If You Want Good Science, Who Better to Ask Than Barret Brown?

_{Clive Hayden

August 8, 2009

Culture, Intelligent Design, Off Topic}

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

Barrett Clown, oh pardon me, Barrett Brown, thinks he makes an argument against ID by humor and satire alone here at The Huffington Post. He is, after all, to be taken deadly seriously, he’s written for National Lampoon for goodness sakes and written a book about Dodo birds. Not really, Dodo birds were really just straw men, or, more accurately, scare crows. If satire counts for argument, then my blog post has done the same job that Barrett’s has. Revel in the irony that Barret would write about “bits of information” to prove his point;

Bits of information are no longer compartmentalized like so many scattered VHS tapes and gothic rock album liner notes, which is why Dembski and company can’t get away with trying to portray ID as a scientific theory with no religious intent while having already admitted that same religious intent to sympathetic Biblical literalists. But that crowd doesn’t seem to understand this fundamental aspect of the Internet, that Google waits in watch of dishonesty. And thus it is that Dembski’s blog Uncommon Descent is among the most interesting things that the Internet has to offer.

Barrett, you want to discuss information theory? I reckon a good penchant for satire gives all the credentials necessary. No, certainly not, you are right, bits of information are no longer compartmentalized like so many scattered VHS tapes and gothic rock albums liner notes, they are compartmentalized in the DNA sequence in such a way that no VHS tape or liner note, however organized, could ever accomplish. No intelligence here folks, I mean, with Barrett, that is. Seriously, he is seriously serious in his satire, which is really just a way to be covertly passive/aggressive, nothing insincere here folks. If this counts for argument, then I am arguing by the same, and this post should be counted as just as valid. I’m intentionally avoiding much real argument and focusing on satire to prove a point, and the point is to expose the absurdity by being absurd in the same way. This guy cracks me up like we were in highschool. Except, I never liked guys like him in highschool, and have even less patience with them now. Hey Barret, try to dig up some stuff on me buddy, for nothing proves an argument more than mockery and character assassination.

Comments

Stephen: Well said. Thanks. It is sad that Mr Barrett Brown has clearly resorted to drive-by slander, and plainly has no concerns for the many duties of care connected to publishing articles critical of other people. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT}

Mr Tom English: Your remarks at 143 - 4 are a further slanderous outrage, underscoring the precise force of what I am warning against:
. . . the ghost of Socrates warns us that democratic civilisation — as opposed to mob-ocracy — is a delicate thing, critically dependent for its sustainability on a people who respect he image of God in one another, and thus see that slander is blasphemy against our common Creator [Note how I then put this in the immediate context of the 2nd paragraph of the US DOI of 1776] . . . . You [i.e. Mr Barrett Brown of HuffPo and ilk, including of course the far more significant case of a certain Ms Barabara Forrest of the Louisiana Humanists [= atheists], ACLU etc who has made a career out of the particular slander in view] therefore need to take a long, hard look at what happens to a society when slander such as [ = exemplified by] you have exerted against Dr Dembski and the wider ID movement poisons civil discourse . . .
Anyone who reads with reasonable care and attention to duties of care will see that I am warning against the all too historically well documented menace of runaway incivility driven by slanderous demonisation -- and thus, dehumanisation -- of people on ideologically tinged, politically contentious matters. That is what happened in Jamiaca across the 1970's, and led to mob-tactics and then low grade civil war in 1979 - 80. (NB: On ID, incivility-driven demonisation and dehumanisation have already demonstrably led to slander and plainly unjustified career busting [von Sternberg and Gonzalez -- BTW a Cuban American, so a fellow Caribbean -- come immediately to mind], and to the holding of the children of the state of Kansas hostage: to Lewontinian a priori materialism imposed by the US national Academy of Sciences and otehrs in the name of "good" science education.) It has also happened in a lot of other places and times, to the point where demonisation/ dehumanisation of the other has long been identified as a key precursor to persecution and worse. THAT is the sting in racism [with blacks and Jews as first exhibits in recent history . . . and note the current trend of radicalised IslamITS -- as opposed to ordinary Muslims -- to refer to Jews as "descendants of apes and pigs"], and it is the root of how radical socialist, "Communist" revolutions ever so often ended up in mass slaughters across C20, amounting to over 100 Millions dead (China alone totting up ~ 70 millions, with the late unlamented USSR not that far behind, and with Cuba near the back of the pack with a mere 14,000 - 18,000 or so from the reports I have seen . . . ), OUTSIDE of actual wars. For that matter, it must be noted that he mass slaughter of the unborn in the USA, now amounting to 48+ millions since 1973, has been accompanied by rhetoric designed to dehumanise the unborn child AND to demonise those who make principled objections. (God help us, I tgather the global abortion toll since the 1980's may be well over a BILLION.) So, I must underscore again, by way of warning: when a society tolerates the sort of slanderous demonisation of any minority -- SUCH AS that associated with the would-be theocrats slur, invidious insinuation, and allegation now ever so commonly used against ID (and which is the point of quote-mining Dr Dembski's Logos reference, as I have demonstrated) -- it is walking on a very dangerous road. Against all such agendas of demonisation and dehumanisation, I plead in the voice of the Apostle Paul, echoing his Master:
Rom 13:8 . . . the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 13:9 For the commandments,7 “Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,”8 (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”9 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. 1 Cor 13:13:4 Love [try substituting 'Jesus' to see what Paul means here] is patient, love is kind, it is not envious. Love does not brag, it is not puffed up. 13:5 It is not rude, it is not self-serving, it is not easily angered or resentful. 13:6 It is not glad about injustice, but rejoices in the truth. 13:7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. [NET Bible]
Finally, shooting at the messenger who brings warnings of danger ahead -- which is what your foolish stunt of reporting me to the Homeland Security administration boils down to [doubtless, to get me into the databases on a watch/fishy berhaviour list] -- is ANOTHER sign of the breakdown of decent civil democratic culture. Surely, you can do better than that! GEM of TKI PS: HSA Watchers, you may easily enough contact me through my email in the always linked through my name, and get an idea of exactly what I am from the web site thereby linked to. I must ask: What are the procedures for dealing with malicious false reporting of "threats"? (I know US Libel laws -- after what happened to Gen Westmoreland -- are not worth the paper they are written on.) PPS: Mr Macchi, you simply underscore t5he force of the corrective points made to you. UB has replied very soundly, and you would do well to heed him.kairosfocus_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT}

I have a little unfinished business with Barrett Brown. Earlier, I explained that Brown recklessly ignores the context of Dembski’s Logos remark when he charges him with lying. He responded as follows: “I do no such thing. The problem here seems to be that you guys are of the position that since Dembski was speaking in the context of Christianity when associating ID with the Logos, then I am making some sort of crazy logical error by claiming that Dembski associates ID with the Logos.” But Brown does much more than that. He insinuates that Dembski consciously tries to mislead his audiences and purposely hides his true views to create a false impression. As he puts it, “Dembski is coy when addressing a potentially secular audience, claiming that there ‘are many possibilities.’” “Among these possibilities, we may determine, is that Dembski is lying; in a 1999 interview…Dembski stated unambigously that ‘intelligent design is just the Logos Theology restated in the idiom of information theory.’” Yet, as I explained to Brown, the same truth can be expressed both scientifically and theologically, and I specifically pointed to the example of the empirically based notion of the “big bang,” and the Gospel command, “Let there be light.” So, clearly Brown misses the obvious parallel to that event expressed in two ways, and the parallel notion that information theory and Logos theory also express the same truth two ways. Indeed, even after I explained it to him, he still missed it. So, clearly, Dembski’s statement that there are “many possibilities,” is both accurate, honest, and uncontroversial, at least among those who are educated enough to understand the meaning of context. Yet Brown, whose education obviously does not include interdisciplinary analysis, get’s carried away with his own ignorance and characterizes Dembki’s statement about “many possibilities” as a stealth attempt to mislead the world about his true beliefs. Yet Dembski, like many major ID scientists, has been up front with his belief that, from a theological perspective, he believes the designer to be God. Even that that, Brown has not returned to this site to apologize to Dembski for the slander or to even provide a semblance of an argument in defense of his egregious logical error. So, what can we say of such a man who, even after having been corrected and educated, continues his slander while ignoring his own intellectual dishonesty.StephenB_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus says,
(Onlookers, you may think I am exaggerating. I am not. Let’s just say that I have lived through a low grade civil war, in Jamaica in 1979 – 80. THAT’s where this sort of atmosphere-poisoning wedge rhetoric and agit-prop folly are all too predictably headed; if unchecked.) But, to know that is at least half way to standing up to such destructive polarisation before it is too late. So, let us act before it is all too literally bloodily too late.
Anyone who would suggest that allowing people to mock ID and its proponents might lead to bloody conflict is himself a menace. I'm contacting the Department of Homeland Security as soon as I complete this note, to request that Preacher Gordon Mullings never be granted a U.S. visa.T M English_{August 11, 2009
August
08
Aug
11
11
2009
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

Winston, I think this fact might be more important than you think. Consider any other natural phenomenon, say, an igneous outcropping. Everything about the outcropping can be explained purely through reference to the chemical and physical properties of the various elements and compounds within the rock. Given the precise physical/chemical scenario, the rock had no other choice but to crystallize the way that it did. On the other hand, the origin of structures like DNA cannot be explained purely through reference to the physical and chemical properties of the molecules themselves. As you agreed, the physical and chemical properties are neutral regarding the structure of DNA and cannot explain the specific arrangements that we find. Perhaps in the future we will find a physical/chemical scenario that does result in the origin of specific, functional DNA sequences. As of now, though, the origin of life resists explanation in terms of physical and chemical properties, as genetic information transcends such properties.jlid_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

camanintx, You're talking about positing a designer, then describing properties of one, it's two different things.lamarck_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

Howdy- Just wanted to drop by and note that I do intend to respond to the questions that have been left for me as soon as I have some time. I may do so at another venue so that it'll count as work instead of me just arguing on the internet. Also, I appreciate the thought that you've all put into this debate. Thanks.BarrettBrown_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped, There are weak hydrophobic and van der Waals interactions, but none of these are of any significance in determining sequence specificity This is where you are incorrect. During replication DNA polymerases use the 3' OH groups to add the next base. Which base they add is entirely dependent on the existing strand based on the bonds that exist between bases. You’ve got me stumped here... Sorry about that. Simply a typo by me. But that entire chemical process of termination is thrown into action after the symbol (signaling that process of protein synthesis is complete) appears in the nucleic sequence. It is only a symbol because of it's physical structure and chemical properties. It's very material makes it symbolic. It may be a language, but it is a physical language.Winston Macchi_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

jlid, Perhaps you are right. If the point was in fact something as banal as stating that cells are not a required outcome of the physical laws, merely something that could happened that is entirely consistent with their existence and need not depend on anything other then them, then yes I agree.Winston Macchi_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

A quick comment about the computer-DNA analogy/objection: Symbolic code was running living systems for millennia before man even appeared on Earth. There is no analogy necessary.Upright BiPed_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

Winston Macchi,
This is, of course, absolutely incorrect.
The backbone structure of DNA is formed by the covalent bonds between its sugar and phosphate constituents. There are weak hydrogen bonds laterally across the bases that create complimentary pairs and also facilitate unzipping the molecule for replication. However, the same N-glycosidic bond of the bases to the inner structure takes place regardless of the base being attached at any binding site. There are no bonds from base-to-base along the linear strand of the double helix that determines which nucleotide base appears next in the chain. In other words, the sequencing in DNA is not dynamically ordered, as can be easily evidenced by its aperiodic nature. (There are weak hydrophobic and van der Waals interactions, but none of these are of any significance in determining sequence specificity). In fact, it is exactly this independence that gives DNA is information carrying capacity.
The nature of DNA replication means the sequence, based on physio-chemical properties of the bases, retains a pattern.
As already stated: the specific pattern of the sequence is retained not by bonds between the bases, but by the covalent bonds in the phosphate-sugar backbone to which the bases are attached. It is incorrect to say that the pattern is "retained" by the chemical properties of the bases - it is not.
If your speaking of the ‘first’ DNA chain, well, we obviously don’t know enough (anything?) to make such claims and likely never will.
Make such a claim as what? A claim, for instance, that there are no determinant bonds/forces along the linear axis of DNA that specify which one nucleotide is to be followed by another? This is not a merely a claim, it is the observational reality as we find it. The prescriptive information contained in the sequencing of DNA is not the result of the chemical properties of the sugars, phosphates, or nucleic acids that make up its constituent parts.
No, proteins are not made up of amino acids, but they get there pattern due to the physio-chemical interactions between mRNA, tRNA, ribosomes, and others.
You’ve got me stumped here. In the quote you gave from my post I never mentioned “amino acids”. I stated that proteins are not made up of nucleic acids, but it is the sequence of nucleic acids that creates the protein. But just so you know, proteins are in fact made up of amino acids. The chain of amino acids that fold into proteins are assembled by the interactions you name (mRNA, tRNA, ribosomes), but the chain of amino acids does not get its “pattern” from them, and it does not get its pattern from their physico-chemical properties either. That pattern comes from nowhere but the sequence of nucleotide in the DNA molecule.
TAG means something physically and chemically in the ribosome in order for translation to stop.
It certainly does. But that entire chemical process of termination is thrown into action after the symbol (signaling that process of protein synthesis is complete) appears in the nucleic sequence. How fortunate that release factors just happened to be in the area, and even more fortuitous that they themselves were coded for in the DNA molecule (requiring release factors for their own production).
When one looks at the actual process all that is observed are physical occurrences in a material world.
Except for the perhaps minor reality that the prescriptive sequencing that makes the entire process function has no material causes to exist, and none that can explain in material terms how it was formed. None. Not Oparin, not Miller, not Lehninger, not Wald, not Kenyon, not Prigogine, not Kauffman, not Muller, not Quastler, not Eigan, not Kuppers, not Dawkins, not Schneider, not Adami, etc etc. The issue is intractable to a material explanation. - - - - - - - - All evidence points to a rational new conclusion. Life exist by virtue of selection for function at the level of information.Upright BiPed_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

KF, ... I have already pointed you to a comprehensive overview of what is going on in the cell, which you have plainly not read or digested Indeed I have read it, and much like it (though vastly more detailed) previously. This is why I can easily pointed out that your a priori conclusions are masking that which is plainly before your eyes. Alas, you will have not of it and so I leave you to revel in your utter self confidence.Winston Macchi_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

vjtorley, I understand that, in such a broad context, the language of computers and computation is used. However, I think it quite clear from KF's post that the computer in reference was your standard desktop. Hence the: Comparing to the protein synthesis processWinston Macchi_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

BA77, "they proved this by trying to “trick” the photon with a high speed computer, which made the decision to look, or not to look, while the photon was in transit…" This is the double slit experiment I think, which I know about. But I didn't know about the high speed computer. This means thought is completely pervasive on a level I hadn't thought of before. The "looking at it later" part possibly means time doesn't exist because it was their intention that mattered. Thanks that was the type of narrowed down version I was looking for.lamarck_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

BA77, "they proved this by trying to “trick” the photon with a high speed computer, which made the decision to look, or not to look, while the photon was in transit…" This for me means thought is completely pervasive on a level I hadn't thought of before. The "looking at it later" part possibly means time doesn't exist because it was their intention that mattered. Thanks that was the type of narrowed down version I was looking for.lamarck_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

---Barrett Brown: "Also, I can ride my bike real fast." Yes, and away from all meaningful intellectual challenges.StephenB_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

MeganC, My posts by no means "swamp" yours and I take umbrage to what you imply. I suggest you drink a red bull, go do some parachute wind sprints, and type up an article and submit it. Initiative. You could call it "Megan's donkey", like shrodinger's cat.lamarck_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

Lamark you asked: "My follow up question was; have they tried a mechanical measurement with no humans involved to see what the result would be? I don’t know if it’s possible with something that small." Well actually, I believe, they have to use a mechanical devise every time at this level, but a human is always involved at some time in the future and must look at the results to see what happened, so using a "automated" device still does not remove the observer as far as the spooky world of the quantum level is concerned,,,, You see Lamark,,, at the quantum level the particle/wave acts like it knows how we are going to look at it before we even make up our minds if we going to look at it,,, they proved this by trying to "trick" the photon with a high speed computer, which made the decision to look, or not to look, while the photon was in transit... It is just plain downright spooky stuff,,, in fact after studying this quantum stuff for a while I was fairly well convinced that God's omnipotent power extends to each and every "quantum event" in this universe, even if "quantum reality" has to be of His "permissive" will in order to allow evil to run its course in this universe,,, there is just far too much "supernatural" control involved for it to be otherwise. And as the experiment showed it is a totally non-local control which basically body slams any materialistic postulation put forward,,,it is indeed very impressive and very spooky,,, Here are a couple more videos that may shed a little more light: The Miraculous Foundation of Reality - Dr. Quantum - Double Slit & Entanglement - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzQuU6FpYAk Explaining The Unseen Spiritual Realm - Dr. Quantum - Flatland - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhjNlp5RIZs The Electron - The Supernatural Basis of Reality - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv_YQl6XSMM Quantum Mechanics - The Limited Role Of The Observer - Michael Strauss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elg83xUZZBsbornagain77_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

Winston M. I think you misunderstood the point. The point is not necessarily that cells are analogous to computers and are therefore intelligently designed. The purpose of the analogy was to show that computers, while operating according to physical and chemical laws, cannot be explained through recourse to those same laws. Nothing in the laws of physics and chemistry dictates the existence of a computer. Computers are entirely contingent. It is the same with cells. They certainly function according to known laws of physics and chemistry; there is nothing beyond normal physical processes going on in a cell. But this does not explain the origin of the cell (or the computer). In other words, natural law itself allows for many different arrangements of, say, DNA nucleobases. There is nothing in physics or chemistry that explains why one particular arrangement should exist. Just like there is nothing in the laws themselves that explain why my laptop (made of ordinary elements) is in its particular configuration. One could know all the laws of physics and chemistry and still be unable to predict my laptops existence. My laptop is consistent with natural law (there is no "magic"), but cannot be explained by natural law. Are you claiming that there are known laws responsible for forming specific chains of DNA or creating cells? If so, which laws do this (i.e. go beyond merely allowing DNA arrangements to specifying them)? Jeffjlid_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Mr Barrett Brown: It is sadly clear from your consistent refusal to be accountable for your slanders, that you are sadly uncivil and irresponsible. Worse, you seem to think that you and your ilk will gain an advantage in the marketplace of ideas and values by promoting such uncivil conduct. I fear that you are right, for the ghost of Socrates warns us that democratic civilisation -- as opposed to mob-ocracy -- is a delicate thing, critically dependent for its sustainability on a people who respect he image of God in one another, and thus see that slander is blasphemy against our common Creator. [And, this may have something to say about what happen when a generation arises that arrogantly casts aside the wisdom in the US DOI of 1776: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed with certain unalienable rights . . . " For, when we wantonly disregard and dismiss the self-evidently true, we end in a morass of absurdities and worse.] You therefore need to take a long, hard look at what happens to a society when slander such as you have exerted against Dr Dembski and hte wider ID movement poisons civil discourse. (Onlookers, you may think I am exaggerating. I am not. Let's just say that I have lived through a low grade civil war, in Jamaica in 1979 - 80. THAT's where this sort of atmosphere-poisoning wedge rhetoric and agit-prop folly are all too predictably headed; if unchecked.) But, to know that is at least half way to standing up to such destructive polarisation before it is too late. So, let us act before it is all too literally bloodily too late. GEM of TKI PS: Mr Macchi, I have already pointed you to a comprehensive overview of what is going on in the cell, which you have plainly not read or digested otherwise. I did not make the facts up that he cell uses digital code based storage, and carries out step by step sequences of instructions to create proteins, I simply cited a fairly standard summary and noted on its significance; which you plainly cannot accept because it cuts across your worldview. And, in this context of a far more serious issue on the table as just addressed, I have no time for further lengthy back-forth on distractive points that boil down to enabling behaviour on your part and that of those who are similarly playing debate games when slander and poisoning of civil discourse are the real issues that need to be on the table. PPS: Similarly, MeganC, you need to keep things in proportion to the serious issues on the table. You may think miracles are inherently irrational or chaotic, a la Lewontin et al. On this one, you are up against the likes of Newton, Pascal and many other founders of modern science of like weight, and a considerable body of serious evidence and argument. But, in a context of evidently willful poisoning of the atmosphere for civil discussion, such is at best a distractive side issue: SLANDER is what is on the table, and people of good will must now come to the defense of civil society. THAT is what is at stake.kairosfocus_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

BA77, I'm in a bad reception spot right now so can't see the vids but I'll check them out. "Also key to understand is “information”, “logos”, is conclusively shown to be its own independent entity in the experiment." I don't think it's too brash to say the materialists are foiled at this point. Because at first glance, studying larger matter than the quantum level would seem to be a good research path for the ultimate truths, despite this experiment. After all it does give results in some ways. But if matter is dependent on thought or intention or observation, then this puts reality entirely into the ID camp. Because to make a leap; materialists have this whole time been unwittingly studying remnants or manifestations of intelligence or thought, and not "physical objects". However to be fair, larger matter is displaying different properties at this time. We aren't moving rocks with thought. My follow up question was; have they tried a mechanical measurement with no humans involved to see what the result would be? I don't know if it's possible with something that small.lamarck_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Winston Macchi You write that "[c]learly the cell isn't a computer." May I refer you to the following presentation by Christoph von der Malsburg: Organic Computing: Life without Software . You might also like to look at Rolf Wurtz's book, Organic Computing (2008, Springer), much of which can be viewed online via Google. Finally, for a more radical approach to the question of what a computer is, I'd recommend physicist Steve Wolfram's A New Kind of Science . Wolfram takes the view that practically all natural systems - a human brain, a turbulent fluid, or a cellular automaton - perform computations of equivalent sophistication; hence they are all computers.vjtorley_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

MeganC For what it's worth, I'll second your request. I think your question, "Are talking donkeys part of a rational universe?" is a philosophically interesting one. Here's my answer, for what it's worth. Are colorless green ideas that talk furiously part of a rational universe? No. Category mistakes are so meaningless as to be "not even wrong." They don't even get a toehold in a rational universe. (I hope most readers will realize that I have taken the above example from Noam Chomsky, and slightly amended it for my own purposes.) Are talking silent people part of a rational universe? No. Rational discourse is incompatible with logical contradiction. Are talking donkeys part of a rational universe? I'd say yes, with some caveats. After all, donkeys do at least have something to talk with - teeth, a mouth and a tongue (unlike trees, for instance) - so at least there's no category mistake. Are donkeys naturally capable of producing the sounds humans make? I very much doubt it (chimps can't). Are donkeys naturally capable of producing meaningful sentences with a propositional content? It would appear not. To suppose that a donkey once talked would therefore imply supposing that some intelligent being, who was not a donkey, commandeered the donkey's vocal cords for a short interval and made it issue forth with a stream of sound, which a human person standing nearby was able to recognize as a sentence in his/her language. That is an extremely odd thing to do, as I think you will agree. However, it would not (as far as I can tell) require the violation of any law of nature. Hence a talking donkey is not only logically possible, but nomologically possible. All it requires is the presence of an intelligent being who is capable of making the donkey produce a stream of meaningful discourse - and who would want to do such a thing. I should add that this is a scenario that not even an atheist could rule out. After all, it is quite possible that intelligent beings other than humans exist in the cosmos. If other intelligent life forms exist, they are likely to be technologically far ahead of us. Hence by Arthur C. Clarke's 3rd law, which states that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," it is quite possible that some aliens have the technological wherewithal to make donkeys talk. As we know nothing about said aliens, we have no idea whether some of them occasionally engage in such feats, just for the fun of it. As regards the talking donkey, the only substantive point on which Christians differ from atheists is that Christians additionally believe that a disembodied being (God, or some angel) could perform such a feat. Traditionally, Christians have held that an angel was responsible. The larger question here is: is disembodied agency part of a rational universe? Now that's certainly worth a post of its own. I should point out, finally, that belief in ID does not necessitate belief in talking donkeys; neither does belief in God. (Ask Thomas Jefferson.)vjtorley_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

KF, Clearly the cell isn’t a computer, but I’m sadly not surprised at your use of this as an analogy due to your a priori commitment of ID. It’s a simple and transparent strawman. First we compare a cell to a computer (with no explanation given), then we state what everyone obviously knows (that a computer was designed by an ‘intelligent designer’, that would be humans), therefore concluding that it should be equally obvious that the cell was designed by an ‘intelligent designer’ (would that be humans also? perhaps that gaping hole in the ID armour must wait for a later date). This is then followed by a weak semantic argument with a conclusion that has no foundation unless one subscribes to that same a priori commitment as the author, in which case it is a rousing success. Finally, to top it off there is an accusation of slander! if one is so bold as to disagree with you. I must admit this to be a radically effective method of concluding a discussion in triumph. Methinks you should call up the British Chiropractic Association and ask for the membership department. I doubt any qualifications are necessary. As an aside, may I suggest Chapter 6 of “Molecular Biology of the Cell” and the images enclosed. Particularly the section on RNA to Protein. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?highlight=translation,ribosome&rid=mboc4.section.1052#1086 You will find it to be a still quite basic introduction to translation, however some of the figures will outline the physical and chemical nature of the process nicely.Winston Macchi_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

I have a question about evolution that I have been puzzling about for a while and would like to get feedback about it. There is a surgical procedure called a hemispherectomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispherectomy), in which half of the brain is removed. This drastic operation is sometimes done to treat severe epilepsy in children. Amazingly, recovery is usually near-complete. This healing capability of the body seems impossible to have been acquired through evolution, since the procedure has been done in only the last tiny fraction of human history, hence a long evolutionary process could not account for it. In general, how does one account for the body's ability to heal from surgical "injuries" which humans have experienced only in relatively recent times?ksoileau_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

MeganC @119 Your question has been adequately addressed in posts 88-92 up thread by Clive, StephenB and others. You may have missed these responses.HouseStreetRoom_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Talking Donkey? Francis Imparting Some Intelligence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X4N1lDfxXkbornagain77_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

Can we please have a separate thread to discuss the 'talking donkey' issues? I feel it is an important subject to debate and right now it's being swamped by whatever else is going on this thread. May I suggest the topic hark back to my original question: Are talking donkeys part of a rational universe?MeganC_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

lamarck, #96
camanintx, "Not hardly. ID goes well beyond just explaining biological life and attempts to describe properties of the designer." Well the science itself doesn’t do that of course.
Are you saying that the science of ID doesn't posit an intelligent designer?camanintx_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

H'mm: Re WM@115: proteins are not made up of amino acids, but they get there pattern due to the physio-chemical interactions between mRNA, tRNA, ribosomes, and others. TAG means something physically and chemically in the ribosome in order for translation to stop.When one looks at the actual process all that is observed are physical occurrences in a material world. H'mm: 1 --> When one looks at a compur5er in action, all one sees ae4 physical occurences in the world of physico-dynamic processes. 2 --> But, this fails to address what makes a computer different from a pile of parts. 3 --> Namely, inelligently directed, funcitonal organisaiton that stores digital data and uses it based on prescriptive languages to execute algorithms step by step; trnasforming inputs to yield outputs. 4 --> Comparing to the protein synthesis process, I suggest we look at the diagram here and the zoom-in here; then examine the survey of the process here, from a medical perspective. Topics include:
The Genetic Code [i.e. a digital code that forms the base for a prescriptive sequence of actions] Characterization of tRNAs Amino Acid Activation [a preliminary step] The Wobble Hypothesis Order of Events [a step by step goal-oriented sequence of actions] Initiator tRNAs and Initiation Codons [START] Initiation Factors Activities of eIF-3 Specific Steps in Initiation The eIF-2 Cycle Elongation [successive chain of steps] Termination [STOP] Incorporation of Selenium Regulation of eIF-4E Activity [control] Regulation of Translation [mapping from Hamming block code space to aa sequence] by Heme, Control of eIF-2 Activity Regulation of Translation by Interferons Regulation of Translation by Iron Regulation of Translation by Antibiotics [i.e. ability to intelligently adjust or divert the process]
5 --> As the highlights suggest, the only reason why an observer will fail to recognise a functionally organised, digital information and language based step by step targetted process in the latter is a priori commitment to refuse to see what does not sit easily with an evolutionary materialist worldview. 6 --> And, in the connexion of this particular thread, all such should be very careful to observe that the substantial issue is addressing a slander. 7 --> So, s/he should be very careful of providing enabling behaviour for "getting away with" slander. ____________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 10, 2009
August
08
Aug
10
10
2009
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply