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

MeganC, Please tell us how "talking donkeys are not part of a rational universe." I agree that a talking donkey is an unusual event. Though we probably agree that such a phenomenon may violate certain physical laws, I fail to see how it violates logical laws.riddick_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

And why should the Logos of John not be referenced when it Fits the evidence with such strong favor? John 1:1-3 In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (of note: "Word" in Greek is "Logos", and is the root word from which we get our word "Logic") Euler's Number - God Created Mathematics - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IEb1gTRo74 This related website has the complete working out of the math of Pi and e in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Greek languages: http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/ Michael Denton - Mathematical Truths Are Transcendent And Beautiful - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3zcJfcdAyE Scientific Evidence For God Creating The Universe - 2008 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQhO906v0VM Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” "No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed?" - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8 On top of the fact that we now know the genetic code of the simplest organism ever found on Earth is a highly advanced algorithmic code, which far surpasses man's ability to devise as such, we also know for a fact no operation of logic ever performed by a computer will ever increase the algorithmic code inherent in a computer's program, i.e. Bill Gates will never use random number generators and selection software to write highly advanced computer codes: "... no operation performed by a computer can create new information." Douglas G. Robertson, "Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test," Complexity, Vol.3, #3 Jan/Feb 1999, pp. 25-34. The Evolutionary Informatics Lab: Thus a question for all the Darwinian cheerleaders,,,,Since nature has never been observed generating functional complexity, nor has "materialism been verified as true, why is Darwinian evolution given a free ride in science? Should you not verify your foundation before proceeding in science? -----It is also interesting to note that a Compact Disc crammed with information weighs exactly the same as a CD with no information on it whatsoever. etc..etc...etc... in referencesbornagain77_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

PS; A footnote. I see your remark int eh HuffPo article: >> Dembski has spent most of the past decade working at universities within the fold of the Southern Baptist Convention, which was founded in the 19th century for the sole purpose of defending slavery . . . >> This, in an attempt to blow off the significance, inter alia, of the following from Darwin's 1871 Descent of Man, Ch 6: _____________ >> Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species . . . . At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. >> _________________ It will be clear to any reasonable onlooker, that the attempted immoral equivalency you draw is simply not justified; especially given that the SBC has explicitly repudiated its historic past -- which, BTW, was plainly not solely about defence of slavery -- and has issued a declaration of repentance for it, BEFORE Mr Dembski was involved with Schools affiliated with that Convention. Indeed, it shows intemperate hostility and intent to demonise as a means of polarising the atmpsphere further. Surely, you can do better than that.kairosfocus_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

StephenB, Ok, ShawnBoy stated the following: "Believing in God leads one to believing that the universe would have an underlying order and rationality (and it does, what a coincidence…). This belief is the foundation, the backbone of science." I don't know if that's what you believe, but I thought so when you gave your example: "Did God create a rational universe build for discovery. Modern science began with an assumption in the affirmative." I assumed that agreed with the example, thought I may well be wrong. The point I wanted to make about the talking donkey as part of a rational universe is that I always laugh out loud when somebody tries to make the argument that believing in God means you believe in a rational universe. The reason being is that believing in God necessitates believing in talking donkeys(amongst other absurdities mentioned in the Bible) and I think you would agree that talking donkeys are not part of a rational universe.MeganC_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Mr Barrett Brown: Let us again note a basic fact: you have accused Dr Dembski of "lying," as my comment no 68 above above documents form your HuffPo post. That is a serious accusation to make, and one that should only be made in a context where one can cogently show that deliberate and intentionally deceptive falsehood is at work. Otherwise, one is guilty of the mischief of slanderous false accusation. On revisiting this page, while doing some web searches, I see in your argument to SB at 75, the following:
. . . you accuse me of making an error by ignoring the context of Dembski’s Logos remark. 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.
let us compare your actual remarks at HuffPo again: __________ >> we may determine, is that Dembski is lying; in a 1999 interview with the Christian magazine Touchstone, Dembski stated unambiguously that “[i]ntelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.” With ID being increasingly under attack as theology clothed in science, Dembski has since been more hesitant in giving due credit to either John or the Logos. >> ____________ 1 --> The just above clearly implies that you intend it to be understood that Dr Dembski in 1999 let slip an otherwise hidden agenda, and that that agenda is willfully deceptive; on the nature of the design inference and theory, with subtext hints of potentially tyrannical theocratic imposition. 2 --> As onlookers can see from no 4 and no 68, the longstanding WAC 7 [of which SB, GP and I are jointly responsible authors] corrects any such inference, with adequate evidence. 3 --> Namely, a theological/ philosophical discussion of the significance of a scientific finding or opinion [cf SB's cite from Einstein on how he thought God did not play dice . . .] is separate from the empirical warrant for the science itself [which is addressed in several other WAC's . . . ], and in fact what is going on is that Dr Dembski draws attention to the fact that a risky empirical expectation of foundational Christian thought is consistent with current science. 4 --> Thus, the material issue is not at all whether you are claiming that Dembski associates ID with the Logos. That is an obvious fact, and not in dispute. The issue is how and for what purpose he does so. 5 --> What is explicitly at stake, sir, is that it is equally undeniably factual that you set his reference to Jn 1:1 in the projected context of an accusation that Dr Dembski is "lying." You did this thusly: ________________ >> Consider William Dembski, the mathematician and theologian who rose to the top of the nascent intelligent design pack in the late '90s after claiming to have proven that certain aspects of biology can be attributable only to the intervention of one or more intelligent entities. As for who or what those entities might be, 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 with the Christian magazine Touchstone, Dembski stated unambiguously that "[i]ntelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." With ID being increasingly under attack as theology clothed in science, Dembski has since been more hesitant in giving due credit to either John or the Logos. >> _________________ 6 --> We have pointed out that long before you ever made the HuffPo post, it was easily checkable on any page at UD by a responsible person that Dr Dembski's actual context is not one of willful, calculated deception and associated corruption of the methods of science by theocratic or theological imposition.
[NB: I have found Signs of Intelligence here in the wayback machine. the article starts with and then goes down to a closing section, Design, Metaphysics & Beyond. the logtos theory remasrk comes at eh end of the closign section, after discussign the sceintific issues and nature of IC and CSI as forms of information, then bridging to: >> The primary challenge, once the broader implications of design for science have been worked out, is therefore to develop a relational ontology [NB: thus he is bridging to explicitly philosophical and theological matters here . . . ] in which the problem of being resolves thus: to be is to be in communion, and to be in communion is to transmit and receive information. Such an ontology will not only safeguard science and leave adequate breathing space for design, but will also make sense of the world as a sacrament. The world is a mirror representing the divine life. The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory. >> ]
7 --> That the further slander is very credibly at work in your article is immediately evident from the above fuller excerpt of the relvant paragraph in your HuffPo remarks. (Cf WAC 8 on correcting this equally unwarranted and false accusation.) 8 --> Now, had you bothered to read even just WAC 7, you would have easily seen that: >> Dembski is qualified as a theologian and a philosopher-scientist-mathematician (one of a long and distinguished tradition), so he has a perfect right to comment seriously on intelligent design from both perspectives. >> 9 --> So, he has every right to first say in his conclusion (having first surveyed the science of the design inference admirably]:
>> Specified complexity, that key trademark of design, is, as it turns out, a form of information (through one considerably richer than Claude Shannon’s purely statistical form of it) . . . . For instance, specified complexity is what Michael Bee has uncovered with his irreducibly complex biochemical machines, what Manfred Eileen regards as the great mystery of life’s origin, what for cosmologists underlies the fine-tuning of the universe, what David Chalmers hopes will ground a comprehensive theory of human consciousness, what enables Maxwell’s demon to outsmart a thermodynamic system tending toward thermal equilibrium, and what within the Kolmogorov-Chaitin theory of algorithmic information identifies the highly compressible, non-random strings of digits >> then progress to >> The primary challenge, once the broader implications of design for science have been worked out, is therefore to develop a relational ontology in which the problem of being resolves thus: to be is to be in communion, and to be in communion is to transmit and receive information. Such an ontology will not only safeguard science and leave adequate breathing space for design, but will also make sense of the world as a sacrament. >> and then finally conclude in wha tis now an explicitly metaphysical philosophical ontological context: >> The world is a mirror representing the divine life. The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory. >>
10 --> In that further context, your current attempt to rewrite the record on what you did, and why we have taken you to task for it, is further sadly telling on the quality of your reasoning and writing, as well as the evident rhetorical agenda at work: red herrings dragged to distract from the truth and led out to convenient, ad hominem laced strawmen, ignited to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere. ++++++++++++ This is not good enough, by a long shot, sir. For shame! Cho man, do betta dan dat. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

----MeganC: "OK, somebody else made a similar argument further up and I just wanted to know if you thought that talking donkeys are part of this rational universe?" I don't follow your question. First, I was not making an argument; I was characterizing a debate issue. To be sure, I believe that the universe was designed for discovery, but I didn't argue the case because I was discussing another matter in another context. There is that word again---context. In keeping with that point, if you can explain to me your perception of the relevance of "talking donkeys" to a rational universe, I might be able to help.StephenB_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

StephenB, "Did God create a rational universe build for discovery." OK, somebody else made a similar argument further up and I just wanted to know if you thought that talking donkeys are part of this rational universe?MeganC_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Barrett Brown: Thanks for the response. ----“Incidentally, you and others have here accused me of confusing means and motive on this issue, but I have never claimed that possible religious motivations on the part of Dembski et al *necessarily* mean that IR and CS are themselves flawed. That argument has simply been attributed to me due to other people on my “side” having made it.” I want to be fair here, because you didn’t have to go to the trouble of entering the arena. I will make the case in a few words as possible. [I promise] You wrote, “With ID being increasingly under attack as theology clothed in science, Dembski has since been more hesitant in giving due credit to either John or the Logos. 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.” This would seem to confirm the anti-ID argument that ID is religion clothed as science. But, ID cannot be religion clothed as science if its methods are really scientific. The scientist himself may have religious motives, he may even be a part of a “Wedge” initiative [proposed social action to compete with materialist ideology expressed in ACLU or the Humanist Manifesto] though nothing like that ever took hold, but neither his methods nor his associations would render ID non-scientific. Conversely, one can hold atheist/agnostic views, serve on the board of the Secular Humanist Association, or support the ACLU, without invalidating the science of evolutionary biology. [By the way, the ACLU and Secular Humanist Associations, unlike the Wedge strategy, really did take hold and have been holding for a long time]. So, bottom line, I do assert that anyone who says that ID is religion clothed as science is, indeed, confusing motives with methods. ----You wrote: “Among these possibilities, we may determine, is that Dembski is lying; in a 1999 interview with the Christian magazine Touchstone, Dembski stated unambiguously that "[i]ntelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Yet, Dembski is not lying nor is he attempting, in any way, to peddle religion as science. Any historical or physical event can lend itself to both a theological and a scientific perspective. Example: The scientist expresses the beginning of space/time/history as the “big bang,” while the theologian expresses it as “Let there be light.” Similarly, the scientist can speak of information theory in a scientific context or “Logos theory” in a theological context. So, when Dembski shifts from the scientific context to the theological context, he is not lying or hiding anything, he is simply expressing his view that truth that can manifest itself in more than one context. Quite the contrary, when he speaks of the “bridge” of science to theology, he is expressing the philosophical opinion about the unity of truth or the idea that one truth can be examined from many different perspectives, and I would agree. Religious audiences are interested in that bridge because they can use legitimate science for Christian apologetics. Example: The “fine-tuning” argument is solely scientific; it carries no theological baggage. On the other hand, Christians often appeal to it as a means of making the Creator God seem more plausible, and I would agree that it does. Still, it would be fraud if anti-ID partisans, seeking to discredit the researcher, declared that the elements studied as fine-tuning constants consist of nothing more than religion clothed as science. By the way, that has already happened to Professor Gonzalez at Iowa State. Let me know if you have an interest. Bonus information: There are such things as the theology of science and the philosophy of religion. These discussions often approach the intersection of science and theology and help foster discussion over debates concerning whether or not there really is an intersection. Example: Did God create a rational universe build for discovery. Modern science began with an assumption in the affirmative. There is much more to say about Judge Jones and the Dover fiasco, [and his outrageous claim that ID = religion] but the present discussion provides a good foundation for broaching that issue at a later time if, indeed, we ever get to it. I think it is better to handle these things in small chunks.StephenB_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

camanintx, “The origin of life is as much a problem for the Theory of Evolution as the origin of matter is a problem for Newton’s Theory of Gravity, which is to say none.” By the same logic, god or any ultimate cause has nothing to do with ID science, true or false?
Not hardly. ID goes well beyond just explaining biological life and attempts to describe properties of the designer. Why else would Dembski say that ID was "just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory"?camanintx_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

----deadman-932: “I’ve already mentioned Moderator Bias…and as much as I’m proud of Clive for setting aside any prejudices he may have had regarding my previous commentary at another site….well, gosh, I am concerned about any possible favoritism being shown should you suddenly find yourself being the recipient of the insults you tend to produce, StephenB. Or even if you were to suddenly find facts being ground in your face that you might not appreciate, StephenB. That’s a perfectly reasonable concern on my part, don’t you think? I do.” Why not just try “grounding a fact in my face.” You may just find that I am quite open to facts and reasoned arguments. [I encounter so few of them from my critics]. On the other hand, Clive is an administrator and I am just a humble blogger, so only one of us has the power to moderate. Still, Clive is very open- minded so you should have no difficulty. ----“As much as I like reading this site, any protracted debate here necessarily brings the lousy format of the site into play. I mean, seriously — thin columns of text averaging about ten words per line? Thin columns of ten-word-per-line text interspersed with the lengthy posts of others engaged in discussions outside of what you and I are interested in discussing, StephenB? Tsk. It’s like reading a newspaper that has bits of other columns stuck in it, requiring me to search for your posts. Oh the trials we must bear. ----“TheologyWeb, besides being run primarily by relatively unbiased theists who moderate firmly but even-handedly, well, they also offer dedicated threads — where it would be just you and I discussing and debating points with the exclusion of all others, StephenB.” I appreciate what you are saying, but I am communicating primarily to onlookers. My adversaries are not open to my views; most of them are impervious to reason. My task is to expose their irrational posture, which is evident when probed. Sometimes, though, they expose themselves with no help at all from me. ----“Now, I’m actually fairly open-minded to the notion of a cosmogenic origin of life, StephenB. I’m interested in exploring YOUR “interpretation” of the science/math and methodology behind “irreducible complexity” StephenB.” I often provide them right here. ----"I’m interested in seeing if YOU can offer more than “Har, har, you don’t know what ‘context’ and ‘presupposition and inference’ mean!!!11One!" I generally take one subject at a time. Things are more orderly that way. Besides, I provided the diagnosis, so my critics should take the medicine. In this case, the medicine would consist of understanding the meaning of “context,” learning the difference between a presupposition and an inference, and grasping the distinction between motives and methods. If they would only read the FAQ section, they would be prepared for intelligent dialogue. But alas, they seldom do. ----“I’m interested in having YOU answer my questions regarding the mutating, evolving Behean-Debskian definitions and methodologies of “design detection” and “irreducible complexity,” StephenB.” We have threads for those things. Each one has its own theme. [like this one]. ----“A dedicated thread at TWeb would accomplish that nicely, I think. Besides, StephenB…like so many of your fellow UD-ites, I really don’t recall seeing you posting on any other site. Myself, I post on lots of sites, debating many things, ranging from science to theological points to …well, whatever. I don’t see many ID-people doing that at all, StephenB. How do you folks expect to win others over to your cause when you only post here? I think it’d be good for you to get out, to see other more capacious formats that allow for something other than thin colums of text insterspersed with the brobdingnagian posts of some of the more voluble folks here (see KF’s above).” Yes, people have been telling me that I need to get out more. ----“It’d be just you and me, and *cough* heck, you might win a convert to the “science” of ID, StephenB!! Think of the good work you could perform. I can assure you that with my background and education, I’d be a valuable asset to your team!” There can be little doubt that you would fill the cyberspace with your brilliance if only you were not hampered by UD's textual format. ----“So, StephenB, there’s more than good 3 reasons in that mix. Now…your reasons for wanting to hash this out here are what? Sure, you’re surrounded by sympathetic ID-ists ready to jump in to aid you or providing convenient distraction. Can’t you handle a one-on-one protracted discussion of topics in a neutral site essentially run by theists? People like you seem to never appear outside of UD to debate matters, StephenB…why is that? I’m here with no one supporting me or providing distractions or acting as convenient foils. I’d like to get you in a real discussion in order to see if you can actually provide that detailed information that will be capable of showing me the validity of your views — if you can — and without the barriers to effective communication that I have mentioned.” The most daunting barrier to effective communication is having nothing to say. ----Deadman: “By the way, StephenB; just as a brief teaser on what you’ll be seeing from me. You may want to read this particular .pdf: Kruger, J. and David Dunning (1999) Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. J. of Personality and Soc. Psych, Vol. 77, No. 6. (Dec), pp. 1121-1134 http://www.apa.org/journals/fe.....761121.pdf. Yes, I understand that you think that I think too much of myself. On the other hand, you should study the psychology of moral relativists and learn about their proclivity to go crazy when someone expresses confidence in the existence of objective truth. ----“I don’t think you really grasp much about science at all, StephenB. Nor do I hold your logic or “philosophical” skills in much regard when you seem to be ignoring some basic facts regarding the studies available on bias/presuppositions/worldviews in science and how they affect even the most pristine “methodologies” that —must still be APPLIED, StephenB…applied by fallible humans who may not even be aware of the hidden biases they bring to every aspect of their work and subsequent claims.” I am well aware of the biases that we all bring to the table. Indeed, it is those who most profoundly understand their own biases that are the most reasonable. They provide methodological safeguards to minimize the problem. The ones you have to watch out for are the ones who don’t think they have any. ----In short, I don’t think you even come close to knowing what you are talking about, StephenB. Here’s a few more things for you to read, on bias in science, in particular: Mahoney, M.J. and B.G. DeMonbreun (1977) Confirmatory bias in scientists and non-scientists. Cog Ther Res. 1:176–80. http://www.springerlink.com/co.....lltext.pdf Monwhea Jeng (2006) A Selected History of Expectation Bias in Physics. Am. J. of Physics 74 578-583. The problem is less about the fact that I don’t know what I am talking about and more about the fact that you do not grasp what I am talking about. Koehler, Jonathan J. (1993) The Influence of Prior Beliefs on Scientific Judgments of Evidence Quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Vol 56(1), Oct 1993, 28-55 http://www.public.asu.edu/~jjk....._OBHDP.pdf MacCoun, R.J. (1998) Biases in the Interpretation and Use of Research Results. Ann. Rev. of Psych. Vol 49, 1998, 259-287 http://www.indiana.edu/~educy5.....h_bias.pdf Mynatt, C. R., Doherty, M. E., & Tweney, R. D. (1977). Confirmation Bias in a Simulated Research Environment: An Experimental Study of Scientific Inference. Quarterly J. of Experimental Psych. 29(1) 85-95 Yes, prior beliefs influence our thinking. This is not news. That is why rigorous methodologies matter. ----“Now, don’t think that this means I’ll be willing to sit around this site, digging through posts to find your skinny column of text, StephenB… I really don’t care all that much if you choose to debate me offsite or not, but I won’t be debating you here. It’s simply my preference, for the very good reasons I previously posted. It’s no skin off my nose if you choose to always huddle rabbitlike in this oddly-formatted site, StephenB. I just don’t have to agree with your preferences.” Yes, you have made it clear that you will not be debating me here. On the other hand, you just invested 22 paragraphs to explain why.StephenB_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

BarrettBrown,
I think what you’re asking is how I can really know anything when I think that evolution provides false worldviews to others, which is to say that I might, too, have been given a false worldview. The answer is that my judgments of the worldviews of others are not of course based simply on them having “evolved” or been the product of evolution, but rather on a variety of other logical factors. So I am not in the difficult position of having only the factor of evolution with which to determine whether a worldview is accurate or not.
But you do not grant the same logical factors to those who hold contrary worldviews, do you? If you do, then the argument is on grounds outside of the product of evolution, but evolution is supposed to account for everything, even our brains at determining logic. And since you do not believe in an ultimate and transcendental Logic, that we participate in, you must think it the product of evolution. This fundamental underpinning and grounds for everything being the result of evolution cannot be overcome by your bottom-up paradigm of evolution. It cannot pull a boot-strap trick, and somehow elevate itself above itself. All your judgments are a result of evolution, even logic. I guess I'm asking you a more fundamental question than I suspect you're grasping. If evolution provides for everything, our ability to think and use what we call logic, how can you use it against itself in determining the validity of logic or a worldview? Maybe you weren't grasping that evolution is the cause of everything when you answered my question before. I'll give you another go at it.Clive Hayden_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

deadman_932,
I’d like to get you in a real discussion in order to see if you can actually provide that detailed information that will be capable of showing me the validity of your views — if you can — and without the barriers to effective communication that I have mentioned.
If you can't do that civilly, then there is no real discussion to be had. If you can do it civilly, then the discussion has already been going on for some time---you're apparently missing it---because StephenB has shown the validity of his views quite well here. This medium and site is just as good as another for "effective communication". There are no convenient foils, unless foils means others here who will prove you wrong. I think your argument is a red herring, to be honest. Anything that needs to be said for the sake of the argument can be said here. Period.Clive Hayden_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

deadman_932,
(1) I’ve already mentioned Moderator Bias…and as much as I’m proud of Clive for setting aside any prejudices he may have had regarding my previous commentary at another site….well, gosh, I am concerned about any possible favoritism being shown should you suddenly find yourself being the recipient of the insults you tend to produce, StephenB. Or even if you were to suddenly find facts being ground in your face that you might not appreciate, StephenB. That’s a perfectly reasonable concern on my part, don’t you think? I do.
No, it's not. As long as you're civil, there is no need to worry.Clive Hayden_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Stephen- "ID is an orientation, but IR and CS are methodologies." They are. I think they are flawed for reasons I've pointed out elsewhere, but I understand that they need not be religiously motivated. Incidentally, you and others have here accused me of confusing means and motive on this issue, but I have never claimed that possible religious motivations on the part of Dembski et al *necessarily* mean that IR and CS are themselves flawed. That argument has simply been attributed to me due to other people on my "side" having made it. I don't see anything else to disagree with in that post, though elsewhere you accuse me of making an error by ignoring the context of Dembski's Logos remark. 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. Now I must hurry back to Clive, who has a poor memory and must thus be engaged very quickly before he forgets: "1. You never answered my questions of what outcomes of evolution you are using when judging other outcomes of evolution?" Okay. "Whence comes the discernment? What standard given by evolution are you using to judge evolution as wrong in giving false worldviews?" I think what you're asking is how I can really know anything when I think that evolution provides false worldviews to others, which is to say that I might, too, have been given a false worldview. The answer is that my judgments of the worldviews of others are not of course based simply on them having "evolved" or been the product of evolution, but rather on a variety of other logical factors. So I am not in the difficult position of having only the factor of evolution with which to determine whether a worldview is accurate or not. "How can you say that there is any objective standard or moral law if there is no objective moral law giver?" I don't. "Is your morality based on just your personal feelings?" No. "Why should anyone agree with you on the grounds of moral personal preference?" They shouldn't. All of my arguments are of the quietist sort that make no such requirements. "3. How long have you been a comedian?" If by being a comedian you mean writing humor for money, then since I was 18.BarrettBrown_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

By the way, StephenB; just as a brief teaser on what you'll be seeing from me. You may want to read this particular .pdf: Kruger, J. and David Dunning (1999) Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. J. of Personality and Soc. Psych, Vol. 77, No. 6. (Dec), pp. 1121-1134 http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf. I don't think you really grasp much about science at all, StephenB. Nor do I hold your logic or "philosophical" skills in much regard when you seem to be ignoring some basic facts regarding the studies available on bias/presuppositions/worldviews in science and how they affect even the most pristine "methodologies" that ---must still be APPLIED, StephenB...applied by fallible humans who may not even be aware of the hidden biases they bring to every aspect of their work and subsequent claims. In short, I don't think you even come close to knowing what you are talking about, StephenB. Here's a few more things for you to read, on bias in science, in particular: Mahoney, M.J. and B.G. DeMonbreun (1977) Confirmatory bias in scientists and non-scientists. Cog Ther Res. 1:176–80. http://www.springerlink.com/content/j513070k26246k3w/fulltext.pdf Monwhea Jeng (2006) A Selected History of Expectation Bias in Physics. Am. J. of Physics 74 578-583. Koehler, Jonathan J. (1993) The Influence of Prior Beliefs on Scientific Judgments of Evidence Quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Vol 56(1), Oct 1993, 28-55 http://www.public.asu.edu/~jjkoehle/articles/1993_OBHDP.pdf MacCoun, R.J. (1998) Biases in the Interpretation and Use of Research Results. Ann. Rev. of Psych. Vol 49, 1998, 259-287 http://www.indiana.edu/~educy520/sec6342/week_02/macCoun98research_bias.pdf Mynatt, C. R., Doherty, M. E., & Tweney, R. D. (1977). Confirmation Bias in a Simulated Research Environment: An Experimental Study of Scientific Inference. Quarterly J. of Experimental Psych. 29(1) 85-95 Now, don't think that this means I'll be willing to sit around this site, digging through posts to find your skinny column of text, StephenB... I really don't care all that much if you choose to debate me offsite or not, but I won't be debating you here. It's simply my preference, for the very good reasons I previously posted. It's no skin off my nose if you choose to always huddle rabbitlike in this oddly-formatted site, StephenB. I just don't have to agree with your preferences.deadman_932_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

Hmmm. Where to begin, StephenB, where to begin -- given that you've provided me with a veritable smorgasbord of tasty assertions regarding design. Ah, I know, I'll begin with your last question:
Why do you feel the need to change venues? You are free to make your case right here How would that help you establish an argument in support of your point of view?
I didn't claim a change of venue would help my arguments at all, StephenB. I merely stated a reason for me inviting you to debate your claims. Allow me to expand on my reasoning. Here are three good reasons to take this little discussion to Theology Web, StephenB: (1) I've already mentioned Moderator Bias...and as much as I'm proud of Clive for setting aside any prejudices he may have had regarding my previous commentary at another site....well, gosh, I am concerned about any possible favoritism being shown should you suddenly find yourself being the recipient of the insults you tend to produce, StephenB. Or even if you were to suddenly find facts being ground in your face that you might not appreciate, StephenB. That's a perfectly reasonable concern on my part, don't you think? I do. (2) As much as I like reading this site, any protracted debate here necessarily brings the lousy format of the site into play. I mean, seriously -- thin columns of text averaging about ten words per line? Thin columns of ten-word-per-line text interspersed with the lengthy posts of others engaged in discussions outside of what you and I are interested in discussing, StephenB? Tsk. It's like reading a newspaper that has bits of other columns stuck in it, requiring me to search for your posts. This brings me to my final point about a change of venue, StephenB; (3) TheologyWeb, besides being run primarily by relatively unbiased theists who moderate firmly but even-handedly, well, they also offer dedicated threads -- where it would be just you and I discussing and debating points with the exclusion of all others, StephenB. Now, I'm actually fairly open-minded to the notion of a cosmogenic origin of life, StephenB. I'm interested in exploring YOUR "interpretation" of the science/math and methodology behind "irreducible complexity" StephenB. I'm interested in seeing if YOU can offer more than "Har, har, you don't know what 'context' and 'presupposition and inference' mean!!!11One! I'm interested in having YOU answer my questions regarding the mutating, evolving Behean-Debskian definitions and methodologies of "design detection" and "irreducible complexity," StephenB. A dedicated thread at TWeb would accomplish that nicely, I think. Besides, StephenB...like so many of your fellow UD-ites, I really don't recall seeing you posting on any other site. Myself, I post on lots of sites, debating many things, ranging from science to theological points to ...well, whatever. I don't see many ID-people doing that at all, StephenB. How do you folks expect to win others over to your cause when you only post here? I think it'd be good for you to get out, to see other more capacious formats that allow for something other than thin colums of text insterspersed with the brobdingnagian posts of some of the more voluble folks here (see KF's above). It'd be just you and me, and *cough* heck, you might win a convert to the "science" of ID, StephenB!! Think of the good work you could perform. I can assure you that with my background and education, I'd be a valuable asset to your team! So, StephenB, there's more than good 3 reasons in that mix. Now...your reasons for wanting to hash this out here are what? Sure, you're surrounded by sympathetic ID-ists ready to jump in to aid you or providing convenient distraction. Can't you handle a one-on-one protracted discussion of topics in a neutral site essentially run by theists? People like you seem to never appear outside of UD to debate matters, StephenB...why is that? I'm here with no one supporting me or providing distractions or acting as convenient foils. I'd like to get you in a real discussion in order to see if you can actually provide that detailed information that will be capable of showing me the validity of your views -- if you can -- and without the barriers to effective communication that I have mentioned. Why does that seem so dificult for you to do, considering the reasons I've just given for *my* views, StephenB? What are your arguments against those? Any rational ones?deadman_932_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

KF-san, Please share that sentiment with Dr Hunter. He seems to think all of our scientific viewpoints cannot excape our religious beginnings.Nakashima_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

Nakashima-san: As you know or should know, the objective warrant for the basic ID methods and that for the results of such methods is independent of he worldviews of those who propose them. Indeed, since key ID supporters come from a considerable span of worldviews, that is fairly clearly substantiated on the ground. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

PPS: Md brown, I happen to be an Afro-Caribbean thinker with a background in the pure and applied physical sciences. I have never had reason to conclude that racism is an inherent or typical component of ID as a methodology. And I can safely say that my friend (met through UD) and Hispanic Afro-Caribbean, Atom - associated with the Dembski-Marks EIL -- will report a similar conclusion. I can say that I did find that ID thought gave useful hints for my further thinking on both thermodynamics and information theory, and on the broad scientific method. [You may consult my always linked online notes through my handle on that.]kairosfocus_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Late to the party! What Dembski was or is has absolutely nothing at all to do with his methods. Mr StephenB, may I introduce you to Dr Cornelius Hunter? There is something goose/gander-ish about your position he may find troubling.Nakashima_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

Mr Barrett Brown: I came by after a day or so, especially to follow up on my key points in no 4 above: ______________ >> . . . If Mr Brown had simply taken time to work his way through the weak argument correctives here at UD, he would have saved making a classic example of red herrings dragged across the track of truth and led out to hominem oil soaked strawmen ignited to cloud, choke, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere. I will take just one point: why did he not simply read here on the Logos remark before wrenching it utterly out of context through what darwinist advocates are ever so fond of terming “quote mining”? And, if he failed to do his homework that badly [after all his post date is Aug 6th 2009, and for months, the WAC's and the glossary have been shown on every page of the blog he was attacking . . . ], how can he roundly accuse Dr Dembski — who holds double PhDs, one in Mathematics,the other in philosophy (and a masters in theology out of was it Princeton) — of “lying” when he highlighted that NT theology has here passed a point of empirical test?>> ______________ I now add to these: 1 --> I can find no evidence that you have either read or otherwise seriously reckoned with the substantial matters in the Weak Anti-ID Argument Correctives that are found at the top of every page in this blog. 2 --> In that context, I note again that the dateline of your comment at Huff Po is August, while the WAC's have been publicly accessible for many months now (and similar materials are accessible through IDEA etc). 3 --> I am confident that had you addressed these matters on the merits, you would find that the substantial issues you have raised -- as opposed to concerns on points where this Blog in former days (and under a different regime of management) did occasionally slip into the tasteless -- are not at all so one sided as your ad-hominem-soaked, blazing strawman caricature portrays. 4 --> As an immediate substantiation of the point, I observe that over the past day or so, you have reiterated polarising, ad hominem-laced and strawmannish rhetorical talking points and distractions instead of addressing the substantial matters in the WAC's, such as No 7 on the Logos theory remark. 5 --> In that context, here is what you said about Dr Dembski at HuffPo:
we may determine, is that Dembski is lying; in a 1999 interview with the Christian magazine Touchstone, Dembski stated unambiguously that "[i]ntelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." With ID being increasingly under attack as theology clothed in science, Dembski has since been more hesitant in giving due credit to either John or the Logos.
6 --> That is, in so many words, on the strength of the 1999 Logos theory remark, you accused Dr Dembski of "lying." 7 --> This is what lying is: calculated deception. 8 --> But in fact, it is very evident that Dr Dembski was not being deceitful then or subsequently, but instead spoke in an explicitly theological context [as a theologian] on theological issues connected to the work he has been doing as a mathematician-scientist-philosopher. Specifically, as the WAC No 7 says on this remark: ________________ >> . . . the quote in question comes from a theologically oriented book in which Dembski explores the “theological implications” of the science of intelligent design. Such theological reframing of a scientific theory and/or its implications is not the same thing as the theory itself, even though each may be logically consistent with the other. Dembski’s point, of course, was that truth is unified, so we shouldn’t be surprised that theological truths confirm scientific truths and vice versa. Also, Dembski’s reference to John 1:1 ff. underscores how a worldview level or theological claim may have empirical implications, and is thus subject to empirical test. For, in that text, the aged Apostle John put into the heart of foundational era Christian thought, the idea that Creation is premised on Rational Mind and Intelligent Communication/ Information. Now, after nineteen centuries, we see that — per empirical observation — we evidently do live in a cosmos that exhibits fine-tumed, function-specifying complex information as a premise of facilitating life, and cell-based life is also based on such functional, complex, and specific information, e.g in DNA. Thus, theological truth claims here line up with subsequent empirical investigation: a risky empirical prediction has been confirmed by the evidence. (Of course, had it been otherwise – and per track record — many of the same critics would have pounced on the “scientific facts” as a disconfirmation. So, why then is it suddently illegitimate for Christians to point out from scientific evidence, that on this point their faith has passed a significant empirical test?) >> ________________ 9 --> Let us contrast the plainly materialistic biologist and member of the UD National Academy of Sciences, Dr Richard Lewontin in his January 1997 NYRB article on Sagan's last book, "billions and billions of demons": __________________ >> . . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. >> ____________________ 10 --> Here Mr Lewontin has asserted that science is the "only beggeter of truth," and has gone directly on to define science as materialism applied to observed phenomena, even in the teeth of commonsense evidence that something is wrong with the procedure being applied. (Nor is such confined to only Mr Lewontin, as the 2008 NAS pamphlet on science and Creationism, p. 10, plainly states that: >> In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations . . . >> That is, if evidence or inference is not materialistic in import, it is to be ruled out of court a priori, by the authority of today's new magisterium.) 11 --> I think you will understand that science at its best should be the unfettered (but ethically and intellectually responsible) pursuit of the truth about our cosmos, based on empirical evidence and reasoned discussion and analysis. Dr Dembski's reasoning/methods of inference from empirically reliable sign of intelligence -- and that of the wider design theory movement [cf my remark in another similar thread this morning, here] -- easily fits into that; but the NAS-Lewontin position plainly imposes a materialistic censorship on science as ONE "begetter of truth." 12 --> In that context, it is plain that Dr Dembski is not lying, and that you, sir have made and have now sustained a clearly false accusation in the teeth of easily accessible evidence tot he contrary and in the face of explicit, detailed correction. that is sad, and it is telling. +++++++++++++ Cho, man, do betta dan dat! GEM of TKI PS; those who think that Wikipedia's biased article is the last word on ID, should at minimum take time to read the more balanced and corrective NWE online article here. (Notice how this articvle is NOT a rewrite and cleanup of the Wiki article; more the rule for the NWE's articles.) PPS: for those still taken in by anti-ID partyline talking points on the 1996 Wedge Document, a read of the correctives here -- inducing the document itself, will be helpful. Similarly, this on the actual history of ID will be helpful.kairosfocus_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

Barret Brown, The Maker of the following video shows how prophecy stays within the scientific method: The Scientific Method Proves Bible Prophecy and Authenticity - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1MdNLj0hPo And in fact, the preceding prophecy, when examined in more detail, becomes even more precise. The Precisely Fulfilled Prophecy Of Israel Becoming A Nation In 1948 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrQqhINYrc4 This following video is very interesting, for though they used the latest of scientific methods to examine the evidence, the answer they got gave them anything but a "materialistic" answer: Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words "The Lamb" - short video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XLcdaFKzYg The following video is downright eye-opening with its evidence: The Physical Ashen Remains Of Sodom and Gomorrah and The Real Reason God Destroyed Them - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf8aUk1C-SQ Here is a video that goes into more detail of prophecy: The Bible: The Word of God? Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Evidence - video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5539836792491778083 So thus Barret, Since the preceding facts are as sure as the scientific method can ascertain, how do you handle the implications? Do you just go into atheistic denial mode and refuse to admit they have any relevance to your life? Or do you look at them and realize you have been wrong in denying God's reality?bornagain77_{August 9, 2009
August
08
Aug
9
09
2009
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

RDK, what you need to understand about the wedge document is that it is not a proof or a foil to the theory of ID. While the document did mention religion ID itsefl is not religious. Intelligence is a natural cause. Extrapolating ID to biology and cosmology only requires a nutral openmided postion on materialism. The bottom line is that regardless of what people's agenda is- any theory still has to be debated on it's own merits. Newton was in his mind decoding God's thoughts or discovering the hidden things within his creation- but his purpose is not evidence for or against the quality and truthfulness of his theories. And certainly it did not prove to be a negative force against science as Newton's work lead to so much scientific discovery. Motive mongering only helps one put a theory in political or sociological context. When Richard Dawkins attempts to smash religion and ID in the same book no one calls his arguments invalid because he has an atheistic or agnostic agenda. His arguments are taken up based on their solitary merritts. This is why I think ID will win out because it is concerned with the definition of science which involves Truth. Or as Winston Churchill put it... "The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."Frost122585_{August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT}

---RDK: "Right! We’ll just forget the whole Wedge Document, and the whole bit where Dembski tells one thing to a secular audience and another thing to his Christian audience." ---"We’ll forget the whole Logos of John’s Gospel thing. We’ll forget every single one of those Wikipedia quotes where Dembski clearly shows that Intelligent Design is nothing more than dolled-up creationism." There is no need to forget them. The issue is understanding the context in which the statements are made, a monumental task for Darwinists who are untrained in philosophy and information theory. Once more, we have the perfect example of exactly what I am talking about--the inabilility to understand context. So, [A] What scientists describe as the "big bang," [B] the Christian Scriptures describe as "let there be light." For Darwinists who have difficulty following the argument, I will make it explcit [A] constitutes a scientific perspective on an event while [B] constitutes a theological perspective of the same event. Similarly, "Logos theory" is the theological counterpart to a scientific idea of communication theory. So, when a theologian, such as Dembski, provides his theological perspective, he is not compromsing his science. When he is discussing theology, he is not bound to the scientific method; when he is discussing science, he is. Again, when Einstein said that "he couldn't believe that God would play dice with the world," he was providing a theological reflection, independent of his theory of relativity. ---RDK: "Because, Stephen, it seems that you’re the one who can’t tell the difference between inference and presupposition. Where is your inference coming from? Upon what scientific facts is ID based?" The inference is drawn from functionally specified complex information found in nature. In other words, the inference comes from the patterns. A presupposition would be a biblically based conclusion based on religious faith. ID doesn't use a biblically based methodology. There are no religious concepts imbedded in "irreducible complexity." ----"A presupposition would be something on the order of your rationality, that is, How did you come to the conclusion that organisms were intelligently designed? Because of hieroglyphics? You’re only fooling yourself, Steve." No, that is not the definition of a presupposition. Try again.StephenB_{August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT}

@63 should read--"must be rationally based or else it is not worthy of belief."StephenB_{August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

Barrett Brown: Thanks for the response. ---- [concerning irreducible complexity and specified complexity] You write: -----"Both of those concepts are components of intelligent design, which Dembski himself has associated with “religious overtones” on a number of occasions, most prominently in his book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology." No, not exactly. ID is an orientation, but IR and CS are methodologies. I won't play Socrates any more, I will just make the point. Irreducible complexity and Specified complexities are the means by which the inference is drawn. Example: You come home one night and find that your room has been ransacked. You rule out natural causes and draw an inference to an intelligent agency [a burglar] who left clues about his activity. With that method, you cannot establish the identity of the burglar, only the fact of his existence. In like fashion, ID draws an inference to the intelligent agent the left clues about his/its/whatever activity. There is no religion in the methodology---none. ----"Let me ask you a related question in response: what would it take to convince you that intelligent design has “religious overtones”? If this were indeed the case, how could I prove it?" That is a fair quesetion: If you could show me that religion leaks into ID methodology, I would accept the proposition. That some ID advocates may, for all I know, have religious motives, isn't a factor any more than the fact that many Darwinists have atheistic motives. What matters is the process through which the conclusions are drawn. Creation science, for example, starts with Biblical faith; ID starts with empirical observation. Creationism [creation science] moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorises and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based. Each approach has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years. We notice the “forward” approach in Tertullian, Pascal, and Kiergegaard----as Tertullian put it, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem." With these thinkers, the investigation was faith-based, meaning that, for them, philosophy and science get in the way. By contrast, we discover the “backward” orientation in Aristotle, Aquinas, and Paley. Aristotle’s argument, which begins with “motion in nature” and reasons BACK to a “prime mover” — i.e. from effect to its “best” causal explanation — is obviously empirically based. For them, religion, or any proposition, for that matter, must be rationally based but it is not worthy of belief. To say then, that Tertullian, Pascal, and Kiergegaard(Creationism) is similar to Aristotle, Aquinas, Paley (ID) is equivalent to saying forward equals backward. What could be more illogical?StephenB_{August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT}

I have heard this argument before that Atheism is not a religion to that it does not require faith. Well i will grant that logically agnosticism may not require faith nor be a religion as it is the personal belief that one does not know the truth regarding issues of God. However one can even argue that it requires faith to "believe" that you do not know the truth. That may seem strange but the truth of philosophy is that all reasoning is inductive. All things we think we believe are accurate or at least exist in some form. However Atheism certainly requires faith. When one certainly has no logical proof that God does not exist- yet insists on believing that- that person is acting with a great deal of faith in their belief about a very unsettled matter. As far as atheism being a "religion"- one needs to define religion and that is where and when the argument becomes semantic. Certain atheists could be classified as religious in various senses and certainly many atheists are indeed "dogmatic" in that they claim truth in their views and opinions about matters that cannot know for sure the value of.Frost122585_{August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

RDK, -------"If atheism is a religion, does that make bald a hair color?" No, but it makes it a state of the head.Clive Hayden_{August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

Clive, BarretBrown was referring to this episode and this episode both of which brought great acclaim to UDgrannyape92_{August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

And apologies for not answering your other questions just yet, but I'm supposed to be somewhere. Will respond tomorrow.BarrettBrown_{August 8, 2009
August
08
Aug
8
08
2009
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply