Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ecs2 responds to the same Nick Matzke “he said it” clipped and commented on yesterday

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

One of the great things about UD is the insights that often come up in the comment boxes, by design and inadvertently. And here (at 147 in the Chemist speaks out thread) we have ecs2 responding to the same “he said it” clip I highlighted yesterday. He then continues later in the thread, in response to NM at 150.

Let us watch:

_________________

NM: >>“Sigh. You really have no idea at all about this stuff, do you?

Here’s the issue. Picture, in your head, all 5000 mammal species currently living on the planet. Now think of how many individuals are in each species — some are almost extinct, some have populations of billions. Now think about how each of these individuals lives and reproduces and dies over the years. Now add in how all of these individuals compete with each other, each each other, etc. Continue this process for millions of years, with species splitting and going extinct, sometimes randomly, sometimes due to climate change, sometimes due to invasions of other species, etc. Add in continents moving around on the globe, ice sheets advancing and retreating, and tens of thousands of other species of vertebrates plus hundreds of thousands of plant species and millions of insect species.

Then imagine what this process would look like if all you had was a very incomplete sample with lots of biases, in the form of fossils, most of which are fragmentary.

Suppose you are interested in doing science, and you want to develop hypotheses about the patterns you observe, and developed the data and statistical methods to rigorously test those hypotheses.

Now you’re getting some vague sense of what macroevolutionary studies are really about, why it requires actual training and work to be able to avoid talking nonsense about the topic, and why you can’t just read a popular book or two and blithely assume you know what you are talking about.”>>

ecs2: >>I don’t dispute your science. Not because I accept it, nor because I deny it, but because I am a learner in this area and don’t feel I have sufficient knowledge to discuss intelligently.

But I do have some comments on the quote above. It seems that what you are saying is that this is difficult. That there is not as much evidence as one would like, that you are have piecing together the theory based on fragments of insight.

This is understandable. It would be expected there will be error in this process. There will be surprises where theory must be revised. That the scientists involved should be very conservative in their judgments and conclusions.

The problem is this is the opposite of the approach I see. I see claims that evolution is true, that the evidence is “overwhelming” and similar words from that section of the thesaurus. I see grandiose narratives, speculative interpolation, and so on.

This is not science as I was taught it. This is not the scientific process I was taught. Good science doesn’t blackball alternative or minority theories or opinions. Good science doesn’t defend, protect, or promote a favored theory. Good science doesn’t discount the opinion of scientists from other fields who note where a general theory isn’t supported by theory within their field. Good science let’s the evidence speak for science rather than scientists.

But, in the end, the approach I see in evolutionary biology (some of which you have demonstrated in this thread) is damaging, most of all to theory of evolution itself.

Abuses of the scientific process contribute to increased skepticism – it raises the guard of those who are not informed and see only the human behaviors surrounding the science. And the truth is those behaviors don’t influence whether the science is ‘true’ or not.

I am still open to the theory of evolution. I still want to learn more and follow the evidence where it leads. But I admit that I am particularly cautious as I research it because of the approach of evolutionists in championing their theory.>>

[–> NM replies at 150, which ecs2 then excerpts. It should be noted that (as far as I have seen in following the exchanges) there has been no accusation of general fraud — what “bogus” means — in the field of evolutionary biology, though there have been concerns over bias, error and the inherent limitations of science especially where the objects of research, cannot be directly observed. Also, of course, there have been noteworthy hoaxes and frauds, such as Piltdown and apparently the Feathered Dinosaurs of the late 1990’s.  In addition, there have been serious errors such as not only the Nebraska man of the 1920’s “reconstructed” from the tooth of a pig, but also the suggested early whale of the 1990’s that turned out to be nothing like the early reconstructions. Also, there have been notorious debates and contentions such as over KNM-ER 1470 and related dating of isochron radioactive samples. Here, the fundamental challenge is that we face the deep and unobservable past of origins, and may only examine traces from that past that is forever gone from our direct reach. Thus, we make models and explain on patterns of cause and effect that we may observe in the present that give rise to similar effects to the items we find as traces from the past.  NM’s declaration that we are dismissing his field as “bogus” was corrected already, but unfortunately, it appears again.  This therefore seems to be a polarising and generally unfair misrepresentation of the questions and challenges being raised, one maintained in the teeth of headlined correction, and it should cease. There are also several other serious distortions that call for editorial notes like this, following.]

NM, 150: >> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/s…..ations.php

I don’t dispute your science. Not because I accept it, nor because I deny it, but because I am a learner in this area and don’t feel I have sufficient knowledge to discuss intelligently.

But I do have some comments on the quote above. It seems that what you are saying is that this is difficult. That there is not as much evidence as one would like, that you are have piecing together the theory based on fragments of insight.

The problem is this is the opposite of the approach I see. I see claims that evolution is true, that the evidence is “overwhelming” and similar words from that section of the thesaurus. I see grandiose narratives, speculative interpolation, and so on.

The evidence of some big pattern — e.g. common ancestry — can be overwhelming, without every last detail being known. The evidence for plate tectonics is overwhelming, yet we don’t know the position of every grain of sand at every point in time, or even the exact position of every fragment of every tectonic plate at every point in time.

Science is about making good approximations, not omniscience.

This is not science as I was taught it. This is not the scientific process I was taught.

A lot of people were taught an oversimplified and basically fake version of “The Scientific Method”, which was based on the assumption that all science is based on lab experiments and that it follows a black-and-white step-by-step process. The actual process is more like this:

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/art…..ceworks_01

[Insert image:]

A simple summary of Science, as highlighted by NM as inadequate

Good science doesn’t blackball alternative or minority theories or opinions. Good science doesn’t defend, protect, or promote a favored theory.

So, you’re in favor of giving equal time in chemistry classes to the idea that Atomic Theory is false. Right? Oh, and homeopathy. [–> with all due respect, this is a strawman caricature of ecs2’s remarks]

Good science doesn’t discount the opinion of scientists from other fields who note where a general theory isn’t supported by theory within their field. Good science let’s the evidence speak for science rather than scientists.

I’ve been the only one citing actual evidence in these macroevolution threads.  All the UD regulars are just throwing up objections based on their personal lack of understanding of these topics,

[–> A strawman caricature, hasty generalisation and dismissal of serious and well-known objections, some of which are in fact citing evidence, others of which are addressing interpretation issues regarding well known evidence such as the pattern of sudden appearances, stasis and disappearance in the fossil record and cases such as the Cambrian fossils.]

and then pretending that they represent huge crucial gaps in the entire field.

You guys are the ones afraid to follow the evidence wherever it leads. If you were actually brave enough to do so, you would admit that transitional fossils are common, that common ancestry is overwhelmingly supported, etc.

[–> In fact, as NM knows or should know, design theory is neutral on the question of common descent, as can be seen from the view of Michael Behe, one of the two leading design theorists, who accepts common descent; as do many supporters of Design thought here at UD. What it is raising, is the question as to whether, via Common Descent, front loading or otherwise, there are signs in the world of life and in the cosmos more broadly that point — on empirical testing — to design as a key causal feature of our world. That is, we must distinguish (a) limited common descent, (b) universal common descent and (c) blind watchmaker thesis universal common descent; if we are to be fair to the various view out there. E.g. even, many modern Young Earth Creationists hold that “species” is an ambiguous concept and speak of “created kinds” or “baramins,”  which go up to the level of a Family or the like in typical taxonomical categories and would see common descent as active through variation and adaptation within the kind. Moreover, what I have just summarised is immediately accessible and directly observable, even well known here and now in the present. NM, if you — with your background of having been a public relations person for the NCSE (a leading Darwinism advocacy group), cannot be trusted to accurately and fairly summarise what we can all directly see here and now, how can we trust you to be objective and fair on traces and interpretations on  events that may lie 500+ to 3,500+ MYA? And, does this not constitute “fear of facing evidence,” easily accessible evidence?]

But, in the end, the approach I see in evolutionary biology (some of which you have demonstrated in this thread) is damaging, most of all to theory of evolution itself.

Abuses of the scientific process contribute to increased skepticism – it raises the guard of those who are not informed and see only the human behaviors surrounding the science. And the truth is those behaviors don’t influence whether the science is ‘true’ or not.

I am still open to the theory of evolution. I still want to learn more and follow the evidence where it leads. But I admit that I am particularly cautious as I research it because of the approach of evolutionists in championing their theory.

I try to be patient. But I’m human. When people who don’t know what they are talking about start declaring my field bogus, and then start blaming it for Nazis etc., I get annoyed. Anyone would be.

[–> As noted, this is a strawman caricature of objections. In addition, no-one has been

Logo, 2nd Int’l Congress, Eugenics Movement, 1921, showing claimed scientific roots [HT: Wiki]

raising the issue of the ethical challenges of materialism and of scientific racism that was deeply connected to Darwinism in Germany and elsewhere that did contribute beyond reasonable dispute to the rise of eugenics and did historically contribute to the genocides carried out by Nazi Germany. A responsible view of the ethical responsibilities of science in society, would frankly address such troubling issues from history. And, without trying to use this as an atmosphere-poisoning distractor, as this comment by NM plainly opens up.]

My advice for you is to keep reading, and start testing the creationist/antievolution claims for yourself.

[–> NM/NCSE know or should know, that design theory is not equivalent to creationism, or to antievolutionism. However, this rhetorically convenient conflation has consistently been used, despite repeated correction.  In addition, serious concerns on the limitations of evolutionary materialistic, blind watchmaker thesis narratives of the past of origins, are too often brushed aside as ” creationism” or the like.]

Is it really true that there are no transitional fossils? Start there and then start reading. It won’t be long.

[–> This ducks the issues just above, and fails to address the vexed question of the dominance of the fossil record at its various levels, of suddenness of appearance, stasis and disappearance. If the fundamentally gradualist, incrementally emergent tree of life model were true, from the root up, and if this were overwhelmingly evident to the point that we are justified in teaching High School students and the general public that this is a “fact,” the overwhelming majority of the fossil record should be of the many, many transitional forms — samples do strongly tend to reflect the bulk of a distribution, however crudely; and, arguably, many such should be quite evident in the world today. In addition, there is a basic challenge that from the root on up, the Darwinist three of life needs to be a tub that stands on its own bottom. That is, we need to see good warrant for the blind watchmaker thesis narrative on origin of life. We need to see good evidence on the pattern of chance variation and differential reproductive success in ecological zones, leading tot he descent with unlimited modification that accounts for the various tree of life models [I here advert to the inconsistencies between traditional trees and the various molecular ones]. It also needs to credibly account for the origin of human language and mind as a knowing, reasoning, perceiving entity required for such a theory to exist and have credibility.  NM knows or should know that the 6,000 word UD Darwinism essay challenge of Sept 23 on, is still standing, coming on five months without a serious response, though at least one has been promised. ]>>

ecs, 173: >>N.Matzke @150

“The evidence of some big pattern — e.g. common ancestry — can be overwhelming, without every last detail being known…Science is about making good approximations, not omniscience.”

This really evades my point, which was that you can’t do these things together:

1) in one aspect, articulate how difficult and explorative the process of building evolutionary theory is

2) in a separate aspect, act like these delicate and hard-to-build-and-interpet theories are bulletproof articulate how sound the theory is and how ‘overwhelming’ the evidence is

3) in a third aspect, act like the theories are beyond reproof, flippantly and rudely rebuffing eminent scientists who have questions.

One who tries to express these three things at once looks silly.

– If #1 then not #2. That is, if there is less evidence is desired and there are holes where interpolation is required, then the theory can’t possibly establish the confidence to state #2.

– If #2 then not #3. That is, if the evidence is overwhelming and the theory is sound, then you are happy to discuss it with other scientists whose fields overlap and you would expect your theory to hold up to those inquiries.

And so on. >>

ecs2, 174: >>

“A lot of people were taught an oversimplified and basically fake version of “The Scientific Method” …”

[–> In context, this is dismissing ecs2’s views on the methods of science as ill-informed; cf. a 101 here on this at IOSE, especially the expanded description of scientific methods; also here on on the debate in Kansas on scientific methods as taught in schools, in which NM’s former institution, NCSE, played a significant part. Bottomline: the “method” traditionally commonly taught in schools is somewhat simplistic, but it does capture some major and characteristic features of scientific investigation. In addition those trained in pure and applied sciences to graduate level are inculcated in a tradition of research that goes beyond what any description or definition can summarise — experience based expertise.]

This one actually annoyed me a little. I have a PhD in Engineering. I feel sufficiently familiar with the scientific process. You seem to make poor assumptions about those you read – because one has simple or rudimentary knowledge in your area of expertise does not make them simple overall or in other focused areas.

Two observations based on the link to ‘the real process of science’ which jumps off the page you linked.

1) There is no room on that graphic for the behaviors I mentioned. Of course science can be interpolative and exploratory. But the interpolation and exploration should still be dictated by the data. When I say grandiose narratives and speculative interpolation, I am saying that in my view some of what I have seen from the evolution community (not you specifically) violates the boundary condition of following rather than leading the data.

2)I noted in the exploration and discovery phase, the process you provided call the scientist to ‘ask questions’ (and presumably by extension to graciously receieve questions also) and also to share data and ideas (like across disciplinary boundaries (such as, I don’t know, organic chemistry and evolutionary biology). I think I have the process down. Do you (look back over this thread before you answer)?>>

_________________

A word or two to the wise, and food for thought. END

Comments
Thanks for the link to EVC. I’d forgotten about the forum and haven’t posted there since 2007. I see you registered there in 2012. I’ll respond there when I get time.
EvC is cool, so do come back :DGenomicus
March 6, 2013
March
03
Mar
6
06
2013
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
...I would strongly encourage other ID proponents to devote much more time to developing rigorous ID hypotheses than simply attacking Darwinian evolution.
Fair point, Genomicus. Thanks for the link to EVC. I'd forgotten about the forum and haven't posted there since 2007. I see you registered there in 2012. I'll respond there when I get time.Alan Fox
March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
Intelligent design is not at all sufficiently developed to be considered a theory in the scientific sense of the word.
When Darwin proposed the theory of evolution, he had no mechanism, no experimental predictions, most of his case was theological (bad design, evil design) and was only a retroactive interpretation of, at best, circumstantial evidence. Most of the "evidence" he provided for unguided evolution was via guided evolution - what humans could do by deliberately breeding living organisms over relatively short periods of time. Is String Theory "developed enough" to be a scientific theory? The Multiverse theory? It seems to me that the scientific establishment has a bit of a double-standard when it comes to theories that support design.William J Murray
March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
I'm interested in the human dimension of intelligent design. :)Mung
March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
Genomicus @215:
Intelligent design is not at all sufficiently developed to be considered a theory in the scientific sense of the word.
I've heard this expressed, but it seems to depend a lot on what we mean by a scientific theory. ID has been very well described and outlined in a fair amount of detail by the leading ID proponents (e.g., Dembski, Behe, Meyer). As a tool to understand historical artifacts and to draw an inference of design, it is quite clearly laid out. And in that sense, is very valuable in its own right and is every bit as much a scientific theory as many others. Now, if we want to consider where ID could go in terms of additional research, or in terms of producing bench results, or in terms of answering additional questions, that is also a legitimate exercise. And I agree that there is much fruitful work that can still be done. However, some of the questions arising from the initial design inference and leading to additional research are being pursued. Behe has focused recently on understanding the boundary "edge" of what requires intelligent design and what can be produced by purely natural and material causes. This is an excellent contribution to our scientific knowledge and is a question that was only really asked due to ID (evolutionists are typically blind to even asking the question because, under their paradigm, everything happens by blind undirected processes). Meyer has focused on the origin of information in biology, whether specific information in DNA or large-scale information infusion, such as the Cambrian explosion. Wells has used principles of ID to pursue cancer research. Axe and others are also pursuing research. Our very own UB has proposed focusing on the semiotic aspects of the DNA content and retrieval/translation processes. You have put forth some ideas for research, and also mentioned Mike Gene. All of these things arise from a design-centric paradigm. So, yes, modern intelligent design work is quite young and there is much exciting work left to be done. Carrying out research in what is essentially a hostile academic and publishing market is challenging, but is being actively pursued. So I would argue that intelligent design is a scientific theory every bit as much as many other scientific theories, both in terms of the limited initial design inference, as well as the research it is inspiring. Is there more to be done? Absolutely. And it is an exciting time for young, budding researchers who are courageous enough to put up with peer persecution in order to pursue some of the most exciting and interesting questions in science.Eric Anderson
March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
First someone has to come up with some sort of alternative to look at. ID needs a theory or even just a hypothesis. Otherwise were can you take me on a journey? Into the imagination?
Intelligent design is not at all sufficiently developed to be considered a theory in the scientific sense of the word. Nevertheless, testable ID hypotheses have been discussed. I raised this point in a previous response:
Alan Fox:
What you should realise is that I am curious to establish if anyone can honestly lay out a positive theory of “Intelligent Design” but the daily fodder is almost invariably something about the inadequacies of Darwinism.
Here: http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=16487 In that brief essay, I provide a cursory overview of an ID hypothesis of the design of molecular machines. Mike Gene has also written quite a bit on the ID hypothesis of front-loading, a positive ID hypothesis. Yes, the “daily fodder” often does consist of attacking Darwinian evolution. But there are some independent ID thinkers out there who are far more interested in developing ID into a rigorous hypothesis than in critiquing Darwinian evolution.
Having said that, I would strongly encourage other ID proponents to devote much more time to developing rigorous ID hypotheses than simply attacking Darwinian evolution. Sure, it's fine to critique the inadequacies of a theory, but we're ID proponents, and that means the bulk of our focus should be on ID, not Darwinian evolution.Genomicus
March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
AF, you are asserting a want of hypothesis and theories on the part of design, and yet when the inductive principle of inference to design on observable sign is presented, you find excuses not to address it on the merits that do not hold up on simple comparison to another thread going on at the same time. Why are you acting like that? KFkairosfocus
March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT
F/N: It is now evident that the assertion by AF above, of finding comments in red unreadable above is a rhetorically convenient statement for purposes of not answering to serious issues and concerns. How do I know this? Simultaneously with the above, AF is engaging Mr Arrington in the Ya can't . . . thread here, and he cites from a red comment at 15 and then another at 18, and in so doing says:
20 Alan FoxMarch 4, 2013 at 3:39 pm Barry: [BA, from 15 in the thread] Of course I accept that Alan. I don’t know anyone on either side of the Darwinism debate that disputes that. Hmm. I realise you are a busy man but you have BA77 here posting unadulterated Creationism! And what about Joe? OK nobody takes Joe seriously but still… 21 Alan FoxMarch 4, 2013 at 3:41 pm [BA, from 18 in the thread} Alan, you are precious to us. Thank you so much for posting. Barry, we are going to have to start talking rates.
That is, the matter -- sadly -- is one of remarks to hoped for rhetorical advantage, not any clear and consistent problem. We may thus translate the above freely: AF has no cogent reply and intends to ignore correction. Let us bear this in mind, in assessing what he has made of the claimed eight years of observing the controversy over Intelligent Design and the design inference on inductive, tested, reliable sign. AF, please, do better next time. KFkairosfocus
March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT
Evolutionary theory maybe wrong, incomplete or incoherent, but it does exist as a positive theory that can be tested by observation and experiment.
No, it doesn't. And no theory that is "incoherent" (your word) can be "a positive theory that can be tested by observation and experiment." That's just absurd. Modern Evolutionary "Theory" is actually a smorgasbord of competing and at times conflicting hypotheses. It's "explanations" are a shell game. The Biotic MessageMung
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Perhaps I was being too subtle in alluding to the casually insulting way people here generally refer to people with whom they disagree.
No Alan. It isn't that people just disagree. It is the way they go about it. It is the way YOU go about it. You say you have been into this for 8 years and yet it is obvious that you don't know the first thing about Intelligent Design- beyond how to spell it. For example:
First someone has to come up with some sort of alternative to look at.
Alternative to what? What do YOU have that we can look at Alan?
ID needs a theory or even just a hypothesis.
And what is your theory or even a hypothesis? Ya see Alan, until you ante up we won't know what it is that you will accept. And that means no amount of evidence will ever be good enough because you can just keep moving the goalposts. Look Alan, it is clear that for people like you the only evidence taht you will accept is a meeting with the designer(s) so you can have a demonstration. IOW you don't give a [snip -- language] about science, and it shows.Joe
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
AF: Not that I am aware of. Of course, I stand to be corrected. (Perhaps someone may do me the favour of either correcting me or reposting for me, so AF can find a colour he is willing to read.) KFkairosfocus
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
KF I think you have addressed some remarks to me but I find the red colour makes them almost impossible to read. There is an option to change this on your dashboard, I think.Alan Fox
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
I am very comfortable with the answer “we don’t yet know” and much prefer that to “we know the answer but you are not intelligent enough to grasp it”.
It has little to do with raw intelligence and more to do with a willingness to be open to the evidence, without an a priori commitment to a materialist explanation.
Perhaps I was being too subtle in alluding to the casually insulting way people here generally refer to people with whom they disagree.
I am glad to see that you are willing to acknowledge that you don’t know yet. That is the first step. The next step is to acknowledge that design is a rationally possible explanation. Then the next step is to objectively analyze both possible explanations. Once you get to that point you will have a much better grasp of the issues and will be taken more seriously by those who have already traversed this intellectual path. It is not a question of intelligence. You just need to be willing to take the journey.
First someone has to come up with some sort of alternative to look at. ID needs a theory or even just a hypothesis. Otherwise were can you take me on a journey? Into the imagination?Alan Fox
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Evolutionary theory maybe wrong, incomplete or incoherent, but it does exist as a positive theory that can be tested by observation and experiment.
Then it is strange that you cannot provide a reference to said theory nor tell us how it can be positively tested. Come on Alan, provide a reference to this alleged theory of evolution or admit that you have no idea- ie you just do not know if one exists but you are sure it does- wink, wink Alan is a perfect example of why it is pointless in responding to anti-IDists.Joe
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Alan Fox @201:
I am very comfortable with the answer “we don’t yet know” and much prefer that to “we know the answer but you are not intelligent enough to grasp it”.
It has little to do with raw intelligence and more to do with a willingness to be open to the evidence, without an a priori commitment to a materialist explanation. I am glad to see that you are willing to acknowledge that you don't know yet. That is the first step. The next step is to acknowledge that design is a rationally possible explanation. Then the next step is to objectively analyze both possible explanations. Once you get to that point you will have a much better grasp of the issues and will be taken more seriously by those who have already traversed this intellectual path. It is not a question of intelligence. You just need to be willing to take the journey.Eric Anderson
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
AF: It has long since been adequately shown that Judge Jones -- a lawyer not a scientist or philosopher of science -- was out of his depth, sided with manipulative advocates who willfully misled him to copy blunders and gave a ruling under false colours of law (remember you are here speaking to one whose ancestors were victims of major abuses of the power of law) that is an embarrassment to the judiciary, much less having any credibility as a matter of science and phil of science. As a measure of just how out of depth he was, he evidently watched Inherit The Wind in the run-up to dealing with the case, to give him what he considered an appropriate perspective. ITW is utterly unhistorical, is manipulative and is outright strawmannish in its caricature of Bryan, the issues at stake and what resulted in 1925 - 6 But, it appears from where I am sitting, that the narrative on Jones fits your agenda, so you are willing to be irresponsible again. Sad. Sorry, you are sinking faster and faster in any reasonable estimation at this point. Please, think again. Think about the implications of functionally specifc, but highly contingent complex nodes and arcs patterns, whether textual or system wiring diagram or exploded view and assembled view, etc. And, take the time to actually address the known cause-effect patterns that were already described. To refuse to acknowledge what is well warranted because it does not fit an ideology uncomfortable with the possibility of design and with inductively strong evidence of same in the deep past, is to fail at the bar of intellectual duties. Please, think again. KFkairosfocus
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
"(Darwinism is) a positive theory that can be tested by observation and experiment." and it is found wanting: “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/bornagain77
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Alan Fox you state: "still touted as a scientific rather than religious view" Please tell me exactly how naturalism can ground the practice of science, then perhaps the hypocrisy of your statement would not be so obvious! "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin - Letter To William Graham - July 3, 1881 “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”. J. B. S. Haldane ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Evolutionists Are Now Saying Their Thinking is Flawed (But Evolution is Still a Fact) - Cornelius Hunter - May 2012 Excerpt: But the point here is that these “researchers” are making an assertion (human reasoning evolved and is flawed) which undermines their very argument. If human reasoning evolved and is flawed, then how can we know that evolution is a fact, much less any particular details of said evolutionary process that they think they understand via their “research”? http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/evolutionists-are-now-saying-their.htmlbornagain77
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
First there isn’t any “evolutionary theory”.
This is an example of why it is pointless responding to some commenters here. Evolutionary theory maybe wrong, incomplete or incoherent, but it does exist as a positive theory that can be tested by observation and experiment.Alan Fox
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Sorry messed up quote tags in previous comment. Here it is again! Eric Anderson
I have provided you with some absolutely critical keys to understanding the evolution/ID debate (although I am certainly not the first nor the only one to articulate these points). To summarize, these keys are: - Observations of homology or similarity in other systems do not constitute an explanation of the system in question. - Many pro-evolution and anti-design arguments are based on assumptions about what an alleged designer would or would not do. - Many other “explanations” are not explanations, but essentially amount to an unsupported reassertion of the theory that unknown changes happening in an unknown way in an unknown sequence over time can result in the system.
The anti-Designer argument that I see is often one of ridicule because ID is even now, post-Dover, still touted as a scientific rather than religious view. Seeing the mask come of more regularly here is encouraging.
I don’t expect you to necessarily appreciate these points at this time because it requires a bit of a paradigm shift to see. But I remain hopeful that at some future point when you are hearing or reading an evolutionary argument or explanation something will click and you will realize that what you are hearing is as I have described. That will be the beginning of an exciting journey of discovery.
I am very comfortable with the answer “we don’t yet know” and much prefer that to “we know the answer but you are not intelligent enough to grasp it”. Prepare for me to be astonished when ID brings something positive or additional to the scientific table.Alan Fox
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
Eric Anderson I have provided you with some absolutely critical keys to understanding the evolution/ID debate (although I am certainly not the first nor the only one to articulate these points). To summarize, these keys are: - Observations of homology or similarity in other systems do not constitute an explanation of the system in question. - Many pro-evolution and anti-design arguments are based on assumptions about what an alleged designer would or would not do. - Many other “explanations” are not explanations, but essentially amount to an unsupported reassertion of the theory that unknown changes happening in an unknown way in an unknown sequence over time can result in the system. The anti-Designer argument that I see is often one of ridicule because it is even now, post-Dover, still touted as a scientific rather than religious view. Seeing the mask come of more regularly here is encouraging.
I don’t expect you to necessarily appreciate these points at this time because it requires a bit of a paradigm shift to see. But I remain hopeful that at some future point when you are hearing or reading an evolutionary argument or explanation something will click and you will realize that what you are hearing is as I have described. That will be the beginning of an exciting journey of discovery.
I am very comfortable with the answer "we don't yet know" and much prefer that to "we know the answer but you are not intelligent enough to grasp it". Prepare for me to be astonished when ID brings something positive or additional to the scientific table.Alan Fox
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
Let’s be more specific, where evolutionary theory is currently unable to give an adequate explanation for some observed phenomenon, we must not say “we don’t know the explanation for this phenomenon and are therefore able to default to “action by an intelligent agent”.
Wrong again, as usual. First there isn't any "evolutionary theory". Second you still do not understand the word "default". And third the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships- unlike your position.
I have to stick with “we don’t yet know” because “an intelligent agent” adds precisely nothing to our knowledge and gives no insight or handle on further investigation.
Only someone completely ignorant of investigations would say something like that. Saying Stonehenge was designed added quite a bit- for starters it told us how to direct the investigation. Yes, Alan, investigations change depending on the cause of then effect being investigated.
Research, observation, experiment and hypothesizing have worked very well in elucidating many phenomena.
There aren't any experiments nor hypothses that support evolutionism. The rest is all blah, blah, blah, typical Alan Fox nonsense. Come on Alan- show us all how evolutionsim does it. Give us something that we can compare. Or just admit that you are just an ignorant jerk on an anti-ID agenda.Joe
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
True enough - it's still easier to take someone's word for it, though, especially as these guys wrote long books.Jon Garvey
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
These days, anyone can have the Ante Nicene Fathers, Aquinas etc. Electronically. KFkairosfocus
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT
KF Enlisting orthodox theologians of the past to add clout to modern ideas is a bit of a cottage industry nowadays. It's the exception when their views are properly represented, but it does sound convincing when you say "Irenaeus agrees with me - it was just the Western-Church/Popes/Calvinists/ who messed everything up," provided no-one has a copy of Irenaeus's writings. I have.Jon Garvey
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
Box: Engineering, by definition is the skilled and knowledgeable use of the materials and forces of nature, intelligently and economically for the advantage of man. The only "miracle" involved is that of the mind, and you may see here for a discussion of that, and here at an exploration at UD on how mind and math are embedded in nature. KFkairosfocus
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT
@Eric Anderson (186)
Box (184): Since something other than a natural process – agent – is a cause, there is a breach of physical causal closure, right? How can this be done without violating natural law?
Eric Anderson (186): How can it be done with violating a natural law? Humans are intelligent agents. They can design and build things that don’t come about through purely natural processes. What natural laws were violated during the building of, for example, the Space Shuttle?
What happens when an agent lifts a finger? Lifting a finger is partly a chain of physical events, but what happens at the start of these physical events when the agent imposes his decision on physical processes? What happens when we design and build a space shuttle? Must we not override natural processes?
Eric Anderson (183):Intelligent agents can and do cause things to occur that would not occur by purely natural processes.
If natural processes were not on their way to make a space shuttle. How do we force them to comply without violating them?Box
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
JG: It looks like intentional or inadvertent strawman games are ever so common on these issues, as I just pointed out. Sad. KFkairosfocus
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
AF: Why do you insist on saying things like:
189: we must not say “we don’t know the explanation for this phenomenon and are therefore able to default to “action by an intelligent agent”. I have to stick with “we don’t yet know” because “an intelligent agent” adds precisely nothing to our knowledge and gives no insight or handle on further investigation.
At this stage -- after years, that is the willful building and knocking over of a strawman, in disregard for duties of care to easily accessible truth, hoping to profit rhetorically by the distortion being perceived as truth. Kindly, stop it. Now. Here's why: 1 --> Your very post above is proof by example that intelligent agents exist and design and implement objects that manifest observable and quantifiable characteristics that distinguish them from products of blind mechanical necessity and/or chance. 2 --> Namely, functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information, FSCO/I. Just the clip above shows 306 ASCII characters in contextualied, English text, at 7 bits per character (ignoring the usual parity check bit). 3 --> The configuration space for that many characters is 6.41 * 10^644. The blind chance + necessity capacity of the 10^80 atoms of the observable universe could not sample as much as 1 in 10^490 of that space, rendering specific, special zones functional like the above utterly inaccessible for practical purposes, to the whole universe acting as a blind search device. 4 --> As a designing intelligence, you probably tossed that off in minutes as an implemented design. 5 --> So, you see a direct example of how FSCO/I works as an inductively strong sign of design as cause, and with such reliable signs, we have every epistemic right to trust the sign to speak truly even if we did not observe or could not observe the actual cause in action. 6 --> By contrast, I am confident that you cannot show us a case of a similar effect, FSCO/I without intelligence and design involved in the causal chain as material factor. 7 --> Moreover, you know or should know, that the per aspect design inference filter works just the opposite to inferring design as a default. There are indeed two defaults, if mechanical necessity can account for an event that is a preferred explanation, and if chance can work without the sort of ridiculous appeal that would be required above with the sample of text, that too is preferred. 8 --> Nor is "unknown cause" an acceptable fourth node in the explanatory filter. We here have a sign, with a KNOWN, abundantly and reliably observed cause. 9 --> What you really mean here is that on ideological a priori grounds, you are unwilling to consider the possibility of a designer being present in relevant cases that put your preferred worldview under challenge. And in defence of that, you are evidently perfectly willing to indulge in the sort of willful, truth disregarding distortions I have just corrected. ____________ Surely, you can do better than this. Kindly do so, now. KFkairosfocus
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
Mr. Fox, you make an erroneous claim here:
“An intelligent agent” in general, OK. Let’s be more specific, where evolutionary theory is currently unable to give an adequate explanation for some observed phenomenon, we must not say “we don’t know the explanation for this phenomenon and are therefore able to default to “action by an intelligent agent”. I have to stick with “we don’t yet know” because “an intelligent agent” adds precisely nothing to our knowledge and gives no insight or handle on further investigation.
The fact of the matter is that science cannot be rationally practiced without theistic presuppositions: notes:
Kurt Gödel - Incompleteness Theorem - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8462821 Taking God Out of the Equation - Biblical Worldview - by Ron Tagliapietra - January 1, 2012 Excerpt: The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem. Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation# Gödel’s theorem says: “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.” *The Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness. *Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (This extends Godel's incompleteness theorem to elementary particles of the universe and is born out in quantum computation) *Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete.
i.e. Any material particle you can draw a circle around cannot explain its own continued existence within space-time. Moreover, this incompleteness principle for material particles has now been born out on the empirical level: ,,,Quantum Mechanics has now been extended by Anton Zeilinger, and team, to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it:
‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011 Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm
i.e. Material particles cannot explain their own continued existence within space-time without referring to a 'non-local', beyond space and time, cause to explain their continued existence within space-time. Of note, Theists have always maintained that God, who is beyond space and time, sustains and upholds this universe in its continued existence, whereas materialists, ever since the Greeks, held that the 'atom' was the foundation of reality i.e. that the material particle was 'self-sustaining'.
Revelation 4:10-11 They lay their crowns before the throne and say: "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."
Further empirical confirmation of Godel's incompleteness theorem as it applies to the universe is found here:
“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” - Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston (paper delivered at Hawking's 70th birthday party) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/ "Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past." (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970 http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html
As well, Godel's incompleteness theorem, since it does indeed apply to ANY material system in the universe, and the material universe itself, is excellent logical proof for Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument, as well I hold it as excellent logical proof for Aquinas's First, Second, and Third way of his 'the five ways': Of course, Mr. Fox, you could opt for the insanity inherent within Boltzmann's Brain and Plantinga's "Evolutionary argument against naturalism" to try to preserve your atheistic belief that 'randomness' created and sustains everything, but then you yourself have undermined any claim that you have as to being rational in these discussions, and thus why should we ever consider anything you have to say as to be anything other than the ramblings of a madman??,,, As to your claim that Theism gives no insight to further investigation, perhaps you should read up on Jaki??
The Origin of Science Jaki writes: Modern experimental science was rendered possible, Jaki has shown, as a result of the Christian philosophical atmosphere of the Middle Ages. Although a talent for science was certainly present in the ancient world (for example in the design and construction of the Egyptian pyramids), nevertheless the philosophical and psychological climate was hostile to a self-sustaining scientific process. Thus science suffered still-births in the cultures of ancient China, India, Egypt and Babylonia. It also failed to come to fruition among the Maya, Incas and Aztecs of the Americas. Even though ancient Greece came closer to achieving a continuous scientific enterprise than any other ancient culture, science was not born there either. Science did not come to birth among the medieval Muslim heirs to Aristotle. …. The psychological climate of such ancient cultures, with their belief that the universe was infinite and time an endless repetition of historical cycles, was often either hopelessness or complacency (hardly what is needed to spur and sustain scientific progress); and in either case there was a failure to arrive at a belief in the existence of God the Creator and of creation itself as therefore rational and intelligible. Thus their inability to produce a self-sustaining scientific enterprise. If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation. These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html
Music: Johnny Cash and Rosanne Cash - September When It Comes - song about life and mortality http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2WilM6ljUgbornagain77
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
1 2 3 8

Leave a Reply