ID Meeting Its Maker?

mentok, If you think Brayton and Inlay are engaging in sophistry and semantic games, that's fine. But why not tell the rest of us why you think so? To me, it appears that they've been quite fair in their interpretation of Dembski's statements. You say they've built a straw man. Perhaps you're right. How about giving us an example of a statement they've misinterpreted? Please give us 1) Dembski's original words, 2) Brayton and/or Inlay's misinterpretation, 3) What you think Dembski meant, and 4) Why your version of the meaning invalidates Brayton and/or Inlay's argument. In the passage you quote, Dembski is talking about a system which cannot be explained by any known or unknown material mechanism, even in principle. Don't you see the implication, mentok? If Dembski is correct, this is an awesomely important discovery: a system which absolutely requires a supernatural explanation, and cannot be explained any other way. So please, mentok, tell us why Brayton and Inlay are wrong. keiths

Well I disagree. The arguments they make are a display of sophistry and arguing over semantics. They are an attempt to argue against what they think Bill Dembski meant. When he said something general about Axe's work which could be interpreted in different ways they choose to interpret it in specific way and then they argue over semantics and essentially build a straw man and then attack it. It's sophistry and a common tactic among fanatic evolution activists. mentok

mentok accuses Ed Brayton ("Dispatches from the Culture Wars") of the straw man fallacy: "Instead of arguing against what Bill actually said, you go on to argue against things he didn’t say. So regardless of your claims it was a straw man argument." mentok, I have read Ed Brayton's post and the Matt Inlay article it links to. Both of them are meticulous in providing quotes from Dembski illustrating every point of his that they dispute. Their responses are direct and germane to Dembski's claims. How is this an instance of the "straw man" fallacy? The irony is that you, by providing no evidence whatsoever for your claim, are committing what I call the "fallacy of omission" -- failing to provide an argument at all. keiths

To whomever posted from dispatches from the cultural wars. Your argument against Bill Dembski's statement was a straw man argument. You took what Bill said and then argued against a different point. What did Bill say? "But there is now mounting evidence of biological systems for which any slight modification does not merely destroy the system’s existing function, but also destroys the possibility of any function of the system whatsoever (Axe, 2000). For such systems, neither direct nor indirect Darwinian pathways could account for them. In that case we would be dealing with an in-principle argument showing not merely that no known material mechanism is capable of accounting for the system but also that any unknown material mechanism is incapable of accounting for it as well." You then tried to show how Axe's work contradicts that claim. But you fail. Instead of arguing against what Bill actually said, you go on to argue against things he didn't say. So regardless of your claims it was a straw man argument. mentok

test mentok

Dembski on Templeton and ID Research In the wake of yesterday's NY Times article that included the Templeton Foundation saying that when they demanded that ID advocates produce actual research that could confirm ID and offered to fund that, they didn't come up with any, William... Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Yeah Bill, then we can hear lloydletta here tell us about "IDiocy" and "intelligent design creationism" and other canards based on his or her imagination and not in fact. Josh Bozeman

Indeed, that's an awesome bombshell to drop in a mere parenthetical statement, and then to leave us all hanging is just plain cruel! :) Best regards. Marckus

Yes, me too. What are the citations for the PNAS and Journal of Molecular Biology article(s) that deal with "fundamental research on ID"? Moreover, I'd like to hear what you think about the articles, a citation or link to a discussion would be fine. mattdunn2

WD: I know for a fact that Discovery Institute tried to interest the Templeton Foundation in funding fundamental research on ID that would be publishable in places like PNAS and Journal of Molecular Biology (research that got funded without Templeton support and now has been published in these journals), and the Templeton Foundation cut off discussion before a proposal was even on the table. EY: Can you give specific citations for these articles in PNAS and the JMB? I'd be interested in reading the articles. [See the work of Douglas Axe. --WmAD] lloydletta

The computer analogy was in reponse to your idea that a designer has top be apart from the desgn. The idea of the computer is a rough example and not to be taken as more. The idea is that whatever design appears in the computer is a part of the computer (holisitically speaking). So if the designer is everywhere and everything exists as part of the designer then whatever the designer designs is part of the designer. This is called panentheism. There are different types of panentheism, this one is from a Christian perspective http://www.frimmin.com/faith/godinall.html The frog in the well story is meant to illuminate our abilities when it comes to understanding God and the universe through our own experience of what is possible. We are limited by our experience or lack thereof. We cannot understand that which we have no conception of. That is the point of revealed religions and prophets and shamans, they purport to give insight to things we have no access to through our own limited experience which is dependent on our physical and mental prowess. mentok

To mentok, I agree with much of your last paragraph: "...they have spent years and money on promoting a certain science/religious vision, then along comes ID and throws into question the certainty of their vision." I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning about the designer possibly being part of the design. I tried to understand your analogies. When we look at the computer, we can tell it is designed. We look at what's on the screen (even the dreaded blue screen), we see it is designed. The computer itself isn't designing anything. Even a fractal generator is designed. Somebody, somewhere wrote everything I see with respect to both the hardware and the software. I know this to be true with only a cursory understanding of how it all works. I can see the possibility of something like a playwright appearing in his own play. But that is not at all incomprehensible, especially for a Christian. I can't identify with the frog at all. The empiracle data available to the frog would lead the observant frog to suspect the circular opening at the top of the well is designed and that it is a finished product, so is not the designer of the circular opening. Eventually, he might suspect both his environment and even his self are designed. I don't mean to sound offensive if I do; I just don't understand your reasoning. Red Reader

Well the senses and the mind which I include as the 6 sense. mentok

gnuosphere you wrote: "Surely one does not understand god through any tradition - through any thought. If god is understood through thought, god becomes a petty affair. God cannot be defined by the word. What is described never matches the description - what is described is much to immense for the description. How can the part contain the whole? Obviously, it cannot." Yet you are trying to define how god can be understood through thought. God can be defined through words to a degree, it's imprecise to say that god cannot be defined at all through words. For instance I can say "God is alive" and that would be words used that define god to a degree. Then you wrote: "To bring god down to thought - as the monotheistic faiths do - is to view the whole in duality, in opposition." Earth to gnuosphere, come in gnuosphere, can you read me?, over. We make do with we have. If you can come up with a thoughtless approach to God, well...the joke writes itself. Then you wrote: "Why is there so much hostility toward evolution? Surely evolution has its place. But those who want to prop it up as “the answer” are obviously fooling themselves. However, we are doing no justice by continually painting ourselves into a corner as “anti-evolutionists” - speaking of “darwinists” as something vile and ignorant." Don't let the blighters get ya down. Then you wrote: "To ignore evolution is surely an irresponsible approach." If evolution wants more friends maybe evolution should take a long long into the mirror and say "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and gosh darn it, people like me!". Maybe it's a confidence thing? It's such a bore a parties of late, if it wants more attention it should talk less about it's boring job or the weather and be more responsive in conversation. Nobody likes being stuck in a sticky wicket. Then you wrote: Evolution does not challenge god. Evolution challenges the monotheistic versions of god - and well it should. God “out there”, “creator”, “transcendent”, the “first cause”? Surely these ideas are a distortion." Actually monotheistic traditions also teach that God is immanent and transcendent. Here, there, and everywhere. Panentheism is a common monotheistic outlook. Then you wrote: "What foolishness to define god! When we define what is, what is moves “out there” and we need our prophets, saviors, and other various stories for comfort - to escape our fear. That god - the one spoken of - its existence is childishly debated by the theists and atheists. This war is perpetual." Ironic to see you doing just that innit? Then you wrote: "Organized religion is a disease." Unless you were in charge innit? Then you wrote: "It begins much earlier than any church. It begins when we define god, truth, or what you will." What if God defines himself or truth or what you will? Is that alright with you? Are we okay with that? Can God speak through others using words? Is God unable to do that? Is anybody out there? HELLO-OH! Then you wrote: "Only those who have no love in their hearts define god." So it is written to it shall be. (from gnuosphere "sermon on the net" 12/4/2005) Then you wrote: "God is not found in thought. God is found only in one place. Silence." Be quiet then, innit? Then you said: "A religious mind has nothing whatsoever to do with believing in religion." It does if it wants to sonny jim. mentok

Red Reader you wrote: "Intelligent Design assiduously does not identify the Designer. It looks at the empiricle evidence–cosmic and/or biological–as says, “These components appear to be designed.” BUT the implications of design markers in the physical universe are NOT ONLY that there is a Designer, but also that the Designer exists APART FROM the universe. (The irreducibly complex mousetrap appears to be a finished product. Therefore the designer is distinct from the mousetrap.)" I would have to disagree that the designer is implied as being apart from the universe or that the designer is distinct from the design by the fact of being the builder of the mousetrap. Those are theological questions which are subjective rather then objective. A designer could be designing things in ways we cannot comprehend due to our limited experience of what is possible or impossible for the designer to be or do. It's like the frog in a well. The frog has lived his whole life in a well and has some children of his own. One day his son asks him "What's the world like father?" The frog answers him "It's wet and slimy and dark and way above us there is a light in the shape of a hole half of the time". The point is we are limited by our inability to see beyond what our senses can perceive. An example to show how a designer could be part of the the design is in how a computer works. A computer is one thing and a design which you can create with your computer is another thing. The design exists as part of the computer, what you see on your monitor is distinct from the computer itself in the sense that it is not the computer, but at the same time it is existing as part of the computer. The computer designed something which is both different from the computer and part of the computer and existing within the computer and made out of the computer. As far as the Templeton Foundation goes, I believe that they see ID as something which in some way is calling into question their stated beliefs and therefore is a threat to their self esteem and credibility as being the prophets they probably like to be seen as. In simpler terms they have spent years and money on promoting a certain science/religious vision, then along comes ID and throws into question the certainty of their vision. This is embarrassing to them. I believe that people like George Coyne and others like him are in the same position. It's about ego and agendas driven by ego. mentok

Looking for reasons Templeton might have said, "None came in", when in fact Discovery Institute had asked for their help, I went to Templeton's website. On the page linked "Science and Religion", I found this quote from Sir John Marks Templeton (whom I suppose had something to do with initiating the foundation): "...there are strong hints of ultimate realities beyond the cosmos. One of the strongest hints, in our opinion, relates to the new understanding of the creativity of the cosmos, its capacity for so-called self-organization. ... From a theological perspective it is indeed tempting to see this remarkable self-organizing tendency as an expression of the intimate nature of the Creator's activity and identification with our universe." http://www.templeton.org/science_and_religion/index.asp "Stong hints"? Like, "The heavens declare the glory of God"? "new understanding"? See below. The is the second time in two days I have seen the idea which is referred to here as "creativity in the cosmos, its capacity for ... self-organization". I posted a link yesterday to Fr. Coyne's article where he says, "In the universe, as known by science, there [is a process] at work...the fertility of the universe." ("As known by science?!", "fertility of the universe?!") I have read elsewhere of the hypothesis Templeton shares that the universe is essentially "creating itself". But it is not "new". There are three predominant ideas for the existence of the Universe: theistic, atheistic and pantheistic. There are subvarieties within each genre. The idea that that the universe is creating itself is pantheistic. In other words, the universe itself is "god", its own god. Intelligent Design assiduously does not identify the Designer. It looks at the empiricle evidence--cosmic and/or biological--as says, "These components appear to be designed." BUT the implications of design markers in the physical universe are NOT ONLY that there is a Designer, but also that the Designer exists APART FROM the universe. (The irreducibly complex mousetrap appears to be a finished product. Therefore the designer is distinct from the mousetrap.) In my mind, this would explain Templeton's reluctance to fund an ID research project. Neither would I expect the Leakey Foundation ( http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/resources/r3.jsp ) to fund an ID research project. Maybe I'm making too much of one quote from their founder. When I look at Templeton's website, I see a whole lot "sounds good" and "feels inclusive" language and I tend not to waste much time digging beyond first impressions unless there is a really good reason which I don't have. Red Reader

The darwinists want to hear what the darwinists want to hear. Usurper

Does ID say that ALL biology is a result of design or that SOME of biology is a result of design? The DI's definition if ID: The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. It says that certain features are not the result of natural selection and other processes. But what features of the universe (and life as a part of said universe) are ARE the result of "unguided" processes? Are there any physical/biological processes that ID would consider "undirected"? If so, is there a resource (besides a commercially available one) that would explain exactly which features of the universe are and are not naturally guided or "unguided"? beervolcano

The design issue is dealt in so many places, it hardly needs to be delt with here, for the n'th time. Ben Z