Ideological Turing Test

_{Barry Arrington

November 29, 2016

Intelligent Design}

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

To all of our friends who subscribe to materialist accounts of evolution:

Here is an interesting little test.

The Ideological Turing Test is a concept invented by Bryan Caplan to test whether a political or ideological partisan correctly understands the arguments of his or her intellectual adversaries. The partisan is invited to answer questions or write an essay posing as his opposite number; if neutral judges cannot tell the difference between the partisan’s answers and the answers of the opposite number, the candidate is judged to correctly understand the opposing side.

Now most folks in the ID movement can pass the test when it comes to materialist evolutionary theory. After all, it is the dominant paradigm, and it has been crammed down our throats all of our lives. Yeah, yeah, I know. Our opponents often insist that only someone who does not truly understand their theory can reject it. Let’s set that bit of self-serving question begging aside. It really is the case that I have never seen a fair summary of ID theory come from one of our opponents. Invariably we get some caricature like “ID posits that all complex things must be designed.”

So, here is my challenge to our opponents: Do you understand ID well enough to pass the Ideological Turing Test? If you think you do, prove it by giving a one paragraph summary of ID in the comments below.

Comments

Barry: "MatSpirit, WD400, Seversky, daveS We know you are lurking around. Why don’t you give it a go?" I'd like to thank the folks at After the Bar Closes for reprinting your invitation, else I would have missed it. ID is the traditional Christian belief that God created life, the universe and everything, especially living things and especially us. It also encompasses the traditional Christian belief that this should be readily detectable. "The heavens declare the glory of God" or William Paley for examples. These traditional Christian beliefs became ID when the Supreme Court ruled that "Creation Science" was just a traditional Christian belief and forbade teaching it in public schools as science. A very smart law professor named Phillip Johnson, who had found Jesus while in the middle of a messy divorce, then had the idea of just saying that an unnamed Intelligent Designer, who was not necessarily the God of the Christians and Jews (and Muslims too, but keep that under your hat), designed life, the universe and everything. He felt that this could Constitutionally be taught in public school science classes and Pastor Bob could fill in the blanks on Sunday. Right about the time this new idea started gaining traction, Professor Johnson had a stroke visited upon him, but for some reason he didn't claim the blood clot was Intelligently Designed and kept championing ID. This left only one problem for ID: finding actual evidence of an Intelligent Designer. Luckily for those with a sense of humor, a twenty-years-in-college professional student named William Dembski was working at a Baptist summer camp. (Professional students often have trouble finding suitable employment, at least employment that they themselves consider suitable.) He mightily impressed the daughter of the President of Baylor college and when the dust settled he was ensconced by Sloan in a comfortable position at Baylor. There followed over a decade of absolute hilarity (unless you were an ID sympathiser) and when the dust finally settled, Sloan was fired, Dembski was released from all duties at Baylor (but still cashed his paychecks), the names, home addresses, home phone numbers and email addresses of the entire Baylor Board of Regents were published right here on this blog, (which he also started), the world was treated to a cartoon "criticising" a judge with fart noises personally supplied by Dembski, Dembski proved that he couldn't tell the difference between "some" and "all" in "No free Lunch", got fired from a Christian college, got fired by the DI and announced he was giving up ID and switching to education. And with Mrs. DeVoss taking over education, that may prove to have been a wise move. And all that without a single bit of evidence for Intelligent Design that could withstand scrutiny. However, Behe did prove that if God was the Intelligent Designer, then He designed the malaria organism. Though obvious, this was not as welcomed by the ID community as you might think. Meanwhile, the scientific world kept clearing its throat and saying, "How about evolution? We've got lots of evidence for that." I guess if I had to give the shortest, most concise definition of ID possible, I would say it's one of the few funny parts of religion.MatSpirit_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

Re: bornagain @ 6 Great observation I like this idea, but as has been pointed out, it isn't just about showing a superficial knowledge of the answers. If I where designing a test, I wouldn't simply use questions, but make it discussion based. Take a number of participants from the two groups, divide them up in some random way, with assignments of which position you will be arguing as. Pair them up group A against group B, and let them hash it out. As I looked up about ideological Turing tests, I found quite a bit of talk about strategies to beat the system, not necessarily to show understanding. The above method may require not only being able to parrot the correct arguments, but to come up with original responses. I do wonder however, if even if the answers are technically correct, if the thought process may give it away.bjMurray_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

gpuccio, Please, forgive me for quoting your comment from another discussion thread without your permission. I just thought your sound opinion was missing in this discussion. My opinion doesn't count much here, because I'm just a biology student wannabe. I learn about the ID concept from you and the other serious folks in this site. Thank you. PS. Excellent comment @61! (as usual) Mile grazie!Dionisio_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: "gpuccio takes the position that the meaning and method of science itself needs to change." Not exactly. I don't believe that an absolute method for science exists. That's not the same thing. I am all in favor of Feyerabend here. So, if an universal scientific method does not exist, why should I say that it must change? I don't accept methodological naturalism only because I believe that it is a wrong concept, bad philosophy of science. It is a wrong concept now, and it has always been. Nothing needs to change. I don't accept references to "nature" and "naturalism" because, as I have tried many times to argue, there is no true definition of "nature", and therefore of "naturalism". The word is simply vague and ambiguous. That's why most references to "methodological naturalism" are simply a (bad) philosophical position stating that scientific answers must be in the range of what someone expects them to be, an idea that is completely anti-science. That's why I prefer to think of science as a shareable search for reality, for things as they are. I would never categorize "reality" in advance as "natural" or else. Neither should science do anything like that. So, I don't believe that "the meaning and method of science itself needs to change". Not at all. I simply believe that the meaning of science has always been, and always will be, to try to understand reality in objective shareable ways. That should never change. And I believe that methodological naturalism is a biased philosophy of science, a dogmatic position which is in essence completely anti-science, always has been and always will be. And, if a method of science really exists (which I doubt), then methodological naturalism has nothing to do with it.gpuccio_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

I think it is fair to you and the observers if you ONLY revealed ONE PIECE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that convinced you THE MOST that life originated on its own and without a Intelligent Designer You didn't understand my question! I'm so sorry. Can you read my question again? If not. Don't worry. In NA we take care of all disabled people. You seem to have any illiteracy problem but there are means to translate it to you. Do you happen to have a learning disability? No to worry, there are services that can take of that.J-Mac_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

Fordgreen @52: Fair points about neutrality and blog forums. There is a flip side, however. The upside is that a blog gives people a chance to rework/revise/resubmit their thoughts and interact with others, rather than a "submit a once-and-final statement to a judge and they'll give you a thumbs-up or thumbs-down without feedback." In addition, given that the test is primarily geared toward determining whether the opponent understands and properly states the position in question, having the opponent's statement analyzed and corrected by proponents is a uniquely helpful avenue for making sure the opponent understands the proponent's position. Not perfect, by any means, but still a useful exercise.Eric Anderson_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Dionisio Great questions and I agree that it's the attitude that needs to change. If our opponents would ask "ok, but at what point do you infer design, and does that mean that science stops"? The answer should be that science should infer design when there is FCSI present, and no reasonable (better, compelling) case for any other cause or source for the observation can be determined. Science doesn't stop at that point - it can continue forever trying to find a natural cause. But until it does, and given the criteria above, scientific papers on such topics should begin with something like: "in research on the origins of this particular organism, thus far, the best explanation for it is intelligent design". It could go on to say "however, new findings may indicate that such an organism/structure could have been formed by [whatever]." If the results are speculative or the evidence to a strong conclusion -- then the point remains, "the best explanation for this is intelligent design".Silver Asiatic_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic, As far as I can see, what should change in science is the attitude to research, specially in biology, so that researchers don't have biased presuppositions that could affect their research. Top-down instead of bottom-up wherever it's possible (obviously not always possible). Thinking with open minds out of preconceived boxes. The case of morphogen gradient formation and interpretation could serve as an example. How in the world diffusion alone could explain the complexity of morphogenesis? Even Turing's 1952 ideas on this topic have turned 'slightly' inaccurate lately. Maybe because it was a little reductionist? Perhaps this is an interesting area for 'healthy' discussion here?Dionisio_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Eric A -- I agree in both cases. Thanks.Silver Asiatic_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

KF @ 41: I admire the kindness, compassion and patience you extend to rvb8 and others like him. You set a good example for ID advocates.Truth Will Set You Free_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: You have some good points about the broader issues surrounding intelligent design. When someone raises the question of what intelligent design is or whether we understand intelligent design or what intelligent design claims, it would seem we are talking about the design inference -- the central, key claims of the theory. That is what I have been focusing on, and it is a relatively simple and straight-forward proposition. Unfortunately, a number of individuals still don't quite get it or still don't quite frame the central issues clearly, which results in confusion. All this means is that the individual either doesn't fully understand the design inference or, more likely, didn't do a good job of describing it (something we are all no doubt guilty of in hurried online posts and comments.) But it doesn't mean that key design proponents have foundational disagreement over the central tenets of intelligent design. Now if we are going beyond what intelligent design is and getting into the implications of intelligent design, whether it should be taught in schools, whether the inference is met in specific biological instances, whether intelligent design meets some arbitrary definition of "science," that is a different story. There are, and are bound to be, healthy disagreements on these issues.Eric Anderson_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic @48:
He seemed to fully agree with Keith’s criticism, but only added that the ID argument is more than that.
I haven't spent a lot of time delving into past discussions and threads, so it is certainly possible that Ewert clarified his position later in the thread or elsewhere. But based just on the brief OP wd400 linked to, those two points you mention above are inconsistent with each other. keith s' criticism relates to "CSI." Ewert tried to explain that CSI is more than just "C", which by itself could be circular. Up to that point he was doing great. But then he stumbled in the final paragraph by saying that "CSI" was circular. What he should have said is that "C" could be circular in some circumstances, which is why it, in and of itself, is not sufficient to indicate design. When coupled with "SI" it is not circular at all, but forms a principled and objective way to distinguish design. To be sure, lots of people, including some people who support design, tend to be sloppy when dealing with the concept of CSI. This unfortunately results in unclear discussions and sloppy conclusions. keith s was wrong, because CSI is not circular. Ewert should have stood his ground, instead of trying to frame his point within the wording of keith s' poor articulation of the issue.Eric Anderson_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic (quoting from Wikipedia article on ideological Turing Test): "The partisan is invited to answer questions or write an essay posing as his opposite number; if neutral judges cannot tell the difference between the partisan’s answers and the answers of the opposite number, the candidate is judged to correctly understand the opposing side." Thanks for quoting this - note the point about neutral judges. Barry himself admits that he had doubts about whether ID opponents would be able to pass the test - so I think it's clear that he is far from a neutral judge. Again, it's an interesting exercise, but if the ideological Turing test is to provide any value it needs to be conducted a controlled fashion with real neutral judges, and probably a blog forum like this is not the best place to attempt it. Although it isn't necessary, I think too there would be benefit in making submissions anyonymous too, particularly given existing biases to certain authors.Fordgreen_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

But aside from that, I posed another problem here: Another case I’ve encountered is where some ID advocates believe that modern science should be changed to allow for immaterial or supernatural causes – so ID is a critique of science itself in those cases. Where others do not see this problem.
From my comment above, Dionisio quoted in #45 this very exact thing I was thinking about in a nice coincidence! gpuccio takes the position that the meaning and method of science itself needs to change. As I see it, that is not a part of ID theory. In my understanding, ID is fully compatible with Methodological Naturalism. But as I said, many other ID proponents disagree. (Perhaps we could say "well nobody agrees with you so there really isn't a dispute"! -- ok, but I would appreciate some reference to where, in ID theory, one must accept that science, or the methods [methodological] of science as it is currently done today must change. I haven't seen it and I've actually never seen anything like that in the definitions of what ID is.)Silver Asiatic_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

Where Barry A wondered if his expectations were too high, I think mine were too low. The fact that nobody equated ID to Biblical Creationism or that ID makes claims about God and religion, was a nice surprise. It's still very common among anti-ID sites to see the linkage of ID and Creationism or very simplistic views on complexity supposedly equaling a theistic presence. I didn't expect a fully detailed explanation of ID, although in hindsight I probably should have. If guys are here every day, for many years, reading and commenting - this kind of Turing Test should be very easy. Perhaps this part of the goal of the test could be highlighted:
The partisan is invited to answer questions or write an essay posing as his opposite number; if neutral judges cannot tell the difference between the partisan’s answers and the answers of the opposite number, the candidate is judged to correctly understand the opposing side.
It's an attempt to see if you can state the ID argument in a way that is indistinguishable from what an ID advocate would say. It takes a lot of discipline - you have to set aside your personal animosity to the theory and say it the way a partisan or advocate would say it.Silver Asiatic_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

Eric Anderson @48 I'm not sure if Ewert, himself, thought he mistated the argument. He seemed to fully agree with Keith's criticism, but only added that the ID argument is more than that.
is hardly evidence of a disconnect in the theory or of a significant disagreement among key intelligent design proponents
Well, Ewert said this in that thread:
The version of specified complexity developed by Dembski isn’t an observable phenomenom. See http://www.metanexus.net/essay.....complexity. You can certainly have a notion of specified complexity that is observable, like Orgel and Wicken did. But care must be taken not to conflate it with Dembski’s conception.
So, I think this shows there could be a disconnect here on a key element of ID theory. Additionally, some have added "functional" as an essential element of CSI that was missing in Dembski's formulation. But aside from that, I posed another problem here:
Another case I’ve encountered is where some ID advocates believe that modern science should be changed to allow for immaterial or supernatural causes – so ID is a critique of science itself in those cases. Where others do not see this problem.
I've found radically different ideas on this idea from key ID proponents. I think the majority argue that ID requires a change in how science is done (as it is commonly done in the field of science today) and that science has to accept the existence of immaterial or supernatural causes. Others (like myself, in the minority) believe that ID theory works perfectly well in science as it as commonly known today (that is, within Methodological Naturalism) and no change is required to that scientific paradigm. That certainly makes a big difference. If the meaning and methods of science itself have to change - in virtually every university, lab and scientific research facility in the world, in order for ID to be accepted -- then that's obviously a huge task. It goes far beyond just demonstrating the scientific evidence for ID. In other words, ID would require a "different kind of science" than most scientists in the world recognize today. In any case, without getting into that debate - I do think there is a healthy difference of opinion on some important aspects of ID. We've seen it here in the past - disputes on whether ID gives evidence for or against common descent, for example.Silver Asiatic_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

wd400 @23 & Silver Asiatic @25: The fact that a particular individual -- Winston Ewert in the case of the link wd400 provided -- was less clear than he should have been in a particular post (even misspoke, I would say, in his final paragraph) is hardly evidence of a disconnect in the theory or of a significant disagreement among key intelligent design proponents. If one reads Ewert's post charitably, I think it is clear what his main point was, even if he misstated it toward the end -- a very unfortunate misstatement, to be sure, as keith s latched onto it as though it were some kind of confirmation of his red-herring argument against intelligent design.Eric Anderson_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

JAD,
It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion or debate with someone who does not or will not understand your point of view. So far, at least as far as I have seen, the anti-ID interlocutors who have commented on this thread have demonstrated that lack of comprehension or willingness. So what is their real motive?
As one who apparently tanked the exam, I'll respond, even though I don't really consider myself "anti-ID". I can't recall making any significant arguments here against ID per se. But lots of discussions happen at UD on the topics of mathematics and logic, which sometimes are only distantly related to ID. I'm interested in those, mainly. I have also posted on threads concerned with elementary philosophy, politics, "what atheists think", and so forth, as these are sometimes accessible to the layperson. My motive? I enjoy discussing these things, especially when my interlocutors have different views than my own.daveS_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

john_a_designer asks:
So what is their real motive?
It has been my experience that "the real motive", in most conversations concerning virtually any topic of significance, is "protecting one's current existential narrative".William J Murray_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

Exactly a month ago KF started this interesting discussion thread that relates to the current Turing test posted by BA:
BTB, Answering the “ID is Religion/Creationism in a cheap tuxedo” talking point https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/btb-answering-the-id-is-religioncreationism-in-a-cheap-tuxedo-talking-point/#comments
In that thread gpuccio posted @43 a very insightful commentary on ID, which should pass this Turing test 'hands down' specially now that the 'one-paragraph' rule has been clarified (softened) by BA and WJM :
[...] there are many positions in ID, which may differ in general worldviews. It’s exactly because ID proper is empirical science that it can connect people of different worldviews. That is true of science in general. Moreover, as others have pointed out, the idea that science is about “thinking God’s thoughts after Him” is just a very general idea about science which has been shared by different kinds of thinkers. It just means that, if one just believes in some form of God, then it is perfectly natural to consider the laws and regularities that we observe in outer phenomena as the expression of God’s thought. If, instead, one does not believe in any God, then the same laws and regularities will have for him some different meaning. Again, whatever the worldview, no real scientists would probably doubt that science is about laws and regularities in phenomena. That’s what ID is, because ID is science, and nothing else.
_____________________________
I do have problems with methodological naturalism, and my problems derive exactly from my views about science, not from my religion. I have discussed that issue many times. In brief, methodological naturalism (or any kind of “naturalism”) is simply, IMO, bad philosophy of science. The main reasons why I believe that are: 1) I don’t believe that any specific philosophy of science can give some final definitions of what science is or is not. 2) I don’t believe that any specific philosophy of science can give some final definitions of what the scientific method should be (see Feyerabend). 3) I don’t believe that “nature” and “naturalism” are good and well defined concepts. Indeed, they are completely ambiguous categories. That’s why I always avoid any reference, in my discussions, to what is “natural” or “supernatural”. The object of science is reality, things as they are, not “nature”, whatever it means. The most common meaning of nature, in the ambiguous language of modern scientism, is more or less: “The basic map of reality that we have at present”. The most common meaning of methodological naturalism, in the ambiguous language of modern scientism, is more or less: “We refuse to accept as science anything which is not compatible with the basic map of reality that we have at present”. That is a dogmatic and religious-like limitation of what science is, and I don’t accept it. Not for religious reasons, but for cognitive and scientific reasons. There may be some “ID proponents” who “have problems with the way science is done”. As I have said, there are many different worldviews in ID. I share some, I don’t share others. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/btb-answering-the-id-is-religioncreationism-in-a-cheap-tuxedo-talking-point/#comment-620207
PS. Please, note that gpuccio's comments were taken out of another discussion, hence were not written with this Turing test in mind. Also, I did not ask gpuccio's permission to post his comment here. He's free to request the removal of this comment if he wishes so. But I hope he will let it stay so others can read it too. Specially your politely dissenting interlocutors who apparently don't get it quite right yet. :)Dionisio_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion or debate with someone who does not or will not understand your point of view. So far, at least as far as I have seen, the anti-ID interlocutors who have commented on this thread have demonstrated that lack of comprehension or willingness. So what is their real motive? Personally I have neither the time nor patience for such people. It appears me that they are here to deflect, derail or disrupt the discussion. Again, what is their motive?john_a_designer_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

KF: Indeed, our "friend" RVB8 seems to be selectively "deaf".gpuccio_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

Dionisio asks:
Where is Eric Anderson’s one paragraph summary of ID?
One might argue that a hallmark of a non-sentient response would be adhering to inputted response parameters even if a correct response (displaying a conceptual grasp of the subject) would best be served by going outside of those parameters. Mindless nature/automation doesn't understand the importance of a goal, it only serves the rules that govern its immediate behaviors towards whatever goal it might acquire.William J Murray_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

RVB8, you have unfinished business regarding your confusion of the complementarity of DNA chains with the information-bearing sequences within the chain in an earlier thread. I suggest, that -- instead of abandoning that thread as though nothing significant and telling about your objections to ID has happened -- you should now urgently attend to this: https://uncommondescent.com/biology/coming-soon-design-disquisitions-a-new-id-blog/#comment-621497 KF PS: You will even find that the linked and the onward linked discussion of Crick's March 19, 1953 letter [which you would be well advised to read -- not least from the outset it corrects the basic misunderstanding you demonstrated earlier . . . ] provides a significant part of the answer to what you imagine are strong objections to the point of being dismissive, per your comments just above. PPS: Kindly note the corrective at 45 in the previous thread i/l/o your oh its complicated strawman projection above, almost a week ago now:
https://uncommondescent.com/biology/coming-soon-design-disquisitions-a-new-id-blog/#comment-621121 45 kairosfocus November 25, 2016 at 3:24 am RVB8, [--> in 43 just above] you are confusing cross-links between the two complementary strands of DNA with chaining down the length of the string; which is telling. Without the freedom to have AGCT follow in the chain in any order, DNA could not store the information to assemble proteins specified by the genetic code. Your onward refusal to address functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, reducing to a strawman “Look how complicated it all is,” is further revealing as to determined mindset not to face sober evidence. And, the FIRST context is Darwin’s warm pond of chemicals or the like pre-life environment, the root of the tree of life in OOL, where yes, there is no reproductive mechanism based on genetic code so there is no basis for chance variation and genetically linked natural selection. Then, at body plan origin level you have dodged the issue of need for many closely matched and correctly arranged, properly coupled parts to achieve function i.e. deeply isolated islands of function in vast config spaces; yet another strawman tactic dismissal. The rest of your objections collapse in the wake of that basic, disqualifying confusion and resort to strawman tactics backed up by sneers. Please, think again. KF
Insistently ignoring cogent correction (where, GP also corrected you there) and repeating a corrected objection elsewhere as though nothing has happened is not going to help you or your cause.kairosfocus_{December 1, 2016
December
12
Dec
1
01
2016
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

rvb8 @39: You misunderstand the exercise. What this thread is about is laying out the claims, not debating the merits of specific pieces of evidence. If you want to provide a brief exposition of what evolutionary theory, that is great. A Turing test for evolutionary theory would be a good follow-up thread for this one. Maybe Barry or I could start such a thread a bit later. The question on the table in the present thread is: Do you understand what intelligent design is? What are its key claims? And, just for completeness as I have done, it might also be useful to flag some of the red-herring talking points regularly brought up by opponents which unfortunately do not address the claims of intelligent design. ----- P.S. For the record, I was not trying to pass the Turing test in my comments. I have been simply responding to wd400's comments. But in assessing and responding to those comments I laid out some key aspects which are critical to a sound understanding of intelligent design and which anyone must grasp before they can adequately examine intelligent design. That is one of the points of Barry's post.Eric Anderson_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT}

Barry, EA's explanation passes? Listen to this; 'Evolution is the theory that all life has common ancestary. It explains that gene duplication is frought with errors, and that these errors can produce features which could be advantageous to the individual, and heritable. Over long periods of time these advantageous heritable mutations become fixed in populations.' This theory of RM+NS is supported by discoveries in DNA, the fossil record, homology, redundent organs, geology, biogeography etc. Now, please tell me why EA has passed the Turing Test with his blather? EA's 'Positive Argument 1', is nothing but an assertion, yet again; "It looks designed therefore..." If this is what it takes to pass the test I am going to say; "It looks evolved therefore...." I will of course have to ignore all the evidence I just mentioned, however being honest, I simply refuse to do that.rvb8_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT}

wd400 @23:
If you ask for a single paragraph you are going to get general answers.
I'm with you. We are all here in our spare time because we enjoy discussing the issues when we have a moment and because we feel that they are interesting, perhaps even important. I, for one, appreciate you taking time to make your initial comment and certainly would not hold your feet to the fire on an initial comment prepared in haste. You should feel free to expand or clarify if desired. That said, I can only comment on what you wrote, not on what you would have written had you written more. The primary aspect I wanted to highlight is that intelligent design -- contra the oft-repeated assertions from its detractors -- is not only a negative case against materialism. To be sure, any time we are drawing an inference to the best explanation about a historical event we will, of necessity, be required to address why we think one explanation is preferable to another. Thus, the negative case against the materialistic explanation is important. Indeed, even if the only function of intelligent design were to make a negative case against the materialistic creation account, it would still be making an incredibly valuable contribution. However, there is also a positive case for design. In fact of point, when we observe biological systems the inference to design is the first, the primary, and the most obvious inference. Darwin recognized this, and framed his argument primarily as a negative case against design. Dawkins does so as well in many of his writings, as do so many contemporary defenders of the materialistic story. This does not of course prove anything one way or another in and of itself. Without considering the evidence, as a matter of naked logic it could be true that our initial and natural inclination toward design in biology is wrong and that there is a design substitute lurking somewhere in the bouncing of atoms and the pulses of energy that make up the purely material forces of nature. As a matter of pure hypothetical speculation, it could be the case that every single instance in which we would be inclined to infer design can be explained away through some kind of purely natural design substitute. But such a design substitute has never been observed, and the more we learn about what is required to build and maintain biological systems, the less tenable the materialistic claim becomes. In stark contrast (and, I should add, in direct contradiction to the expectations of the materialistic narrative), our awareness of the extensive number of the very kinds of systems that gave rise to the initial intuitive inference to design in the first place continues to grow in number and force with every biological rock we turn over. A few key individuals have undertaken to tighten up the design inference, to explain it more fully, to perhaps even develop it into a scientific theory. This is an ongoing effort. It is logically possible that they have failed in their efforts. But any case against design needs to be made on the basis of what key design proponents have actually proposed, and against the clear landscape of the issues on the table. A clear and fulsome understanding of what intelligent design proposes, is a key starting point for any rational discussion of the evidence.Eric Anderson_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

Here's a note associated with Turing and Biology:
In the landmark 1952 paper, “The chemical basis of morphogenesis”, Alan Turing proposed reactions between diffusing substances as a general model for biological pattern formation. In the development of his model, Turing abstracted from the growth of the tissues under consideration. Contrary to this assumption, however, feedback between patterning and growth is essential for numerous morphogenetic processes in nature. http://ist.ac.at/events/lectures-talks/the-institute-colloquium/2014/fall/geometry-of-morphogenesis/
Apparently Turing's idea about morphogenesis was a little reductionist and now it seems like his concept was 'slightly' off target.Dionisio_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

We know biological life arose from design. No doubt about it. Since we are in the ID context, that's all we say. However, for some of us, we know even the Designer. That's what the evidences tell us. But again, that's beyond the ID domain.Dionisio_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

BA: OK, I get it. My bad. Didn't think about the line breaks. :) In any case, EA's explanation @21 is excellent! Thank you for starting this discussion thread about the bottom line ID concept. Every once in a while it helps to have a refreshing discussion on the subject.Dionisio_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply