Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Fred Reed on Wade’s Troublesome (Darwinian racism) Inheritance

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

An opinion to respect here:

How did we get where we are? Through natural selection, says Wade. It is indisputable that selection can alter a species or subspecies. The unnatural selection which we call selective breeding produces animals of different sizes, shapes, and temperaments. Why would we think that human animals are different? If flu regularly killed those susceptible to it, presumably those genetically resistant would come to predominate. This is both reasonable and observable.

However, the thoughtful may be uneasy with some of this. Boilerplate evolutionary theory holds that when a beneficial mutation accidentally arises, its possessor has an advantage in the struggle for survival, has more children, and thus passes on the new trait. This makes sense, at least if the mutation does something really desirable.

But …

Wade points out that certain Asians, due to a mutation, have hair with thicker hair shafts. One is hard pressed to see how slightly coarser hair would promote survival so efficaciously as to result in having more children. It is not clear why it would be an advantage at all. In the absence of reason or evidence, various solutions may be adduced: thick hair cushioned the blows of clubs, or girls thought it was sexy and said yes, or … something. It smacks of desperation. More.

The problem is, no one knows exactly what we mean by “intelligence.” Until there is a scientific theory of intelligence (it will not be Darwinian, for sure), we actually do not really know what we are talking about.

For one thing, whatever survives, survives. It is easy to make up explanations after the fact.

Only predictions count. And predictions are only of value for what they can predict for behaviour, not for outcome. Some people might be more likely to fight injustice than others, but does that mean they will succeed? Or be smitten from the face of the Earth, their names lost to memory?

Then were they more fit, or less? Is that even the right way to look at it?

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (human evolution) — when you look at how little they have to go on, you can see why it ended up being about popular buzz like “race.”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Hi StephenB, You keep making the same mistake. In your view, ID looks at the evidence and arrives at the conclusion that life could not have originated by law, and it could not have originated by chance, and so it is best explained by intelligence, which is neither law nor chance. Then you think I mistakenly claim that ID assumes, at the outset, that intelligence transcends law + chance. You keep trying to tell me that this is not the case; that rather than an a priori commitment to contra-causality, ID actually comes to that conclusion simply by looking at the evidence. But that isn't what I'm saying. You keep ignoring, missing, or misunderstanding what I'm saying, so I'll be as clear as I can possibly be. Just as you say, ID does not assume at the outset that any particular phenomenon - flagella, DNA, physical constants, etc - is the result of neither law nor chance. But what ID does assume at the outset is that it is possible, somehow, to demonstrate that something can not be explained by law + chance. And when ID does actually conclude that something cannot be explained by law + chance, then ID is saying that it has shown, by following the evidence, that contra-causality exists and best explains the phenomenon in question. In other words, in your view, ID is providing empirical evidence that settles the millenia-old philsophical debate regarding contra-causal free will. You think that ID infers that contra-causality exists by looking at evidence. Here is your reasoning: How did life come to exist? There are only two options: law+chance or contra-causality. You can't explain how life came to exist by law+chance... therefore it must be contra-causality. Apparently this is still difficult for you to understand, but it is exactly the problem you ignored regarding the magic trick. Your reasoning is exactly the same as one who says this: How did the magician make the elephant disappear? There are only two options: natural law or magic. You can't explain how he did it with natural law... therefore it must be magic! Get it? Yes, really, your reasoning is precisely that ridiculous.
The varying definitions are contextual and relative to the paradigm being used, as has been explained to you many times.
But some of the definitions contradict each other, and others obviously render ID to be untestable. Just look at vjtorley's definition - that intelligence is something that can explain its choices. How is it that ID claims to show the Designer explains His choices?
RDF: Intelligence means nothing until you provide a definition. SB: It is your position that ID assumes, as a metaphysical conjecture, the fact that intelligence exists in the form of contra-causality.
No, my position is that ID assumes the metaphysical conjecture that it is ever possible to rule out law + chance.
Now you say that you don’t even know what intelligence as contra causality means.
This is a lie, I've never said that of course. I've said a hundred times that if you wish to use "contra-causality" as the definition of "intelligence", that's perfectly meaningful... but it undermines ID as science. I've also said 100 times that "intelligence" is meaningless unless a specific definition is provided.
You assume that intelligent agency cannot be a true cause set apart from law/chance and should not, therefore, be posited at all.
Of course I don't assume that contra-causality cannot exist. What I'm pointing out is that it is impossible to demonstrate that it does. Maybe contra-causality exists, but just because we can't explain OOL etc. that doesn't mean that contra-causality is responsible. Maybe magic really exists. But just because we can't explain the trick doesn't mean it really is magic. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT
StephenB
CLAVDIVS: ID argues that biological complexity is beyond law/chance. How do you get from “beyond law/chance” to “intelligent design” i.e. something that has IQ, can make choices, is conscious or whatever. It seems to me the only way to conclude that a cause that is “beyond law/chance” is in fact intelligence is to assume that intelligence itself is beyond law/chance. Is that not correct? STEPHENB: There is a difference between [a] defining intelligence as something the exists beyond law/chance in order to test that proposition against the evidence (ID’s approach) and [b] assuming as fact that such intelligence exist even before the evidence speaks, (RDF’s false characterization of ID’s approach).
But if you define intelligence as "beyond law/chance" then the ID argument would become a tautology: Biological complexity is not caused by law/chance, therefore it is caused by something beyond law/chance. Obviously this is not what is meant. To put it another way, the ID argument that I'm not following seems to be: 1. Biological complexity is caused by something with the property "beyond law/chance" 2. Intelligence (IQ, consciousness, ability to choose etc.) is something with the property "beyond law/chance" 3. Therefore biological complexity is caused by intelligence. There are two problems here in my understanding: - The 2nd premise - intelligence has the property "beyond law/chance - is just assumed - The conclusion doesn't follow ... there may be many things with the property "beyond law/chance" besides intelligence What am I missing? ThanksCLAVDIVS
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT
CLAVDIV:
It seems to me the only way to conclude that a cause that is “beyond law/chance” is in fact intelligence is to assume that intelligence itself is beyond law/chance. Is that not correct?
There is a difference between [a] defining intelligence as something the exists beyond law/chance in order to test that proposition against the evidence (ID's approach) and [b] assuming as fact that such intelligence exist even before the evidence speaks, (RDF's false characterization of ID's approach).StephenB
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
StephenB
You are confused. ID is positing something other than law/chance. (PLease include that word in your working vocabulary). Even in its conclusion, ID doesn’t declare that intelligence exists apart from law/chance, it reasons that this is the best explanation among the candidates.
Well I sure am confused. ID argues that biological complexity is beyond law/chance. How do you get from "beyond law/chance" to "intelligent design" i.e. something that has IQ, can make choices, is conscious or whatever. It seems to me the only way to conclude that a cause that is "beyond law/chance" is in fact intelligence is to assume that intelligence itself is beyond law/chance. Is that not correct?CLAVDIVS
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
RDFish
When ID concludes that something other than law + chance must be responsible for life, it is assuming that there is something other than law + chance (rather than some other law + chance explanation that we do not yet understand).
No it isn't. You are confused. ID is positing something other than law/chance. (PLease include that word in your working vocabulary). Even in its conclusion, ID doesn't declare that intelligence exists apart from law/chance, it reasons that this is the best explanation among the candidates.
That is a metaphysical conjecture rather than a scientific conclusion.
Your confusion persists for the reasons stated. SB: Similarly, RDFish says that he doesn’t know what intelligence means in that context except to say that he does know what it means when he accuses ID of assuming it without evidence.
This is pathetic.
It is an accurate account of your position.
Intelligence means nothing until you provide a definition.
It is your position that ID assumes, as a metaphysical conjecture, the fact that intelligence exists in the form of contra-causality. Now you say that you don't even know what intelligence as contra causality means. You are a marvel, and I don't mean that as a compliment.
Here are some of the definitions that have been tried:
The varying definitions are contextual and relative to the paradigm being used, as has been explained to you many times. SB; The process of eliminating competing explanations is not presumed to be final. In the first step, for example, it is a simply matter of saying, “I can’t find any evidence of law-like regularity, so let’s move on.
You’ve already introduced your metaphysics. If you weren’t committed to your libertarianism, you would have instead said “I can’t find any evidence for any explanation. Let’s keep looking.”
No, not if three possible causes have been put on the table to be investigated. The only person assuming something here is you. You assume that intelligent agency cannot be a true cause set apart from law/chance and should not, therefore, be posited at all. Indeed, the intensity of your partisanship is so great that you misrepresent the process and characterize the act of positing as the act presuming something to be true.
HA! You can’t explain what you (or anyone else) means, so you simply declare that it is “readily understood”! That’s a good one!
Intelligence in that context is readily understood by you and everyone else as contra causality, which you declare has been presupposed from the very start, even as you claim that you don't know what it means. RDFish
(Did you notice that vjtorley disagrees with you regarding contra-causlity? And that Dembski disagrees with himself?)
I notice that, as usual, you are misrepresenting what someone said in order to make your pitiful case seem cogent. I hope VJTorley returns to explain to you that he believes that intelligence is a cause set apart from law/chance. Good grief. Will you ever stop trying to deceive your poor readers.StephenB
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
your = you'reVishnu
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
RDFish What does it matter. You'll find out when your dead one way or another.Vishnu
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
Oh, I forgot my favorite definition of "intelligence" of the day, from vjtorley:
Intelligence is the ability to select appropriate means for attaining particular goals, and to give reasons for your selection.
I LOVE that one! Where is the evidence that the Designer of Life is able to give reasons for His selections? I'd love to hear why He made so many different kinds of beetles! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
Hi StephenB,
RDFish says that ID “assumes,” without evidence, the truth of contra causality while, at the same time, not knowing what it means with its assumption.
When ID concludes that something other than law + chance must be responsible for life, it is assuming that there is something other than law + chance (rather than some other law + chance explanation that we do not yet understand). That is a metaphysical conjecture rather than a scientific conclusion.
Similarly, RDFish says that he doesn’t know what intelligence means in that context except to say that he does know what it means when he accuses ID of assuming it without evidence.
This is pathetic. Intelligence means nothing until you provide a definition. You and others in this thread have now provided a number of different definitions. Too bad that each and every one of them fails to enable you to prove the conclusion you seek. Here are some of the definitions that have been tried: Conscious thought That which can choose among options The activity of human brains That which produces CSI Contra-causality Something that can learn (acquire new knowledge) IQ Again, not one of these holds up as a viable definition for an explanation that can be empirically supported as the cause of living things, etc.
The process of eliminating competing explanations is not presumed to be final. In the first step, for example, it is a simply matter of saying, “I can’t find any evidence of law-like regularity, so let’s move on.
You've already introduced your metaphysics. If you weren't committed to your libertarianism, you would have instead said "I can't find any evidence for any explanation. Let's keep looking."
The existence of an intelligent agent (or intelligent agency in general) is not assumed, but its meaning is readily understood.
HA! You can't explain what you (or anyone else) means, so you simply declare that it is "readily understood"! That's a good one! It's clear from all the comical dancing and hand-waving here that the meaning is constantly misunderstood, or rather that no clear meaning is really ever given at all. (Did you notice that vjtorley disagrees with you regarding contra-causlity? And that Dembski disagrees with himself?) Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
RDF
I understand this dodge – you’ve tried it many times now. If ID never actually concludes that something is explained by something apart from law + chance, then they have not actually based any conclusion on metaphysical speculation. Right.
Wrong. You don't understand and it is not a dodge. ID does conclude something. When ID makes an inference (conclusion) to the best explanation, it does just that. Among the three explanations posited, (none of which are assumed to be true) it finds the third explanation the most plausible. The process of eliminating competing explanations is not presumed to be final. In the first step, for example, it is a simply matter of saying, "I can't find any evidence of law-like regularity, so let's move on. Perhaps I am missing something, and I am taking that possibility into account." The existence of an intelligent agent (or intelligent agency in general) is not assumed, but its meaning is readily understood.StephenB
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
RDFish
One would think that somebody who believes in ID would be able to say what that single term means. Sadly, if you ask five people what that term is supposed to mean, you will get seven contradictory answers. What a mess!
This is really very funny. RDFish says that ID "assumes," without evidence, the truth of contra causality while, at the same time, not knowing what it means with its assumption. Similarly, RDFish says that he doesn't know what intelligence means in that context except to say that he does know what it means when he accuses ID of assuming it without evidence. Now that's what I call a real mess.StephenB
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
Hi StephenB, I understand this dodge - you've tried it many times now. If ID never actually concludes that something is explained by something apart from law + chance, then they have not actually based any conclusion on metaphysical speculation. Right. However, ID actually does make those conclusions, so your dodge fails: ID concludes that flagella, the physical constants, and lots of other things are due to something besides law + chance, even though there really is no way to know this. It is pure metaphysical speculation to say that just because we have no current explanation for something, it must be contra-causality. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
I am going to explain this issue in a way that even RDFish can understand it Let’s take it from the top [a] There are three known ways of explaining how an object came to be: Law, Chance, and Agency. (To know an explanation is not to assume that the explanation is true. RDFish does not understand this, presumably because he doesn’t want to) ([b] ID posits these three explanations. To posit something is not to assume that it is true. [c] The scientist then determines which of the three seems most plausible based on the evidence. It’s as simple as that. There is no assumption about the truth of “contra causality.”StephenB
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
Hi vjtorley! Thanks for your input!
How do you get from the premise: 1. ID proposes that design is independent of law+chance to the conclusion: 2. ID assumes contra-causality? To say that some events are independent of law and chance implies nothing about contra-causality. To say that some events are independent of law and chance implies nothing about the truth of falsity of determinism, either.
First, because most (but of course not all) of the ID folks I talk to (including StephenB here) define it that way. Dembski too has admitted that his view that "intelligence" means "the ability to choose between options" does in fact refer to libertarian free will, and also admits that his construal of ID requries an expanded ontology (dualism of some sort). When Dembski talks about "choice", he is not speaking of determined actions, such as a river choosing a path to the sea (which he would not consider intelligent). Second, simply by definition, if X is offered as an explanation of Y, and X is said to operate outside of physical law, then X is in fact acting contra-causally. If you have some issue with the term "contra-causal", we can instead refer directly to "actions that are neither random nor determined". The claim that any event is neither random nor determined is a metaphysical speculation, not amenable to scientific test.
By the way, since you’re asking for definitions, perhaps you can give me an operational definition of a cause? And while you’re about it, how about a definition of determinism, too?
If you really don't understand what these terms mean in this context, I will educate you. But it seems to me that this is simply a dodge. The term "intelligence" is notoriously difficult to define, as anyone who has any knowledge of philosophy of mind or cogntive science knows very well. The discussion here was in fact started by Denyse O'Leary, who said in the OP:
Denyse: The problem is, no one knows exactly what we mean by “intelligence.” Until there is a scientific theory of intelligence (it will not be Darwinian, for sure), we actually do not really know what we are talking about.
So you can play the hyper-skepticism card if you really want to (what is the definition of "is", as poor Mr. Clinton asked), but it will just make it apparent that you (like President Clinton) have no counter-argument.
RDF: And since there are no operationalized definitions provided for “mind” or “intelligence” by ID, we can all see that ID is not a scientific theory. VJT: How about this? Intelligence is the ability to select appropriate means for attaining particular goals, and to give reasons for your selection.
Is that your final answer? That's great, I love it! Now all you need to do is to demonstrate that the Designer of Life is capable of giving reasons for His selections! If you can't (hint: you can't) then obviously there are no evidential grounds for claiming that biological CSI is explained by something intelligent.
I think you need to get your facts straight.
I think you need to get both your facts and your definitions straight. Forget about whether Dembski wants to use his EF or not... what he said was this:
It [the EF] suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not.
StephenB had been arguing exactly the opposite, as this very thread shows in detail. And you seem to be diametrically opposed to StephenB on this issue as well. Intelligent Design Theory offers one single explanatory construct to explain everything from flagella to the relative size of the sun and the moon to the values of the physical constants to the creation of the universe. That sole concept is "intelligence". One would think that somebody who believes in ID would be able to say what that single term means. Sadly, if you ask five people what that term is supposed to mean, you will get seven contradictory answers. What a mess! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Hi Timmy!
could you bold the section that explains how human brains can produce csi, if not then how is your definition absolute, thanks
You asked for a definition of a human brain, which I supplied. There is no ambiguity about what a human brain is. I've already explained to you that nobody knows how human brains work (I trust you now believe me).
RDF: Now you’ve made ID into a completely vacuous tautology. TIMMY: except for the fact that humans produce csi
Yes, humans produce CSI, but humans did not design life on Earth. Read this carefully: Once you define "intelligence" as "that which produces CSI", ID becomes a vacuous tautology: ID claims that the best explanation for the origin of complex specified information in biological systems is “the ability to produce complex specified information”. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
RDFish, You claim that Dembski dispensed with the explanatory filter. Please see the following: https://uncommondescent.com/faq/#wddspef and scroll down to #30. What did Dembski subsequently say about his remark?
In an off-hand comment in a thread on this blog I remarked that I was dispensing with the Explanatory Filter in favor of just going with straight-up specified complexity. On further reflection, I think the Explanatory Filter ranks among the most brilliant inventions of all time (right up there with sliced bread). I’m herewith reinstating it — it will appear, without reservation or hesitation, in all my future work on design detection. [….] I came up with the EF on observing example after example in which people were trying to sift among necessity, chance, and design to come up with the right explanation. The EF is what philosophers of science call a “rational reconstruction” — it takes pre-theoretic ordinary reasoning and attempts to give it logical precision. But what gets you to the design node in the EF is SC (specified complexity). So working with the EF or SC end up being interchangeable. In THE DESIGN OF LIFE (published 2007), I simply go with SC. In UNDERSTANDING INTELLIGENT DESIGN (published 2008), I go back to the EF. I was thinking of just sticking with SC in the future, but with critics crowing about the demise of the EF, I’ll make sure it stays in circulation.
Please also see here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/reinstating-the-explanatory-filter/ I think you need to get your facts straight.vjtorley
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Hi RDFish, You write:
ID does propose that design is independent of law+chance, but it does nothing to provide any evidence that this is the case. Contra-causal (or libertarian) free will may exist, or it may not, but that is a question that has been debated for millenia and there is still no way to determine the answer... I think here is the point you are missing: Libertarianism posits that human thought is neither determined by antecedent physical cause nor is it random. That is why it is sometimes referred to as “contra-causal” free will. In other words, libertarianism posits that thought transcends law + chance. Anyone who describes intelligence as the complement of law + chance is thus defining intelligence as libertarian free will. Dembski's definition of intelligence is typically (but not always) that intelligence is the ability to choose among options. His explanatory filter defines intelligence as the complement of chance and law... Again, he [Dembski] has defined intelligence in terms of the core tenet of metaphysical libertarianism, contra-causality. His entire notion of teleology hinges on the assumption that some things (such as human thought) make choices that are not determined by law + chance... The remaining problem for ID is that this definition states that intelligence is contra-causal (meaning that somehow thought transcends law + chance), and that is a metaphysical conjecture for which there is no evidence. Most philosophers and scientists reject contra-causality.
I'm sorry, but you're not making sense. How do you get from the premise: 1. ID proposes that design is independent of law+chance to the conclusion: 2. ID assumes contra-causality? To say that some events are independent of law and chance implies nothing about contra-causality. To say that some events are independent of law and chance implies nothing about the truth of falsity of determinism, either. By the way, since you're asking for definitions, perhaps you can give me an operational definition of a cause? And while you're about it, how about a definition of determinism, too? You also write:
And since there are no operationalized definitions provided for “mind” or “intelligence” by ID, we can all see that ID is not a scientific theory.
How about this? Intelligence is the ability to select appropriate means for attaining particular goals, and to give reasons for your selection.vjtorley
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
Fine, we can play that game.
could you bold the section that explains how human brains can produce csi, if not then how is your definition absolute, thanks
Now you’ve made ID into a completely vacuous tautology.
except for the fact that humans produce csiTimmy
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
Hi Timmy!
what is your absolute definition of the human brain
That's your defense here? I point out that ID fails to provide a definition for "intelligence" - a notoriously ambiguous term, as Denyse pointed out in the OP of this thead - and all you've got is to start questioning the meaning of every word in the dictionary? Fine, we can play that game.
The human brain is the portion of the vertebrate central nervous system enclosed in the human skull and continuous with the spinal cord through the foramen magnum that is composed of neurons and supporting and nutritive structures (as glia) and that integrates sensory information from inside and outside the body in controlling autonomic function (as heartbeat and respiration), in coordinating and directing correlated motor responses, and in the process of learning
There are no issues identifying the human brain, there are no contradicting meanings, no issues with unseen and unobservable qualities or substances, and so on.
a definition, helpful in this context: the ability to produce functionally complex specific information
Great! That certainly is clear. That's about the tenth different definition we've seen so far, but if that's the one you'd like to use in the context of ID, that's perfect! We now have a clear definition for the term "intelligence" in the context of ID, which ID offers to explain the origin of the complex specified information we observe in both human artifacts and biological systems. Whew! That took a long time, but thank you for providing that definition! Let's see what ID theory looks like once we adopt your definition, substituting your definition for the term "intelligence": ID claims that the best explanation for the origin of complex specified information in biological systems is "the ability to produce complex specified information". OOOOoooops. Now you've made ID into a completely vacuous tautology. Whatever produces CSI obviously and by definition has the ability to produce CSI! We can explain everything we see this way! Lightning is caused by that which causes lightning! Planets are caused by that which produces planets! Gee, science is pretty easy when you do it the ID way! Hahahahahaha... Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
If you intend to offer “humans” as a categorical, scientific explanation for various observable phenomena, then obviously the answer is yes [we need to have an absolute definition of what a human is].
what is your absolute definition of the human brain
What exactly do you mean by “mind”?
what is your absolute definition of the human brain
In other words, give me the operational definition of a mind
a definition, helpful in this context: the ability to produce functionally complex specific informationTimmy
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
Prediction: You will never answer any of my questions, because you don’t understand anything. That is from an ass who ignored everything that refutes its spewage. RDFish is a pathetic little imp. Honing our arguments is one thing. Wasting time on an obvious Poe troll is another. Now you are just wasting time.Joe
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
RDFish is an ignorant troll on an agenda to quote-mine and spew its nonsense. RDFish needs to heed its own advice and give up on science. And UD needs to give up on trying to educate the willfully ignoraant.Joe
June 9, 2014
June
06
Jun
9
09
2014
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT
Mung,
Please see the posts by kairosfocus.
Funny! His posts actually make yours look cogent.RDFish
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT
You’ve already agreed that humans (i.e., human brains) are a categorical, scientific explanation for various observable phenomena. You’ve also proclaimed that our understanding of the human brain is minimal at best.
Human beings are obviously definable and identifiable, and of course are the explanation for human artifacts. Duh. And nobody knows how brains work - you've finally caught on to that one.
So your objection to a mind-based explanation doesn’t work.
What exactly do you mean by "mind"? How do I test whether something has a "mind" or not? I have something in my room here... just tell me exactly how I can determine if it has a mind or not. (In other words, give me the operational definition of a mind). Prediction: You will never answer any of my questions, because you don't understand anything.RDFish
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
RDFish writes:
Do we need to have an absolute definition of what a mind is?
If you intend to offer “mind” as a categorical, scientific explanation for various observable phenomena, then obviously the answer is yes.
You've already agreed that humans (i.e., human brains) are a categorical, scientific explanation for various observable phenomena. You've also proclaimed that our understanding of the human brain is minimal at best. So your objection to a mind-based explanation doesn't work. Laugh your way into an actual objection.Timmy
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
RDFish:
As I just explained, the EF asks people to rule out law + chance, and the assumption that one can rule out law + chance is the assumption of contra-causality.
So much for intelligent causation! RDFish, your position is self-refuting. Please see the posts by kairosfocus.Mung
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
Hi StephenB,
I find no reason to write long posts at this point when the facts in evidence are on the table. The explanatory filter contains no hidden assumptions about contra causality, and the step by step process is made very clear. It is all question oriented.
You dodge my points because you have no answers. The questions that the EF asks are based on assumptions, namely that law, chance, and intelligence are mutually exclusive, and that it is possible to determine that no possible combination of law + chance - whether these laws are known or unknown - could ever account for the phenomena in question. So, the entire design of the EF is based on the assumption of contra-causality.
RDFish says that the assumptions are right there in that very same step by step process. I know for a fact that they are not there because I have read them word for word. The alleged assumptions are neither stated or implied in those questions.
As I just explained, the EF asks people to rule out law + chance, and the assumption that one can rule out law + chance is the assumption of contra-causality.
RDF claims that they are, indeed, there, but when I ask him to locate them, he simply repeats his claim that they are there. That’s where we are. That’s where we have always been. My challenge persists. Show me where. Provide the citation.
OMG, this is hilarious!!!! It does not get better than this!!! Read and cringe! To respond to your challenge, I dutifully went looking for some official recounting of the EF, and look at what I found:
(1) I’ve pretty much dispensed with the EF. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahaha. My stomach hurts. I can't take it. Can you guess who wrote these words? Tick, tock, tick, tock... OK, I'll tell you. It was none other than Bill Dembski himself, on none other than this very site. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/some-thanks-for-professor-olofsson/#comment-299021 DO YOU GET IT, STEPHEN? Back in 2008, Dembski himself made the argument that I have been making to you: One cannot assume that intelligent design transcends law + chance!!!! This is just too funny. So after all your posturing and assuring us that contra-causality is the official meaning for the word "intelligence" in ID theory, we find that the guy who wrote the book completely disagrees with you! I've never encountered a more confused bunch of clowns in my life.
This exchange deserves to be repeated: RDF: If contra-causality does not exist, then the whole point of the Explanatory Filter is to draw an inference to something that does not exist. SB: Now, after all this time, I finally understand your difficulty. You think that because design must exist in order for it to be detected, and indeed it must, it must follow, therefore, that the scientist must assume it exists in order to detect it. No. You are confusing the facts of existence (metaphysics) with the means by which we apprehend them (epistemology).
No, your problem is that you don't see how failing to provide a definition for the word "intelligence" results in all of you ID fans running around and contradicting each other! None of you agree on what the term is supposed mean. Nobody agrees on what ID means. There is no "theory" of ID, Stephen. My advice: Stick to religion, give up on science, be kind and happy, and forget about proving God. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
This exchange deserves to be repeated: RDF: If contra-causality does not exist, then the whole point of the Explanatory Filter is to draw an inference to something that does not exist. SB: Now, after all this time, I finally understand your difficulty. You think that because design must exist in order for it to be detected, and indeed it must, it must follow, therefore, that the scientist must assume it exists in order to detect it. No. You are confusing the facts of existence (metaphysics) with the means by which we apprehend them (epistemology).StephenB
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
I find no reason to write long posts at this point when the facts in evidence are on the table. The explanatory filter contains no hidden assumptions about contra causality, and the step by step process is made very clear. It is all question oriented. RDFish says that the assumptions are right there in that very same step by step process. I know for a fact that they are not there because I have read them word for word. The alleged assumptions are neither stated or implied in those questions. RDF claims that they are, indeed, there, but when I ask him to locate them, he simply repeats his claim that they are there. That’s where we are. That’s where we have always been. My challenge persists. Show me where. Provide the citation.StephenB
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
All, Putting aside the fact that Timmy is both petulant and dim, if anyone has mistaken his nonsense for an argument it's probably worth setting that straight:
it is obvious that none of these mental “processes” can be reduced to chance and necessity
Here the argument is that Timmy's position is "obvious", which again is the argument of a child.
Indeed the thinking can be applied to any set of causes and effects. Rubber tracks on a road? An effect caused by a skidding car. Leaves on a forest floor? An effect caused by biology and the changing seasons.
Here, Timmy inadvertently undermines his own position. He is correct that we reason abductively to explain our observations: Termite mound? An effect caused by a termite colony, which we can infer from our experience of termites. Egyptian pyramid? An effect caused by human beings, which we can infer from our experience of human beings. Flagellum? Since evolutionary theory fails, nobody has any experience of anything that could have been responsible for the design of flagella.
Similarly, ID theory simply says, “material structures with these particular characteristics can only be effected by a mind”.
And comically, Timmy fails to define "mind", which makes this statement impossible to evaluate against the evidence. At least Stephen (along with Dembski and Meyer) realizes this problem and provides a specific definition; Timmy still uses the word without saying what it means in the context of ID.
Do we need to have an absolute definition of what a mind is?
If you intend to offer "mind" as a categorical, scientific explanation for various observable phenomena, then obviously the answer is yes.
Of course not, any more than we need an absolute definition of what a solar system is...
Is there any theory that offers "solar system" as a categorical explanation of observable phenomena? No, of course not.
...and what general relativity is
Wrong. General relativity is indeed offered as an explanation for many observable phenomena. It is also defined in exquisite detail, which allows us to test it to see if it is correct.
We also don’t need to have an absolute definition of what a deer is to recognize that deer tracks are only effected by deer.
Wrong. We can define "deer" to any level of detail desired, including the genetically-determined shape of its hooves which leave characteristic imprints.
This is because science works at an operational level.
And since there are no operationalized definitions provided for "mind" or "intelligence" by ID, we can all see that ID is not a scientific theory.
Similarly, the fact that some material structures can only be caused by minds is completely indifferent to whether or not minds are fully determined. So ID theory is true whether we have free will, or whether we don’t.
Here Timmy directly contradicts both Dembski and Stephen. Timmy doesn't realize that without claiming contra-causality, it is not possible to pretend to have a methodology for classifying "intelligent agency" in the abstract.
Just like physics is true whether we have free will, or whether we don’t.
This happens to be true! No scientific theory rests on the truth of metaphysical speculations regarding free will.
RDFish’s attempt to isolate ID from the rest of science (indeed, from the rest of reason) and declare that ID theory uniquely hinges on free will is a fallacy.
The version of ID that rests on contra-causality (e.g. that of StephenB here and Dembski) is not scientific because contra-causality is a metaphysical speculation that cannot be scientifically shown to exist. The version of ID that claims life on Earth was created by extra-terrestrial life-as-we-know-it is scientific, but there is no evidence that alien life has ever existed. The version of ID that offers conscious thought (e.g. that of Stephen Meyer) as an explanation is meaningful, but there is no evidence that conscious thought exists outside of complex physical organisms, a great deal of evidence that consciousness requires an operating brain, and no evidence that consciousness is actually causal rather than perceptual. The version of ID that fails to specify what it means by "intelligence" (Timmy's version) is meaningless. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 8, 2014
June
06
Jun
8
08
2014
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 9

Leave a Reply