain the X factor'. I claim this to be a scientific theory. You come along and say 'hold on, for this to be scientific it must be falsifiable, in principle. What is this X factor?'. I respond 'I can't say anything about the X factor except that it causes green trees to be green. My theory cannot address anything else about the X factor. It may be invisible, immaterial, very powerful. Oh, and you can simply falsify my theory by showing me a green tree that does not contain the X factor.' So you go away and come back a little later with a green tree, and you say 'Ha, here is one without the X factor. Your theory has been falsified'. You can guess what I will say next, right? 'No, not at all, this tree obviously does contain the X factor - look, it is green after all so it must!' Do you see what a shell game this is, and how this has nothing to do with falsification in the scientific sense?faded_Glory_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

Faded Glory Say the claim is that High CSI is exclusive to designed objects. How would we conclusively establish that a particular counterexample is not designed? You would find an object with high CSI -- say a book by an unknown author and unknown publisher -- and using this methodology that you create, demonstrate how it came about by chance and the laws of physics.tribune7_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

Re #204 StephenB I have not explained the issue very well. I can read the words of your argument. The question is what they mean! Let me try and expand on what I mean by context. You talk of something "necessarily" existing. Whenever the word "necessarily" is used there is an explicit or implied "if clause". For example, If you accept the rules of chess then necessarily you cannot get checkmate in one move. If you accept Newton's laws of motion then necessarily every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you accept the laws of logic then necessarily P and not P cannot both be true 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.Mark Frank_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Speaking of abiogenesis, it's a bit funny that it used to bother me. Now I simply see it as, if abiogenesis can truly happen, an example of intelligent coding literally built into the fabric of existence, or in this case, the universe. If, when amino acids were to align in a specified order, created specific function proteins, all that says to me is that such a specified, functioning order is literally built into the universe. Honestly, the fact that cells can even exist speaks of intelligence built into the universe, whether or not cells could arise via non-life or not. That's my philosophical take on it anyway. :DDomoman_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
So, again: when scientists speak of first cause, they aren’t doing science.
I say that is an unfair and unwarranted limitation to science and scientists. "How the universe came to be the way it is?" should always be on the science table because it matters a great deal to how we explore it.Joseph_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped, there is no developed science of abiogenesis. If there were such a science, the answers it provided would still be proximate and provisional, like all science. A developed science of abiogenesis would provide a plausible account of how life on Earth could have arisen materially. But that would still seem to be a proximate answer. Such an account certainly wouldn't have anything to say about ultimate meaning, or purpose, or being.David Kellogg_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Joseph @188
If the bacterial flagellum arose via an acumulation of genetic accidents we predict it would _________.
Evolutionary theory predicts that the flagella would not be irreducibly complex. It also predicts that there would be intermediate forms (not to mention different types). See http://ncseweb.org/news/2006/09/pallen-matzke-nature-reviews-microbiology-00989 (link anchor not working here). Further, evolutionary theory predicts that the proteins making up a particular type of flagella would form stepwise from existing, homologous proteins already in the bacteria. What unique, positive, testable predictions does your version of ID theory make about the flagella? JJJayM_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

DK, No need to parse meaning in the face of context. "So, again: when scientists speak of first cause, they aren’t doing science." So as I said before: when scientists claim that life began by a process of chance and necessity alone, they are not doing science.Upright BiPed_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Faded, “…the scientifically rather vapid null hypothesis (’X can not cause Z’, instead of ‘Y can cause Z’)” You describe this as vapid. Try this instead: X has never been observed causing Z, and Z has never been observed without the input of Y. Therefore, only X may the proposed as the cause of Z.Upright BiPed_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Yes, "first cause" in philosophy typically means what you call "ultimate cause." Your question was vaguely worded. The answer (my answer, at least) is that science is not about ultimate causes. So, again: when scientists speak of first cause, they aren't doing science. When they speak of proximate cause, they may or may not be doing science.David Kellogg_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Mr Hayden, I just noticed that your comment has a white background, so I assume you are an important person here. My apologies for not responding earlier. # It is a good thing we are not in Japan, because white is associated with death in Japanese culture. The universe had a definite beginning in its existence. Yes! It is always pleasant to begin by agreeing. The universe couldn’t have been it’s own cause, because things that don’t yet exist cannot be the cause of their existence. Yes, this is where the difficulties start. Words like 'yet' and 'cause' are meaningful to us, because we are experiencing the timelike dimension of spacetime in a particular way. I don't know of any evidence that our universe is embedded in another, higher dimensional space with exactly one timelike dimension. Without such evidence, we simply have to stop using words that imply temporal relations. We certainly should not assert them to be true descriptions. Therefore, something else had to be the first cause. While I would prefer to just state that existence does not imply causation (consider virtual particles in the vacuum), let me go further. I am going to assume that your argument is that the universe is embedded in another real object, an object that is at least like our own in having one timelike dimension. Is that correct? That first cause had to be personal, because an impersonal causal beginning would necessitate that the universe began to exist as long ago as the relationship existed. I admit I do not know what to make of this implication. I have some vague notions of what person means, here on Earth. I don't know how or why I should attach any of these notions to this object, absent any evidence even of its existence. I don't know why impersonality implies such a thing but personality does not. This is a logical argument, based on the evidence that we do have. It is indeed pleasant to end on a note of agreement.Nakashima_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
Joseph, “how did X come to be this way?” is probably a question of proximate rather than first cause.
Probably? One question is your 'first cause' the same as the 'ultimate cause'?
Answering that question may or may not be in the realm of science, depending on what X is and the methods applied to arrive at an answer.
Then you should not have stated:
When scientists speak of first cause, they aren’t doing science.
Because according what you just said they could be doing science, it just depends. It is Spring so the flip-flops are in fashion...Joseph_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

“Remove the requirement for a designer by showing tat nature, operating freely can account for it.”
I’m sorry, I have no clear idea what you mean by ‘nature operating freely’.
Then yours is an issue of knowledge. No problem Del Ratzsch wrote Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science so that you could empower yourself. I have it is a required reading book for anyone interested in this debate: Recommended Literature Pertaining to Intelligent Design
How can we establish if an observed process is ‘nature operating freely’ or if it involves an invisible, immaterial and remarkably powerful intelligence?
Most likely the same way we have determined that lightning is not the anger of the gods. Behe also responds
One last charge must be met: Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He's wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997
Joseph_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

David: “When scientists speak of first cause, they aren’t doing science.” So when scientists claim that life began by a process of chance and necessity alone, they are not doing science. “Seems clear enough”.Upright BiPed_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

tribune7 said: "the claim “these traits are exclusive to designed objects” is falsifiable." I disagree with this, for reasons I already mentioned. Say the claim is that High CSI is exclusive to designed objects. How would we conclusively establish that a particular counterexample is not designed? Keep in mind that the designer is totally unconstrained and could be at work without being detected. You really need to address this objection by presenting a practical, valid scenario. tribune7: "If I think something is true it’s not up to me to disprove it. If you think something is false, however, you have an obligation to show why, and if you can’t well. . . " Falsifiability in science is not about you disproving your own theory. It is about you telling us what observation and/or experimental outcome follows logically and necessarily from your theory so that anyone can go and check that observation or experiment, thereby showing your theory to be supported or to be false.faded_Glory_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Joseph, “how did X come to be this way?” is probably a question of proximate rather than first cause. Answering that question may or may not be in the realm of science, depending on what X is and the methods applied to arrive at an answer.David Kellogg_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

...That’s why philosophy cannot be applied to religious beliefs without replacing them. (Got cut off.)ScottAndrews_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: "StephenB, thanks, but I’m pretty sure I’ve read enough of what you call “good” philosophy to know my way around. I may even have read as much as you!" In that case, I am hopeful that you will return to good philosophy.StephenB_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped:
So, Scott are you going to join David in calling for an end to ideological materialism in the service of science to the public, and a return to an appropriate agnosticism on questions of first cause?
I'm not an ideological materialist (yes, I had to look that up) although I'm not calling for the end of anything. I'm also not agnostic on questions of first cause. I don't mean to paint this too black and white, because it's not. But I see in science an attempt to draw conclusions from evidence, but in philosophy I see a lot of talk and people quoting each other and disagreeing with each other with little or no empirical basis. Maybe science needs philosophy like biology needs evolution. Philosophy and religion overlap, at least in appearance. That's why philosophy cannot be applied to religi (No name for the movement yet. I have to think carefully in case it's around for hundreds of years.)ScottAndrews_{April 8, 2009
April
04
Apr
8
08
2009
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 16 17 18 19 20 … 25 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply