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
RDF #125: In that case, do you believe Intelligent Design Theory is fully compatible with the view that all human behavior is completely determined by natural law + chance (...)?
Is the view, that all human behavior is completely determined by natural law + chance, "fully compatible" with any intellectual undertaking? If our thoughts are fully determined by blind forces how are we to ascertain the truth? If blind forces are in the driving seat, and not "mental" capacities like logic and wisdom, how can we ever produce reliable knowledge - or any knowledge at all? BTW we may not know what "intelligence" is, but we also don't know what "energy" or "matter" is. This not-knowing didn't stop scientific research, which seems to be RDF's proposal, but started it instead.Box
June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
RDFish:
So at this point, I believe we agree that the term “intelligence” in ID theory actually does refer to contra-causality...
Great. Yet another definition of intelligence to add to the long list of definitions of intelligence, a word with so many meanings that it is meaningless. Why bother? RDFish:
It is very nice for my position to be validated here at UD.
Your position that you do not know what you are talking about when you talk about intelligence?Mung
June 6, 2014
June
06
Jun
6
06
2014
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT
Hi StephenB,
RDF: From your last posts, it appears that you both agree on the following: ID theory cannot be true unless contra-causal free will exists. SB: ID theory cannot be true unless some agent, personal or impersonal, can perform a creative act that requires a new or novel rearrangement of molecules. Physical laws alone, which are, by definition, deterministic and uncreative, can only what they do and nothing else—they cannot change their behavior and produce novelty. If they could change their behavior, they would not be what they are. Creativity and novelty exists, therefore neither physicalism or determinism can be true.
Just to make sure I understand what you are saying, I think you are saying these two things: 1) Contra-causality exists 2) ID could not be true unless (1) was true Is that right?
RDF: Moreover, it appears that you both understand that contra-causal free will is thought not to exist by many philosophers and scientists, although you believe these philosophers and scientists are deluded, stupid, malicious, dishonest, and so on. SB: [some editorializing about libertines in academia]
Just to make sure I understand what you are saying, I think you are saying this: 1) university academics are immoral libertines with self-serving philosophies 2) many of these academics believe that contra-causality does not exist
Obviously, ID’s conception of imtelligence is not compatible with determinism and obviously you know that to be the case. We have certainly come a long way from your false claim that no one knows what ID means by that term. Obviously, its meaning is crystal clear to you, as it is to everyone else.
No, Stephen, what I claimed was meaningless was not "contra-causality". Rather, what I claimed was meaningless was "intelligence" - unless some particular definition was provided. You have declared that the canonical, standard, core definition of "intelligence" in ID theory is contra-causality, and you have defended the use of other definitions (by Dembski or Meyer) by saying they were employing different paradigms to investigate different aspects of ID. So at this point, I believe we agree that the term "intelligence" in ID theory actually does refer to contra-causality, and therefore if contra-causality was false, ID would be false. Is that correct? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT
Hi Timmy,
You answered the question? Oh really?
Yes, I've answered all of your questions directly, Timmy. It is you who has failed to answer mine.
So is a braille plaque necessary according to the laws of physics, or not?
I have answered this question: The answer, in my view, is clearly "we do not know". How could we possibly know if this is true or not? How does one determine if something is necessary or not? Given quantum uncertainty, it could be said that nothing whatsoever is necessary. And this is all besides the open question of whether human thought is contra-causal.
The honest answer you could have given is, “No laws of physics or chemistry that we know of–or even dream of–necessitates the existence of GPS satellites, et cetera.”
Again, no laws of physics or chemistry demonstrates that anything is necessary. What laws of physics or chemistry necessitates the existence of Mount Everest? What is your point here?
What I’m looking for is a defense of your claim that they can be ruled out as an explanation. Or are you abandoning that claim?
I've already told you several times now why I do not believe that evolutionary theory accounts for biological complexity or OOL. I find my reasons to be quite sufficient to justify my position. If you think my reasons are insufficient, then perhaps you can share better reasons for rejecting evolutionary theory. Now, for the third time, please answer these two questions so I can understand what you believe: Do you believe Intelligent Design Theory is fully compatible with the view that all human behavior is completely determined by natural law + chance (even though of course you find this view deluded, stupid, etc)? And that something can be fully determined by natural law (plus chance), while still being “lawfully unnecessary”? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT
Joe, irony is allowed. Even intellectual dishonesty is allowed. As long as it's done politely.Mung
June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
RDFish, You answered the question? Oh really? So is a braille plaque necessary according to the laws of physics, or not? If so, name the law(s). I repeat: IS THERE any combination of initial conditions and laws of physics that will produce the organization of matter known as a thunderstorm given that an "intelligent mind" is not one of the initial conditions? IS THERE any combination of initial conditions and laws of physics that will produce the organization of matter known as a braille-inscripted plaque unless an "intelligent mind" (or the plaque itself) is one of the initial conditions?
In my view, since we do not understand how brains work nor how we think, nobody can answer this question.
Sigh. The honest answer you could have given is, "No laws of physics or chemistry that we know of--or even dream of--necessitates the existence of GPS satellites, et cetera."
In my view, there is no evidence that known evolutionary mechanisms can produce the types of complex form and function we observe in biological systems
What I'm looking for is a defense of your claim that they can be ruled out as an explanation. Or are you abandoning that claim?Timmy
June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
RDF:
In that case, do you believe Intelligent Design Theory is fully compatible with the view that all human behavior is completely determined by natural law + chance (even though of course you find this view deluded, stupid, etc)? And that something can be fully determined by natural law (plus chance), while still being “lawfully unnecessary”?
Obviously, ID's conception of imtelligence is not compatible with determinism and obviously you know that to be the case. We have certainly come a long way from your false claim that no one knows what ID means by that term. Obviously, its meaning is crystal clear to you, as it is to everyone else. This is point where you sidestep my refutation and try to misrepresent what I said by writing that "StephenB thinks that "everyone believes" it (intelligence is a causal power set apart from law chance) as opposed to "everyone knows what it means," which is what I said. How shameless can one be? Apparently, there is no limit.StephenB
June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
..[.proceed from] that person's mindStephenB
June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
...that should be person's mind.StephenB
June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
Hi RDF, You write,
From your last posts, it appears that you both agree on the following: ID theory cannot be true unless contra-causal free will exists.
ID theory cannot be true unless some agent, personal or impersonal, can perform a creative act that requires a new or novel rearrangement of molecules. Physical laws alone, which are, by definition, deterministic and uncreative, can only what they do and nothing else—they cannot change their behavior and produce novelty. If they could change their behavior, they would not be what they are. Creativity and novelty exists, therefore neither physicalism or determinism can be true.
Moreover, it appears that you both understand that contra-causal free will is thought not to exist by many philosophers and scientists, although you believe these philosophers and scientists are deluded, stupid, malicious, dishonest, and so on.
Philosophers and scientists, like everyone else, tend to embrace a philosophy of life that corresponds to or rationalizes the way they live. A corrupt university system has trained them to believe that truth is relative and morality can be tailored to fit each individual. Accordingly, an immoral or libertine life style promotes skepticism as much as skepticism promotes immorality or a libertine life style. If a man does not conform his behavior to a philosophy of life, he will find a philosophy of life that conforms to his behavior.
Just to be clear, I am using “contra-causal free will” to mean that human minds (and perhaps other minds as well) are immaterial things [things? entities? processes? substances? properties? whatever...] that can causally act on the world, and these actions are not the result of antecedent physical causes. And per Dembski, other sorts of processes (“impersonal telic processes”) may also have this characteristic of being able to initiate actions that are not caused by law plus chance. Do I understand both of you correctly?
Yes, except for one reservation. The immaterial thinking mind and the person who has been invested with that power is not altogether without an antecedent cause since something had to give it that power and cause it to come into existence. On the other hand, the decisions that proceed for the from that persons’ mind are caused by the person and not the antecedent cause that bestowed that power.StephenB
June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
Hi Timmy,
Enlighten us: according to the determinists you defend,...
Sorry, but I have never defended determinism (I do not happen to believe in determinism myself). Where did you get that idea?
...what laws of physics/chemistry necessitate the existence of sandcastles, skyscrapers, and GPS satellites?
In my view, since we do not understand how brains work nor how we think, nobody can answer this question.
Since stars, lightning bolts, and rivers (etc.) are “necessary” according to the laws of physics, surely it follows that all material organizations, such as a tree or a braille plaque, are also “necessary” according to the laws of physics. Right?
I would say that it is not clear that stars (for example) are necessary, rather than being contingent upon certain initial conditions or upon other properties of nature that we do not yet understand. The same of course holds for trees and braille plaques.
And do tell us, if it’s not too much trouble, what your basis is for rejecting the various varieties of Darwinism as non-viable.
In my view, there is no evidence that known evolutionary mechanisms can produce the types of complex form and function we observe in biological systems, even given the entire age of the universe and many billions of habitable planets. Attempts to demonstrate otherwise (e.g. with evolutionary simulation software) have not succeeded. Now I've answered your questions, but you've evaded mine. I repeat: In that case, do you believe Intelligent Design Theory is fully compatible with the view that all human behavior is completely determined by natural law + chance (even though of course you find this view deluded, stupid, etc)? And that something can be fully determined by natural law (plus chance), while still being “lawfully unnecessary”? Cheersm, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
RDFish, Enlighten us: according to the determinists you defend, what laws of physics/chemistry necessitate the existence of sandcastles, skyscrapers, and GPS satellites? Since stars, lightning bolts, and rivers (etc.) are "necessary" according to the laws of physics, surely it follows that all material organizations, such as a tree or a braille plaque, are also "necessary" according to the laws of physics. Right? And do tell us, if it's not too much trouble, what your basis is for rejecting the various varieties of Darwinism as non-viable.Timmy
June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
Hi Timmy, In that case, do you believe Intelligent Design Theory is fully compatible with the view that all human behavior is completely determined by natural law + chance (even though of course you find this view deluded, stupid, etc)? And that something can be fully determined by natural law (plus chance), while still being "lawfully unnecessary"? Cheers, RDFishRDFish
June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
From your last posts, it appears that you both agree on the following: ID theory cannot be true unless contra-causal free will exists.
Clearly you did not read my post, because that is exactly the opposite of what I said. ID theory is true regardless of whether "free will" exists or not. All the confusion and ill will you generated by trying to shoehorn philosophy into this discussion--did that not clue you in to the fact that the philosophy of free will is totally independent of ID theory? ID theory is concerned with empirical evidence: material organizations that are both "lawfully unnecessary" and outside the bounds of "chance". Your line of argument cannot even get off the ground without putting the cart before the horse.
Moreover, it appears that you both understand that contra-causal free will is thought not to exist by many philosophers and scientists, although you believe these philosophers and scientists are deluded, stupid, malicious, dishonest, and so on.
Just like Darwinism is thought to be true according to most philosophers and scientists, and we also happen to think they are deluded, dishonest, malicious, etc. I won't even bother asking you again what it is about Darwinism that you object to: as I said, you've lost and you know it.
Do I understand both of you correctly?
Whatever floats your boat.Timmy
June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
Hi Stephen and Timmy, From your last posts, it appears that you both agree on the following: ID theory cannot be true unless contra-causal free will exists. Moreover, it appears that you both understand that contra-causal free will is thought not to exist by many philosophers and scientists, although you believe these philosophers and scientists are deluded, stupid, malicious, dishonest, and so on. Just to be clear, I am using "contra-causal free will" to mean that human minds (and perhaps other minds as well) are immaterial things [things? entities? processes? substances? properties? whatever...] that can causally act on the world, and these actions are not the result of antecedent physical causes. And per Dembski, other sorts of processes ("impersonal telic processes") may also have this characteristic of being able to initiate actions that are not caused by law plus chance. Do I understand both of you correctly? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 5, 2014
June
06
Jun
5
05
2014
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
RDFish writes @ 119:
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.
Actually, it is an empirical observation backed up by almost unlimited evidence. This has continually been a point of confusion for you. The only reason we are even able to talk about "natural laws" (necessity) is because of uniform empirical observations about how matter behaves. And yet, these same empirical observations reveal billions of man-made artifacts such as books, machines, computers, buildings, et cetera that represent unnecessary organizations of matter which also happen to be wildly outside the bounds of "chance" organization. The cause of these artifacts is intelligent design. This is why we do not take determinism or its friends very seriously. This is why, when you talk about majority views in philosophy, nobody seems to care. This is not about philosophy, it is about empirical evidence. Yes, we know that free-will denialism simply defines every cause to be a subset of law + chance. (That you take this seriously = lol.) But this is totally irrelevant, because we have unlimited empirical evidence of artifacts that do not conform to any known law. So the honest denialist must concede different kinds of laws, indeed a whole class of laws relating to what we perceive as "intelligence" that are totally distinct from the "natural" laws known to physics and chemistry. And that is why you get no respect. Because you have stubbornly refused to recognize that "intelligent design" is still a category distinct from "natural law" and "chance" even under full determinism, even if design is ultimately a subcategory of "law" in general. Thus your whole position disintegrates. Of course there are determinists who do their darndest to confuse the distinction, out of malice. Don't be one of them.Timmy
June 4, 2014
June
06
Jun
4
04
2014
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
RDF:
When Meyer makes the point that ID is the best available explanation, his rationale includes the claim that “intelligence” (i.e. contra-causality) is a “known cause” of complex mechanism. But using “contra-causality” as the definition of “intelligence”, Meyer’s rationale is not true, because it is not known that human thought is contra-causal.
I don’t think that this is a raw assumption. It is based on an empirical observation of the phenomenon of creativity, which is one of the hallmarks of design. Creativity really exists and cannot be explained by law/chance. A physical/chemical law can only do what it does and cannot change its behavior so as to do something new or novel. Creativity is novelty. Physical laws are anti-novelty. Perhaps you may want to respond and say that that Mozart’s molecules could have produced his symphonies by law/chance interaction of molecules, and that creativity, as novelty, doesn’t exist. However, I would disagree and say that the fact of creativity, as novelty, is settled science and I am happy to argue on that basis.StephenB
June 4, 2014
June
06
Jun
4
04
2014
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
RDFish,
Thanks for the chat, Timmy.
So you figured out where this is going, finally?
If you would like to argue that Darwinism is a viable theory, that would be a different topic, and I have no interest in participating.
Nice dodge. If you ever come up with a valid reason (instead of just tediously restating your opinion over and over and over) to reject Darwinian-style explanations for the OOL, you will discover (as perhaps it just occurred to you) that these explanations can be ruled out, permanently, because they are rejected on the basis of "limiting" laws. You will similarly discover that all "materialistic" explanations are ruled out for the same reasons, since the objections to "Darwinian" explanations apply to all "materialistic" explanations. This leaves us with two facts: 1) Life is real, and demands an explanation. 2) Design can "explain everything", as per one of your earlier evasions. So we are left with design as the only possible explanation. And if life was designed, what was it designed by? A mind, by process of elimination. One might dare to use the term "deduction." You've put up a lot of baseless fuss about that term, now it's time to put up or shut up. If you don't think a mind can be deduced, that means there is some other possible explanation, and if there is some other possible explanation, then that means you must reject precisely the same scientific limits that you would use to reject Darwinian-style explanations. So, why refuse to give any reason for rejecting Darwin, RDFish? It's obvious. Game. Set. Match.Timmy
June 4, 2014
June
06
Jun
4
04
2014
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Hi Stephen,
RDF: It is contra-causality that is at issue here. There is no way to determine if contra-causal free will exists, yet ID authors simply assume it without support SB: There is more at issue that that. You have said that Dembski defined it in terms of libertarian free will. He doesn’t.
When I first said it I emphasized that I meant contra-causal mind. That is also the definition you'll find in Wiki, the dictionary, and so on. If you would like to use the definition you found in Theopedia that adds additional connotations regarding human nature, moral responsibility, and God, that has nothing to do with the point I'm making. If you can't remember that when I speak of libertarian free will in this context I am speaking about contra-causality, then I am happy to use the latter term instead.
No, what was at issue was your original claim that ID’s definition of intelligence is meaningless because it hasn’t been articulated.
Actually that was Denyse's claim, but I heartily agree.
Now, after having been called on it, you admit that it is not meaningless at all.
On the contrary: There is no way of telling what a theory might mean when it offers "intelligence" as an explanation unless a specific definition is provided.
It has been articulated and it means apart from law/chance.
Ok, that is a specific definition. It says nothing about conscious intent, sentience, purpose, problem solving, language use, or any other mental attribute, but if that is the definition of "intelligence" you believe should be used by ID, I'm fine with that. 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. This doesn't mean it is necessarily false, of course, but it certainly means that it is by no means common sense or settled science. Any theory that is based on the assumption of contra-causality needs to first provide evidence that such a thing exists in the first place, and ID does not even acknowledge the need to address the issue. I will be unable to respond further until tomorrow evening. To move the discussion along, I will make a guess as to what your response may be to my point regarding the definition for "intelligence" you've settled on for ID (contra-casuality): You might say that the evidence for contra-causality is ID itself: If contra-causality did not exist, then we could not explain the phenomena ID purports to explain. Perhaps you'll opt for another argument, but if this is in fact your position, I would like to point out it is fallacious: 1) If contra-causality existed, then it could account for biological complexity 2) Biological complexity exists 3) Therefore, contra-causality exists Clearly this commits the error of affirming the consequent. In order to actually support ID, one would have to provide at minimum that any contra-causality existed, even in human thought. Another counter-argument that you may offer is that ID does not deduce the truth of contra-causality, but rather it merely finds that it is the best explanation available. When Meyer makes the point that ID is the best available explanation, his rationale includes the claim that "intelligence" (i.e. contra-causality) is a "known cause" of complex mechanism. But using "contra-causality" as the definition of "intelligence", Meyer's rationale is not true, because it is not known that human thought is contra-causal. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 4, 2014
June
06
Jun
4
04
2014
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
Hi Timmy,
RDF: For example, I believe we should rule out that Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms can account for the complex biological systems we observe. TIM: Why? And just what do you suppose you mean by “complex biological system”? Ecosystems are complex. Mountains are complex. Almost all material structures that emerge naturally are complex, just by virtue of the fact that they are composed of many atoms. Chance and necessity account for complexity all the time. Define your terms better.
If you would like to argue that Darwinism is a viable theory, that would be a different topic, and I have no interest in participating.
Similarly, you cannot rule out that, some day, we will discover how to build reactionless drives in violation of Newton’s Third Law and then achieve a velocity > c. Future discoveries are totally open ended, no?
No. I've already explained that limitive laws (I listed examples) provide good reason to rule out certain phenomena or explanations. You don't seem receptive to this point. Thanks for the chat, Timmy. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 4, 2014
June
06
Jun
4
04
2014
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
RDFish 113:
For example, I believe we should rule out that Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms can account for the complex biological systems we observe.
Why? And just what do you suppose you mean by "complex biological system"? Ecosystems are complex. Mountains are complex. Almost all material structures that emerge naturally are complex, just by virtue of the fact that they are composed of many atoms. Chance and necessity account for complexity all the time. Define your terms better.
I said we could not rule out that an explanation based on what you’re calling “material causes” could be found some day.
Similarly, you cannot rule out that, some day, we will discover how to build reactionless drives in violation of Newton's Third Law and then achieve a velocity > c. Future discoveries are totally open ended, no? Some day we might discover that the second law of thermodynamics is actually false and therefore the universe could be infinitely old. Some day we might discover that hydrogen really has 3.14159 electrons. Et cetera.
I’m honestly trying to.
Well, keep at it.Timmy
June 4, 2014
June
06
Jun
4
04
2014
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
RDFish:
Grow up, Stephen, and debate like an adult, can you?
LoL! Talk about being self-unaware. The irony is hilarious...Joe
June 4, 2014
June
06
Jun
4
04
2014
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
RDF (which stands for Recklessly Distributed Falsehoods)
It is contra-causality that is at issue here. There is no way to determine if contra-causal free will exists, yet ID authors simply assume it without support
There is more at issue that that. You have said that Dembski defined it in terms of libertarian free will. He doesn't. SB: Libertarian free will, however, is reserved exclusively for personal, human, conscious beings making free moral choices.
Those associations are made in moral philosophy, but we were not discussing moral theory;
Which is exactly why you should stop dragging the vocabulary of that moral theory into the discussion in order to mislead people. Libertarianism is not in play with Dembski. Personalism is not in play with Dembski.
.the context here was whether thought transcends law + chance. The meaning I was intending was nothing beyond the claim that thought transcends law + chance.
No, what was at issue was your original claim that ID’s definition of intelligence is meaningless because it hasn’t been articulated. Now, after having been called on it, you admit that it is not meaningless at all. It has been articulated and it means apart from law/chance. You just don’t think the definition (when you are not busy injecting libertarianism into it and attributing it to Debmski), which is as clear as a bell, can be justified. That is a totally different argument. I'll deal with that after you agree that it is not meaningless, which was your claim going into this discussion. I know how you like to move the goalposts, but I don't abide by those kinds of distractions.
It is this meaning that is required by ID theory, and it is this meaning that cannot be empirically tested or verified, and it is this meaning that most philosophers deny.
No. The issue is that ID's definition of intelligence is not meaningless, contrary to your original claim. Can't you even remember your own falsehoods?
Libertarian free will means (according to an online definition) “that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.”
That’s right. OUR choices as humans or conscious agents. In other words, personalism--not an impersonal telic process, which Dembski allows for. If he allows for an impersonal telic process by which choices are made, which he does, he cannot be defining intelligence as libertarianism, which is personalism.
And it means from other online definitions
I know what libertarianism means, thank you very much. The issue is that libertarianism is not synonymous with contra-causality, which is the way Dembaki defines intelligence. SB: An impersonal telic process, a possibility Dembski allows for, is not, by definition, a personal, human, conscious being and has no human nature to be constrained. Thus, Dembski has not defined intelligence as libertarian free will.
Again, he has defined intelligence in terms of the core tenet of metaphysical libertarianism, contra-causality.
. Libertariaism is not synonymous with contra-cauality. Try to grasp this point of logic. Libertarianism requires contra-causality; contra-causality does not require libertarianism. They are not identical.
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
That doesn’t mean that libertarianism is in play, at least not with Dembski. Perhaps you are thinking of Meyer. Or, perhaps you are making things up again. Who can know?
Most philosophers and most scientists believe this is not the case, but in any event it clearly isn’t settled science or common knowledge.
Irrelevant to your original objection. The point is that Dembski’s definition of intelligence has been articulated, it is not meaningless, and it is not libertarianism. Now, please acknowledge these lies as lies and apologize for them:
You were very (incredibly) wrong to think that everyone believes that intelligence is the complement of law + chance.
Despite your insistence that EVERYONE believes that intelligence transcends law+chance, most philosophers deny this.
You really are making no sense: You said EVERYONE believes that intelligence is the complement of law+chance.
My point here is that ID presents one particular position regarding philosophy of mind, viz. libertarian dualism, and pretends that this particular metaphysics is settled science (as StephenB said, that everyone, EVERYONE, believes it).
StephenB
June 4, 2014
June
06
Jun
4
04
2014
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT
Hi Stephen,
Just because libertarian free will and ID have something in common (contra-causality), that single common element does not mean that they are identical or equal. To describe intelligence as the complement to law/chance is NOT to define intelligence as libertarian free will.
It is contra-causality that is at issue here. There is no way to determine if contra-causal free will exists, yet ID authors simply assume it without support.
Libertarian free will, however, is reserved exclusively for personal, human, conscious beings making free moral choices.
Those associations are made in moral philosophy, but we were not discussing moral theory; the context here was whether thought transcends law + chance. The meaning I was intending was nothing beyond the claim that thought transcends law + chance. It is this meaning that is required by ID theory, and it is this meaning that cannot be empirically tested or verified, and it is this meaning that most philosophers deny.
Libertarian free will means (according to an online definition) “that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.”
And it means from other online definitions:
WIKI: Libertarianism is one of the main philosophical positions related to the problems of free will and determinism, which are part of the larger domain of metaphysics.[1] In particular, libertarianism, which is an incompatibilist position,[2][3] argues that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe and that agents have free will, and that, therefore, determinism is false.[4] MERRIAM WEBSTER: An advocate of the doctrine of free will
... and so on. Again, the central issue here is contra-causality, not "human nature" or God.
An impersonal telic process, a possibility Dembski allows for, is not, by definition, a personal, human, conscious being and has no human nature to be constrained. Thus, Dembski has not defined intelligence as libertarian free will.
Again, he 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. Most philosophers and most scientists believe this is not the case, but in any event it clearly isn't settled science or common knowledge.
RDF just made it up. Now can we deal with the other four lies, which are far more blatant and serious, since they persisted in the face of multiple corrections.
Grow up, Stephen, and debate like an adult, can you? Cheers, RDFishRDFish
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT
Hi Timmy,
RDF: Nobody has any explanation of the origin of life that we can demonstrate to be true by means of scientific evidence. The answer is, to date, simply unknown. TIM: Therefore, you believe that no explanation for the OOL and/or its evolution can be demonstrated to be false. All the various “Darwinian” theories are equally possible, all the various theories of abiogenesis are equally possible, all the varieties of special creation are equally possible.
I can't imagine what you are thinking here. Of course not all theories are equally possible - why would you say that? And why would you say that no explanation can be demonstrated to be false? Of course there are theories that we can demonstrate to be false. I repeat: I believe that we currently have no theory that successfully accounts for OOL or complex biological systems.
After all, since our knowledge of physics is incomplete, no explanation can be ruled out.
Uh, no, this doesn't follow either. I said we could not rule out that an explanation based on what you're calling "material causes" could be found some day. That doesn't at all mean that we can't rule out any explanations now. For example, I believe we should rule out that Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms can account for the complex biological systems we observe.
Right?
Well no, you were wrong on both counts. Read what I say and not what you wish I was saying and this will be a lot easier.
Work with me here.
I'm honestly trying to. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT
SB: “Show me where Dembski defines intelligence as libertarian free will. Dembski allows for an impersonal, even immanent design principle in nature, which would not entail free will. You are just making things up again.” RDF
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.
Translation: I cannot cite anything from Dembski that would justify my claim, so I am about to go into the RDF shuffle.
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.
Here the bobbing and weaving starts and the first attempt at a deception rears its ugly head. Just because libertarian free will and ID have something in common (contra-causality), that single common element does not mean that they are identical or equal. To describe intelligence as the complement to law/chance is NOT to define 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.
This is, indeed, Dembski’s true definition of intelligence. Alas, RDF intrudes on this definition with his own add on (libertarianism) and then attributes the add on to Dembski. In fact, Dembski does NOT equate the power to choose with libertarian free will. In his judgment, the capacity to choose between options could, in principle, reside either in an impersonal telic process or a personal conscious being. Libertarian free will, however, is reserved exclusively for personal, human, conscious beings making free moral choices. In other words, libertarian free will is a stronger claim that mere contra causality because it entails a personal chooser, and Dembski makes it a point not to go that far. Libertarian free will means (according to an online definition) "that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God." An impersonal telic process, a possibility Dembski allows for, is not, by definition, a personal, human, conscious being and has no human nature to be constrained. Thus, Dembski has not defined intelligence as libertarian free will. RDF just made it up. Now can we deal with the other four lies, which are far more blatant and serious, since they persisted in the face of multiple corrections.StephenB
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
RDFish,
Nobody has any explanation of the origin of life that we can demonstrate to be true by means of scientific evidence. The answer is, to date, simply unknown.
Therefore, you believe that no explanation for the OOL and/or its evolution can be demonstrated to be false. All the various "Darwinian" theories are equally possible, all the various theories of abiogenesis are equally possible, all the varieties of special creation are equally possible. After all, since our knowledge of physics is incomplete, no explanation can be ruled out. Right? Work with me here.Timmy
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
In for a penny in for a pound! RDFish:
As anyone who reads this thread can see, I have tried to hard to remain polite and earnest in the face of very uncivil responses from you and others.
Many of us here have at one time or another had our fill of "polite" yet intellectually dishonest persons.Mung
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
Well, I may be a fish out of water here, but ...
1) The term “intelligence” can mean so many different things that unless one specifies what one is referring to, the term has no meaning at all.
Um, no. That's just silly. And illogical. The conclusion does not follow from the premise, How many meanings must a word have before it becomes meaningless? And your "argument" is self-refuting. A term with many meanings can hardly be said to be a word without meaning!Mung
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
Hi Stephen,
Show me where Dembski defines intelligence as libertarian free will. Dembski allows for an impersonal, even immanent design principle in nature, which would not entail free will. You are just making things up again.
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. Do you deny that ID requires a libertarian construal of thought? In other words, do you think that ID is equally compatible with a view of mental function that holds that complex designs are the product of physical cause (law + chance) in our brains?
Unrepentant dishonesty makes civil dialogue impossible.
As anyone who reads this thread can see, I have tried to hard to remain polite and earnest in the face of very uncivil respones from you and others. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
June 3, 2014
June
06
Jun
3
03
2014
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 9

Leave a Reply