Human evolution: The spin machine in top gear

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

For a fascinating misreading of what the recently announced Messel Pit fossil really shows, go here:

Scientists have found a 47-million-year-old human ancestor. Discovered in Messel Pit, Germany, the fossil, described as Darwinius masillae, is 20 times older than most fossils that explain human evolution.

That fossil doesn’t “explain” human evolution; it complicates the picture.

The theory that was gaining ground was that humans were descended from tarsier-like creatures, but this fossil, touted as a primate ancestor, is a lemur-like creature.

Often, I hear from people attempting to patch the cracks in the unguided Darwinian evolution theory, as follows: “We have more information than ever!”

Yes, but what if it is – as in this case – the evidence is contradictory?

Evidence for Theory A subtracts from evidence for Theory B. So if A is right, B must be subtracted from the total. If B is right, A must be subtracted from the total.

Surely, that is pretty obvious. But watching the spin machine in high gear is a fascinating exercise anyway.

No wonder fewer and fewer believe Darwinism.

Comments

CYJman:
How is your observation that the sky is blue a prediction for future cases?
It is rather my point that observation that the sky is blue is NOT a prediction, as you correctly observe. Your "prediction" regarding the weirdly expressed "physically inert symbol systems" already (putatively) observed within living systems is similarly not a prediction. That's the point.
Diffaxial:?“You (and several others) advance by means of very idiosyncratic language (”physically inert meaning,” etc.)” So you are admitting that you haven’t read enough ID material to understand and therefore critique it?
Google searches for "physically inert language" and "physically inert symbol" and "physically inert meaning" yield few hits, and ALL occur within UD. If uniqueness to UD doesn't make these phrases idiosyncratic, what would?
You have not yet shown, either in theory or in evidence, that a system of only law and chance absent intelligence will produce those physically inert, specified, and highly improbable patterns which you must use your own foresight to produce.
By including, "which you must use your own foresight to produce," you create a test that by definition can't be attained by natural processes. That's no test. Moreover, however often repeated by ID advocates, your assertion is a negative assertion about another theory, not a positive assertion that tests and ultimately supports ID theory - the very thing I have been requesting throughout. Your insistence that there is a necessary dichotomy such that the failure of one theory supports the other is simply mistaken, for reasons you have never addressed (e.g., "we don't know" is a third option). Further, this doesn't respond to my comment, which addresses your assumption that abstract computational systems are necessarily more difficult to attain than complexity that depends upon the physical properties of the underlying substrate. I described reasons to expect otherwise. A response would address those.
Diffaxial:?“This is beyond ridicule. You think building a simulation of a lawful universe of sufficient richness to yield complex organisms characterized by computational abstraction would be “easy”?” Ummm … that’s the point. Will law and chance provide said complex patterns or will intelligence be required?
Such a simulation would be extremely difficult to attain for reasons that have no bearing upon whether the system simulated requires intelligence. Your request is rather like an advocate of "intelligent weather theory" demanding of meteorologists (and their vile materialist accounts of the weather) a completely accurate simulation of the 2005 hurricane season, culminating in Katrina, accompanied by the claim that the failure to supply such a simulation is evidence for intelligent weather theory (hurricanes are initiated by intelligent agents). It should be obvious that it doesn't follow from the fact that intelligence is required to build such a simulation that hurricanes themselves must be generated by intelligent agents. Moreover, while a completely accurate simulation of the 2005 season may be possible in principle, it should be obvious that were it to fail it wouldn't follow that intelligence is responsible hurricanes. It may be that our understanding of the phenomenon is correct in many ways, yet incomplete. It may be entirely incorrect, but another natural account of the emergence of hurricanes is possible. Or it may be that our skill at constructing such mathematical simulations is insufficient. So neither the success or lack thereof of our simulation would have bearing on intelligent weather theory. Additional positive evidence that subjects intelligent weather theory to empirical test would be required to justify that leap. In order for intelligent weather theory to be subject to empirical test, it must generate predictions that, were we to fail to observe what is predicted, it would be at risk of disconfirmation. - exactly what I have requesting of you. And exactly what you have failed to supply. BTW, what do you imagine a computer simulation of ID theory in action would look like? I would imagine a nearly infinite series of assignment statements.
Diffaxial:?“Number 1: This isn’t an observation. It’s an assumption.” Applying one’s foresight is an experience common to all humans who, at the very least, can read and write. Keep in mind that we have never directly observed the Big Bang, photons, or the history of life.
The occurrence of the Big Bang isn't an observation. That you equate your "observation" to the Big Bang is an admission that "Intelligence precedes physically inert "meaning/function" isn't an observation either. It Is an assumption, or perhaps a restatement of your hypotheses. Your hypothesis is not an observation. Moreover, the initial confirmation of Big Bang Theory beautifully exemplifies the empirical test of a then radical theory by means of predicted entailments, exactly what I have been requesting of ID. It was an ENTAILMENT of Big Bang Theory, articulated well before any such test of that entailment, that the three degree background radiation (now measured at 2.725 K) would be present and would have certain characteristics (e.g. isotropy vis direction and temperature within specific limits). Subsequent detection of the predicted blackbody radiation by Penzias and Wilson, and further observations of same, supplied considerable confidence that Big Bang cosmology is correct. Failure to detect the CBR would have disconfirmed big bang theory. That is exactly the sort of test I have been requesting. And exactly the sort of test that has been absent in all of your replies, including Jerry's imagined research.Diffaxial_{May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler @ 129
In the same vein, I quote my favorite idiot, Richard Dawkins. “Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes. For if it is not gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all. Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle, which is simply a synonym for the total absence of explanation.” When insanity like this passes for reasoned discourse and “scientific” explanation, well, that just about says it all.
Please forgive me if I have misunderstood your argument - and Dawkins's too; but I read Dawkins as saying that the eye either is the result of a series of events, i.e. the result of gradual evolution from simple, primitive, light-sensitive organs of sight to complex eyes with color vision or or they were created ex nihilo in one fell swoop. The first scenario seems to lie within the paradigm of evolutionary theory, whereas the latter should be well within what a clever designer might do. And also compatible with magic, which of course never can be ruled out. Or do we know for certain that a force capable of performing magic does not exist?Cabal_{May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

CJYman: "Actually, that should be brought from the level of “in the origin of life” to “within life.”" Diffaxial: "But it remains hopeless with your modification, because it now becomes a “prediction” in the same sense that upon gazing upon the blue sky I state, “My theory predicts that the sky is blue,” Aristotle notwithstanding." First, you misunderstand the inclusion of Aristotle. It was his observation re: intelligence and its effects, made long before life was understood, which can now be applied to our understanding of life. Aristotles' observation of the connection between designs and intelligence being used as a prediction for future cases (such as with life) is merely an example of an inference from an observation -- which is precisely how an historical examination of evolution itself proceeds. As well the connection, on a level of inference and prediction, between my example and yours is shaky at best. How is your observation that the sky is blue a prediction for future cases? What is the question you are attempting to answer in your scenario? After the observation is made, how is it applied as an inference in future cases? Furthermore if, on an observatory level, your observation of the sky being blue is in any way similar to the connection between physically inert function and intelligence (as you are claiming or your point would be moot), then we would have to say that it is completely obvious to everyone that as the sky is blue, so does physically inert function derive from intelligence. So, your argument fails either way. Diffaxial: "If your theory is to become scientifically fertile it needs to make meaningful NEW predictions, in such a way that it is subject to meaningful revision or even rejection in response to observations that test those predictions." Since the subject matter of intelligent design is extremely specific, it only deals directly with one major question. As a result there are only two fundamental predictions which need to be in place in order to answer in the affirmative the question which begins ID research into any system, and I have provided both the positive and the negative (potentially falsifiable) predictions which are useful for any future case. Diffaxial: "You (and several others) advance by means of very idiosyncratic language (”physically inert meaning,” etc.)" So you are admitting that you haven't read enough ID material to understand and therefore critique it? That would make sense since it does indeed appear that you are indeed arguing against ID THeory based on your own ignorance of the subject. Diffaxial: "a common notion: the fundamental independence of turing computation from the substrate upon which that computation is instantiated. And you seem to think that such a system would be more difficult for selection to find than, for example, a symbol system that is dependent upon the particulars of physical and/or chemical causation, and hence functions at a lower level of abstraction." The question which begins it all has been asked, observation is there, the hypothesis has been provided, the inference laid out, and the criteria for falsifiability has been provided. Do you have any evidence to provide for your position or against the ID position? Diffaxial: "So your fundamental assumption - that a computationally abstract system is more difficult to attain, and therefore requires intelligence, while a system that does not employ such abstraction does not - is simply false." You have not yet shown, either in theory or in evidence, that a system of only law and chance absent intelligence will produce those physically inert, specified, and highly improbable patterns which you must use your own foresight to produce. CJYman: "Now, what is needed next beyond that positive prediction is a negative prediction — a no-go theorem which will provide potential falsifiability for ID Theory … “Any system composed of chance and law absent previous intelligence will not produce physically inert meaning/function.”" Difaxial: "I wonder how many times this will need to be repeated? The above is a test of the alternative theory, not of ID. It would not follow from the failure of the alternative that ID is correct." Diffaxial, stop and think a bit before you write. If the above is answered in the affirmative, then one aspect of ID is true -- chance and law absent previous intelligence will not produce certain patterns. Thus those patterns will be indicative of either previous intelligence or some as yet undiscovered exotic causal mechanism which is neither defined as chance, law, or intelligence yet can produce the same patterns as intelligence without foresight. If it is answered in the negative, then one aspect of ID theory will be falsified and distinguishing between law and chance vs. law, chance, and intelligence will not be possible. That is all that I am claiming for my statement above which provides predictive utility and falsifiability for ID Theory. Diffaxial: "Both can be wrong. The entire population of U.D., USA seems to be particularly dense on this point." Of course. And ... ?!?!?!? CJYman: "That is easily testable by setting up a program whereby an arbitrary set of laws (to rule out a set of laws chosen with regard for future consequences — foresight) interacts with random (generated by a random number generator based on atmospheric noise) initial and boundary conditions. What is produced? Is there even any theoretical evidence that such a process will produce physically inert function." Diffaxial: "This is beyond ridicule. You think building a simulation of a lawful universe of sufficient richness to yield complex organisms characterized by computational abstraction would be “easy”?" Ummm ... that's the point. Will law and chance provide said complex patterns or will intelligence be required? The universe is after all, according to Seth Lloyd, merely a computing machine (read "Programming the Universe). So start the small scale testing and see what happens. If your position is correct we should be able to generate the patterns we are discussing, at the level already provided by evolutionary algorithms, utilizing the set up I mentioned. SO are you going to provide evidence for your position and against the ID position or are you just going to continue to complain about ID Theory based on your apparent ignorance of the fundamentals of the subject? Diffaxial: "And that were you to fail to produce a functioning simulation the conclusion is justified that the events you attempted to simulate could not have occurred?" No. It would only mean that there is no evidence for YOUR position yet, and ID Theory would still be the only viable (and observed) alternative. Diffaxial: "Wouldn’t your conscience be nagged by the possibility that your understanding of the underlying events and/or your skill at understanding and constructing such simulations may have been lacking?" Wow, you are really missing the point. What skills are possessed by chance and law absent any previous intelligence? IF the simulation *necessarily relies* on my skills as derived from my intelligence, then that is merely further confirmation that ID Theory is most likely correct. The simulation I recommended effectively removes the intelligence part of the equation thus allowing us to peer into what law and chance on its own will or will not reasonably produce. CJYman: "ID Theory: 1. Observe that intelligence precludes physically inert “meaning/function.” Diffaxial: "Number 1: This isn’t an observation. It’s an assumption." Applying one's foresight is an experience common to all humans who, at the very least, can read and write. Keep in mind that we have never directly observed the Big Bang, photons, or the history of life. I observe that other humans, which must possess intelligence as I do (due to common biological construction and ancestry), will produce those patterns (such as your previous comments) which I produce through the use of foresight. Thus I observe the effects of an intelligent system whenever I watch someone, for example, write a letter. Are you denying that you use your intelligence to produce your comments here? CJYman: "2. Use that observation to predict that any system purported to be intelligently designed will, upon further investigation, be found to contain physically inert function/meaning." Diffaxial: "Number 2: Now you are predicting what you have just assumed." Incorrect. Refer to my answer to number 1. CJYman: "3. Provide a falsifiable and testable statement such as “law and chance absent intelligence will not generate physically inert function.” Diffaxial: "Number 3: This isn’t a test of your theory. It is a test of the alternative theory." It tests both ... as affirmative results will back up one and negative results will back up the other. I've already shown above within this comment how it is indeed a test of ID Theory with could potentially falsify one aspect of ID Theory. CJYman: "4. Continue to “do science.”" Diffaxial: "Number 4: You can’t “continue” to do science when you haven’t done any in the first place." ... and you have yet to back up any of your assertions including this one. Diffaxial, thus far I have explained ID Theory to you in terms of inference, observation, prediction, testing, and potential falsifiability; and you have merely shown your ignorance of the fundamentals of ID Theory.CJYman_{May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

"Are you going to hide behind moderation’s skirt, or request that the comment in question be restored? I would." It is all right with me if they restore your attempt to discredit something by saying it was fantasy and weird several times or I had fantasies when you admitted you did not understand what I was talking about. It shows the level at which anti ID people operate. When someone disparages something they do not understand, I will always call that a stupid comment. There are plenty of more choice words that could be used but "stupid" and "clueless" about the comments are appropriate especially after it was explained to you.jerry_{May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

My comments are now being arbitrarily and silently deleted, which I'll chose to accept as a compliment vis their effectiveness. Moderation may remark, "your comment was satirical" (which it surely was, although that satire conveyed a serious observation). To that I reply that in the above thread Jerry has repeatedly characterized my remarks as "stupid," as "a joke," and as "clueless," while I have never used such language. Yet Jerry's remarks still stand. Moreover, on the "science is self-correcting" thread StephenB has just posted satirical replies he imagines I might make to several of his questions. They also still stand. (I don't mind.) It follows that it is not the satirical component of my post that resulted in its deletion. Rather, once again, it is reasonable to conclude that moderation at UD finds it necessary to place its thumb on the scale when the discussion is going badly for ID. Jerry: Are you going to hide behind moderation's skirt, or request that the comment in question be restored? I would.Diffaxial_{May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

Jerry @144
“What he doesn’t do is guide his imaginary research by means of imaginary hypotheses and imaginary predictions that arise uniquely from ID, such that ID is put at risk of imaginary disconfirmation.”
Jerry seems to be replying to a post that doesn't exist. If the moderators here are not going to abide by the clear guidelines stated by Barry Arrington, common courtesy would dictate that some indication is made when posts are removed. It would also be courteous to somehow visually distinguish those who are in the moderation queue (perhaps a pink triangle or yellow star next to their names) so that the people they are conversing with know not to expect replies for at least 12 hours. JJJayM_{May 25, 2009
May
05
May
25
25
2009
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

"What he doesn’t do is guide his imaginary research by means of imaginary hypotheses and imaginary predictions that arise uniquely from ID, such that ID is put at risk of imaginary disconfirmation." I love it, you don't understand it and apparently Zachriel doesn't either or else you would not have made such an asinine statement and used him as your source. But you are getting pretty good at such things so I shouldn't be surprised. It seems that sprinkling the word "fantasy" several times throughout your comment you seem to think that is enough to debunk something. By the way the scenario came from a discussion I had once with a biologist familiar with the evolution debate on the type of research that would have to be done in order to explain just how current species arose. I asked him a series of questions about how to figure out how specific traits or capabilities arose. He suggested a thorough on going study that compared genomes of a family of species to map their differences and estimate how they arose but that it would probably have to wait since the data is not currently available but should be sometime in the next 10-15 years. I chose bovids since it is a rather small family and would be manageable. Changes via micro evolution is not something ID has any problem with and what has happened in nature in the last few million years seems to be mainly that and only that. But that is not what macro evolution is about, at least what ID refers to as macro evolution. Apparently neither of you understand Behe's ideas in the Edge of Evolution or you would not have given this answer. The scenario which you call a fantasy was made up to illustrate a point that most of the changes that are touted as evolution are trivial and essentially devolution. And this is consistent with what ID would predict and as such represents an empirical test of Behe's ideas. I have not seen anything in any book/article/discussion/treatise on evolution dispute that. And you have not disputed that or provided any counter examples nor has anyone who has ever appeared here. Which is why the scenario though obviously fictitious represents the main problem with evolutionary biology. If you want to call it a fantasy, indulge yourself. It is ok with me. The anti ID sole's contribution to the evolution debate seems to be to mock, ridicule, make stupid statements but not make comments of substance and essentially be irrelevant of which you seem to be an exemplar. I wish someone would come here who could make a decent argument. That way we might learn something new.jerry_{May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Sorry Diffaxial, that was pretty garbled. If the reality is that life is designed would not that be a positive contribution to what you could consider?tribune7_{May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

"The plain fact that ID theorists generate no unique, testable predictions from their framework (for reasons you have cited), and conduct no actual empirical research that arises uniquely from their own framework, testifies to the value of that increment." The cluelessness just goes on. We will have to make you a poster child for the non sequitur. I never said that there were no unique testable predictions. You are still locked in an inadequate paradigm and do not know how to think outside of it. I have used this example a couple times before and it may start you on the way to having a clue. Though somehow I doubt it because I see no flexibility in your comments only a one track attempt to undermine something that follows logic and reason. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/faq2-is-open-for-comment/#comment-304029jerry_{May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Jerry @ 140: The only work relevant to the value of ID is the increment of theory and empirical research contributed by ID beyond that conducted within the current evolutionary framework. For the rest we don't need you. The plain fact that ID theorists generate no unique, testable predictions from their framework (for reasons you have cited), and conduct no actual empirical research that arises uniquely from their own framework, testifies to the value of that increment.Diffaxial_{May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

"And in my experience ID “considering” these issues consists of time in an armchair parasitically reinterpreting data obtained by others - in a way that, once again, generates no testable assertions and hence no further research. That isn’t science." The best term I can use for this attitude is "clueless." When science takes on one more additional possible explanation, it does not mean it eliminates all the other explanations. Maybe we should speak in shorter sentences so you may be able to understand. ID does not eliminate anything that current science does. ID can do any experiment that current science does. ID can do additional experiments that current science might not do. ID can come to the same conclusions as current science does. ID can also come to some different conclusions than current science. ID will come to a naturalistic explanation in nearly all experiments. But in fact naturalistic explanations can be used to support intelligence based conclusions. ID will do some things differently than current science about its conclusions. For example, it will not make up any unsupported conclusions. It will not use the words "it evolved", "it was selected", "it was exapted", "it emerged" to explain an unknown event or transition. ID will not use its imagination as evidence in science. Now that you understand some of the things that ID will add to science you may try some other non sequiturs to your array of arguments. But I suggest you try to understand instead. ID adds, it does not subtract. Your point of view subtracts and restricts and oppresses and misinforms. So please try an honest and logical argument. It is getting tiresome. No one is asking you to agree with an ID conclusion even if it is completely logical and well supported, but try to represent it reliably instead of distorting it. You might learn something.jerry_{May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

If the reality is that there is a design to life, the universe, your existence would not that not be positive contribution to what you could consider?
Errup - Do, or do not. There is no try.Diffaxial_{May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Kairos @ 136:
Providing a powerful means to infer on best empirically anchored explanation from empirical signs to intelligent cause is a MAJOR, positive — though of course, often unappreciated — contribution of modern ID theory to science.
Not if it fails to make testable empirical predictions. And it does so fail.
good empirical data are a Commons of the scientific community, so ID thinkers are not parasitic — a loaded word if anything is — to use that in-common base to ask: is there a better way to understand the acknowledged facts?
But responses to that question that fail to contribute testable predictions are of no scientific value.
Einstein for instance...
Although Einstein did not test his theoretical assertions himself, they were testable. The assertions of ID are not. So the analogy fails.
So, please turn down the rhetoric a notch or two.
LOL!! (Although I feel shortchanged, as your post is less than five thousand words and doesn't have four or five bulleted lists.)Diffaxial_{May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial But ID theory makes no positive contributions whatsoever to the process of “considering what I could consider” - the only prong of the argument with content that includes science proper. If the reality is that there is a design to life, the universe, your existence would not that not be positive contribution to what you could consider?tribune7_{May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

Diff: Providing a powerful means to infer on best empirically anchored explanation from empirical signs to intelligent cause is a MAJOR, positive -- though of course, often unappreciated -- contribution of modern ID theory to science. Secondly, FYI, good empirical data are a Commons of the scientific community, so ID thinkers are not parasitic -- a loaded word if anything is -- to use that in-common base to ask: is there a better way to understand the acknowledged facts? (And, in my home discipline, theorists hold a much higher prestige than empirical researchers. Einstein for instance made his name off "parasiting" off the empirical findings of others, providing novel explanations of well known but otherwise puzzling results. largely for his work on Brownian motion and on the photo-effect, he won a Nobel prize, without having done any of the practical experimental work. Indeed, his favourite type of experiment seems to have been the thought experiment -- the experiment done in the head.) Third, as a matter of fact, design thinkers have been and are providing additional empirical evidence, e.g. consider the long term work of Scott Minnich et al; regardless of judge Jones' blindness to the obvious in his courtroom. (That a paradigm is small and poorly funded has may make a difference on the quantum of work, but given the force of the work, that smallness has little to do with its revolutionary impact.) So, please turn down the rhetoric a notch or two. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

Anything that you could consider, ID can consider.
But ID theory makes no positive contributions whatsoever to the process of "considering what I could consider" - the only prong of the argument with content that includes science proper. And in my experience ID "considering" these issues consists of time in an armchair parasitically reinterpreting data obtained by others - in a way that, once again, generates no testable assertions and hence no further research. That isn't science.
It just can consider more alternatives and can follow the empirical evidence to reach those conclusions.
This phase of "consideration," by your own admission, consists in rearranging conceptual deck chairs (your "logic process" with no real domain of investigation) until you've arrived at the conclusion you sought from the outset. There is no empirical research done in this phase because no research can be done in this phase, for the very reasons you suggest above ("will" is inherently unpredictable). "Following evidence" from from your well-worn armchair isn't research. So, consider away! But you're not getting anything done - which has patently been the case for the entire ID movement since its inception. The balance of your post omits mention of the problem that "we don't know" fails to increase confidence in the ID position, as much as you wish it were so. Nor do you address yourself to the question of who decides when a naturalistic explanation "should be there" but isn't, and declares ID as supported. "A skeleton walked into a bar and asked for a beer and a mop."Diffaxial_{May 24, 2009
May
05
May
24
24
2009
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

"Your approach of counting “failures of naturalistic processes when they should be there” is woefully inadequate for reasons that I have repeated several times" You are stuck in the limitations of your paradigm. There is nothing inadequate about discerning the truth. That is why ID is much more enlightening than the naturalistic position. You just admitted as such. If there were known intelligences wandering around the universe 3.8 billion years ago, no one would think twice about the ID position. If the situation was fast forwarded to today, you would consider intelligence as a potential cause. But you are a prisoner of a limited methodology and because of that you are limited in what you can conceive as possible. ID is not limited as you are. Anything that you could consider, ID can consider. It just can consider more alternatives and can follow the empirical evidence to reach those conclusions. So don't complain to us about the intellectual strait jacket you have placed yourself in. And then you say: "Don’t you find it a little disquieting that your theory has nothing to meaningful to contribute to the incremental advancement of knowledge within the very domains (e.g. biology, human evolution, etc.) to which it claims to pertain?" What a joke!!! An intellectual position that allows one to consider everything that you can consider but a lot more is not one that limits incremental advancement but advances it. No, it is you with your limited mind set that is impeded from finding explanations, not ID. As I said, what a joke.jerry_{May 23, 2009
May
05
May
23
23
2009
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

Jerry:
One of the things about intelligence is that it is not predictable. If it was, then it would be not will but a natural process.
What you are really putting your finger on is the fact that your theory doesn't entail any particular predictions (because an idealized agent can do anything) and hence cannot be given a testable formulation - any empirical finding can be rationalized as resulting from design. It is therefore not subject to empirical disconfirmation and therefore can never be a science, as you correctly underscored in your earlier post. Your approach of counting "failures of naturalistic processes when they should be there" is woefully inadequate for reasons that I have repeated several times (and which you haven't addressed): "we don't know" is a third position, and it doesn't follow from "we don't know" that confidence has increased in ID (which is scientifically impotent in any event). An additional reason to reject this view is the problem of deciding just when such natural explanations "should be there." Who is going to adjudicate that? You?! Peh. Lastly, you'll notice that your model of empirical consequences for ID settles for a state of affairs in which ALL empirical work (that which somehow enables you to decide when there "should" be natural explanations, but are not) is accomplished within the alternative framework, a process to which ID has nothing to contribute. Don't you find it a little disquieting that your theory has nothing to meaningful to contribute to the incremental advancement of knowledge within the very domains (e.g. biology, human evolution, etc.) to which it claims to pertain?Diffaxial_{May 23, 2009
May
05
May
23
23
2009
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

"Darwinian evolution is the biggest load of nonsense, the greatest scientific fraud of modern history" I use the expression with people that Darwinian evolution is the biggest con job of the 20th century. Here we are on this site in the cross hairs of a whole host of Darwinists and not one has been ever been able to come here and give a coherent explanation of macro evolution. Nor has anyone in any book or on any website been able to do so. A pretty pathetic performance.jerry_{May 23, 2009
May
05
May
23
23
2009
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

I never said there was no empirical tests. There certainly are. You are just used to theories operating under natural forces and then trying to predict just what those natural forces will lead to. And if they lead to the right things then one can say that the natural processes hypothesized received support. Since there are no natural forces with an intelligent input, one has to look for something else but it is still empirical. You are operating under the wrong paradigm. One of the things about intelligence is that it is not predictable. If it was, then it would be not will but a natural process. One of the things you look for is the failure of predictions for the naturalistic processes when they should be there. Each such failure is another nail in that naturalistic theory's coffin and as such increases support for the intelligent cause. It never proves it because a naturalistic process could always be found and I doubt there are any video tapes of the designer in action. And if the causes for the failure is the naturalistic limitations your research has unearthed then that is evidence to support intelligence. You still don't understand that it is an either/or situation. And when either the either or the or is disconfirmed it is evidence for the other (make sure you parse the either's and or's correctly.)jerry_{May 23, 2009
May
05
May
23
23
2009
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

oops again... ...a dialog, and that both components are required (and require one-another) for science to work.Diffaxial_{May 23, 2009
May
05
May
23
23
2009
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

In the same vein, I quote my favorite idiot, Richard Dawkins. "Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes. For if it is not gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all. Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle, which is simply a synonym for the total absence of explanation." When insanity like this passes for reasoned discourse and "scientific" explanation, well, that just about says it all. Darwinian evolution is the biggest load of nonsense, the greatest scientific fraud of modern history. I can only surmise that people have too much invested in it to turn their backs on it now that the game is up. Granted, it would take a real set of stones to stand up and say, "Hey, I've been had for all these years. Here's your grant money back. My papers are all farces. At least the ones that have the word evolution in them." How would one face his peer group at the faculty club? The alternative is to go on "believing" what one now knows is a lie. And trust me, everyone knows. Anyone who's THOUGHT about it for more than 5 minutes, anyway. The whole idea is patent nonsense. When ANYONE can explain information and language in terms of physical laws THEN I will listen. But that's never gonna happen, as I have argued. Without rebuttal, I might add. The logical contradictions and empirical problems in evolutionary theory are legion and I would happily dive in but the "other side" apparently doesn't "believe in" logic. Oh well...tgpeeler_{May 23, 2009
May
05
May
23
23
2009
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT}

I’m truly astonished. Even for a darwinist this is ridiculous.
That passage is an accurate paraphrase of the quoted portion of Jerry's post. Take it up with him. There are many systems of knowledge that are interesting and valuable, but not subject to empirical test and hence not a portion of science proper. And it certainly does not follow from the fact that the "logical process" of ID is not science that genuine science does not employ logic, reasoning, inference, etc. I don't fixate on observation. I argue that observation and theory are in aDiffaxial_{May 23, 2009
May
05
May
23
23
2009
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT}

"ID isn’t a scientific theory. It’s more of a “logic process.” As such, we don’t expect to be able to yoke its assertions to the world by means of empirical tests in the way that genuine scientific assertions must be. To request such a relationship is whining." I'm truly astonished. Even for a darwinist this is ridiculous. You can't "yoke the assertions of logic to the world by means of empirical tests." That's rich. How else does one do it? Really. I'm serious. The "scientific method" is an iterative process that observes and draws inferences from those observations, is it not? You fixate on the observations and apparently overlook or discount the making of inferences. Is that NOT REASONING? This is the core of what is so maddening about trying to get someone like you to see reason. You reject it. I have heard some really ignorant things in my day but this takes the cake. It's an outright admission of the rejection of reason. Yet you can't even make an argument for your position without reasoning. Can't you see that? Sigh...tgpeeler_{May 23, 2009
May
05
May
23
23
2009
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

Jerry:
Because ID is more of a logic process and not a specific scientific theory it does not have the usual domain of interest such as plate tectonics, cosmology or even evolution.
That's good enough for me. ID isn't a scientific theory. It's more of a "logic process." As such, we don't expect to be able to yoke its assertions to the world by means of empirical tests in the way that genuine scientific assertions must be. To request such a relationship is whining. At long last, the right answer. Jerry, you better tell the others. They don't seem to want to hear it from me.
There are two choices for any phenomenon, both of them rather broad.... All ID has to do is show that naturalistic processes fail at some point and that an intelligent input is more reasonable...Hence, every time science fails in these areas it adds credence to the alternative.
That doesn't follow. "We don't know" is also an alternative. In a scientific context it is a superior alternative to making confident assertions for which there is no positive justification. Moreover, when in the predicament of "we don't know" only one of the alternatives is capable of generating empirically testable hypotheses and advancing empirical research (as you just stated), and hence only one presents the potential of reducing our uncertainty by scientific means. ID, as "more of a logic process" that doesn't have empirical purchase on the world, remains parasitical on real science at best. Because irrelevant to empirical investigation, is useless when it comes to actually reducing that uncertainty. If that is the sort of "credence" that you find satisfying, you are welcome to it.Diffaxial_{May 23, 2009
May
05
May
23
23
2009
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

"Peeler—where have you been all of my life?" Bless you. I've been preparing for battle. (Not that the preparation ever stops.) Glad to be finally be here. :-)tgpeeler_{May 23, 2009
May
05
May
23
23
2009
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

Part 3 - Now this game of supporting the ID premise is played two ways and both use the tools of science, logic and reason. One shows that time after time that certain naturalistic processes have failed. The second way is to show why naturalistic processes have failed. Both use science and point to the inadequacy of natural processes. There is a third way which one group says must be present before an intelligent input can be accepted and that is evidence for the specific event where there was an input of intelligence. The first way above is to challenge each natural explanation for the phenomenon as flawed and show why the explanation could not have possibly happened. This is the frequent challenges to Darwinian macro evolution we have seen not only by the ID people but also by the anti ID people as well as the creationists. It is represented here on this site and in the academic and popular literature by the lack of any coherent demonstration that Darwinian macro evolution ever took place. Now macro evolution did take place and no one is denying that here but there is no evidence for it happening by Darwinian processes or any other known natural processes. All the processes of science are brought to bear in this examination so to declare it non scientific is ludicrous. The second way is to use observations of the world and then to complement these observations with some form of analysis, mainly probability, and some understanding of natural processes to illustrate why the failure of naturalistic processes is not only reasonable but to be expected. To this end a couple of different approaches are in their infancy but have showed some reasonable results. One is being developed by Behe and is showing that there does not exist the probabilistic resources to create the changes needed in macro evolution. Behe's two books, Darwin's Black Box and Edge of Evolution, are aimed at this objective. Namely, that life is extremely complicated and naturalistic processes seem unable to climb the hurdles necessary to produce macro evolution. Another is being done by Dembski and others trying to show something similar using mathematical and probabilistic approaches to show that reaching the complexity necessary for life is beyond the probabilistic resources of the universe. So in lots of way the two approaches are similar but using different methodologies to attack the same problem. To argue that this is not science is also ludicrous. One may argue that the techniques by these scientists are flawed or that the interpretation of the results are invalid but to say that they are not using science is absurd. Now the naturalists respond with their challenges. The best challenge would always be to show that the phenomena probably arose by naturalistic means but this is rarely done because there seems to be little evidence supporting any particular mechanism. The main challenge is to use something similar to what I described above as the first approach, namely that the intelligent input scenario is flawed just as ID people point out that each naturalistic input is flawed. The creator could not be omniscient, or no one would design such an imperfect system or make these childish mistakes etc. They also point to science's track record in other areas and that the work on the problem is just getting started etc. So we have two broad approaches and any evidence in one camp reduces the likelihood of the other. It is one that won't be solved any time soon but to assume your side is right a priori is ridiculous. ID is the more reasonable side as far as I can see. They are willing to accept naturalistic explanations when it is demonstrated but are not willing to accept an arbitrary demand of absolute dismissiveness for intelligent inputs that is imposed by the naturalists. One side is flexible and reasonable while the other side is intransigent and unmoving.jerry_{May 23, 2009
May
05
May
23
23
2009
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

Part 2 - We have observed a lot of phenomena through out history that could possibly be explained by an intelligent input and the challenge for science is to verify if there may be a natural cause for each. For most of history it was thought that God was personally responsible for most, much, or a lot of these phenomena. From Zeus throwing lightning bolts in anger and the various gods determining the fates of various personalities such as Odysseus to Newton's hypothesis that God sent comets to stabilize the orbits of the planets. Newton's laws and then LaPlace's theory of the heavens seemed to show that all was under control of natural laws. So it was assumed from then on by many that everything must be under control of natural laws. We have no need for Zeus and lightning bolts and for comets stabilizing orbits. And we get the conventional wisdom that everything is due to natural laws and chance and it is only a matter of time before science gets around to explaining it. And science has a good track record. But what is glaringly obvious is that science has some spectacular failures in one particular area. So while science continues to chalk up win after win there seems to be one opponent which gets the better of it every time. Consequently, one has to reevaluate the conventional wisdom and maybe consider an alternative to natural processes. ID only exists because science loses most of the time to the heavy weights in this one area, namely life. It does wonderfully well in some important areas of life, specifically medicine, food production and genetics but it is badly outperformed by the problems in the areas of macro evolution and origin of life. Why this failure here? Is there an alternative to naturalistic processes in these two domains. Is intelligence an explanation? Hence, every time science fails in these areas it adds credence to the alternative. At this moment in the realm of logic and reason both alternatives exist. Which is more feasible? Every time we see the failure of one alternative it raises the possibility of the other. After all it is possible. We just cannot identify the intelligence. So each failure for a natural pathway raises the probability of the alternative, namely an intelligent input. And the rationale for an intelligent input has been bolstered by the knowledge that what underlies life is different from every other area of nature, specifically information. Information is not present in any other area of nature except life.jerry_{May 23, 2009
May
05
May
23
23
2009
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

"I wonder how many times this will need to be repeated? The above is a test of the alternative theory, not of ID. It would not follow from the failure of the alternative that ID is correct. Both can be wrong. The entire population of U.D., USA seems to be particularly dense on this point." This is a rather stupid statement and indicates a lack of understanding of the issues. My reply to this is rather long so if no one wants to read it, I understand because I am mainly clarifying my thoughts by writing this. I will make this reply in three rather long comments and if anyone wants to comment, feel free. There are two choices for any phenomenon, both of them rather broad. One is that certain things happened naturally, the mechanism to be discovered. The second is that these things were produced through intelligent input. And by the way a lot of what may be considered natural, could be the result of a designed process allowed to proceed naturally. For some simple examples, pearl farmers seed their shell fish with an irritant and the let nature do the rest and beavers dam the course of a river and the ensuing wetlands provide an enhanced habitat for the beavers and other animals and plants.. But in general it is mainly one or the other but what appears to be natural could also be great design. There are no other choices unless you want to proffer some. As I said these are rather broad categories. It is almost impossible to eliminate the intelligent input option. It is not a theory such as gravity, the Standard Model, the Laws of Thermodynamics, Kinetic theory of Gases, Information theory or Plate Tectonics etc yet people keep on asking for some hypotheses and predictions. ID is simply that intelligence is an input at some time in the history of being, the universe, the world, life etc. Some hypothesize that it was in the design of the universe itself and the initial conditions and subsequent boundary conditions of the Big Bang were such fantastic design that it enables natural processes to produce everything we see including this very rare planet, the origin of life and the evolutionary progression through subsequent natural consequences. Some hypothesize that the input was ongoing and there were various events that reflect an intelligent input. This input could have been minimal and then natural processes were allowed to do the rest. To disprove an intelligent input, one has to show natural processes at every turn. It is a difficult job. All ID has to do is show that naturalistic processes fail at some point and that an intelligent input is more reasonable. They only need one point. That is the nature of the discussion. It seems unfair to some who whine that ID is unfalsifiable. But that is it. Because ID is more of a logic process and not a specific scientific theory it does not have the usual domain of interest such as plate tectonics, cosmology or even evolution. After all an intelligence could create life or modify a genome to guide life maybe only once and that is not the making of some theory. To create life or modify it is not too hard to understand as it appears to be within human capability in the near future. Thus, the possibility of an intelligence creating and modifying life is not an issue. It is whether it ever happened or not that is at issue. If we had a video camera at the time of an intelligent input, we could settle it once and for all but such an event does not exist and we have had people here and at other places demanding such evidence. Short of this something else has to be done.jerry_{May 23, 2009
May
05
May
23
23
2009
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

Joseph: Now that you are back, earlier you stated
diffaxial had tried to answer those pertaining to the theory of evolution but the answers were so far off base they were pathetic.
I asked you to reproduce that exchange. But you ran away.Diffaxial_{May 23, 2009
May
05
May
23
23
2009
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply