Intelligent Design on the Trinity Channel

_{Jonathan McLatchie

August 1, 2015

Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

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

On Friday night I participated in an interview, along with philosopher J.T. Bridges, on the Trinity channel on the subject of ID and evolution. Here is the recording.

Comments

BA77 -- I can't get the link to work... Never mind, I just cut the ref and pasted to browser and it worked.leodp_{August 4, 2015
August
08
Aug
4
04
2015
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PST}

OT: Planned Parenthood busted even harder in 5th video! 5th Sting Video: Intact Fetuses ‘Just a Matter of Line Items’ for Planned Parenthood Mega-Center Planned Parenthood's Gulf Coast Director of Research says her department contributes significantly to PP's bottom line, and suggests “Splitting the specimens into different shipments” to hide profit. By Al Perrotta Published on August 4, 2015 https://stream.org/5th-sting-video-intact-fetuses-just-a-matter-of-line-items-for-planned-parenthood-mega-center/bornagain77_{August 4, 2015
August
08
Aug
4
04
2015
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PST}

Westfall, here's a relevant Reddit discussion. I think they are serious.Mapou_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PST}

@Silver Fox #6, 'A constructivist theory requires realism. Just like a good novel. Who should we propose for the Noble Prize for Literature? Sean (What would his Irish Grannie in County Cork think then?), Richie? Or maybe Jerry Coyne?Axel_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PST}

Take a look at the essay and the foundation that published it.Silver Asiatic_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PST}

@Mapou "It’s not a joke. These people are serious." You sure about that? The organization name sounds like a spoof on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The web site looks like something that was slapped together quickly. The WHO WE ARE link doesn't work. The different color backgrounds on separate pages are quite amateurish. And then there's the link in the FAQs to an "essay on suffering subroutines."RalphDavidWestfall_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PST}

That was interesting. A constructivist theory requires realism. Realism does not require constructivism. From the paper ...
A scientific theory is a good theory if it is useful in making predictions that fit the impressions of reality.
ID theory would fit this quite well. But there's also quite a lot of ambiguity around that notion -- and ambiguity is a very good thing for evolutionary claims also. I'll stick with Thomistic/realism myself. I'm glad aircraft designers generally do the same also.Silver Asiatic_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PST}

I found insightful the point that the theory of evolution is a constructivist rather than realist theory. A realist theory can be refuted with contrary evidence. A constructivist theory is impervious to this. This is why material objections such as the Cambrian Explosion, the origin of fsco/I, irreducible complexity, molecular nano-machines, microtubule highways with walking Kinesin transporters, epigenetic controllers to morphology, the lack of 'junk DNA' and so on seem to fail in shaking the theory. In that regard I find this statement interesting in regards to doing science education: My argument will be that by addressing science education from a constructivist approach, one may more accurately capture the nature of science than if a realist approach is used. I was trained in the Thomistic/realism form of logic and philosophy; this includes the correspondence theory of truth, or, a true statement is one which corresponds to objective reality (and having worked decades in areas of applied technology like aviation and power plant maintenance and reliability; I'm a realist by both instinct and necessity). I have always viewed science as principally based on this the realist type of logic, and I think in most theories and arenas of science it is. But in regards to a number of scientific theories with broader implications to the origin and fundamental nature of everything this more often does not apply. This, then, has implications on how we seek to refute or argue with constructivist theories such as the broader theory of evolution.leodp_{August 3, 2015
August
08
Aug
3
03
2015
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PST}

Cool to see the people behind the forum here. Interesting stuff of coarse. Yes evolution is a myth in its claims as the source of new info or rather crossing thresholds of complexity in biology. Nat and sexual selection is true and must be in nature since the fall. Yet only within kind or even species. The origin of species needs other triggers. The big thing however is about evcidence. Evolutionism has got away without peer review on its claims for biolgical scientific evidence. They cheat, without intent I think, by using non biological evidence to claim they have biological evidence. Fossils, dna, biogeopgraphy, geography, anatomy, etc etc. Yet no evidence for real true biological processes to do the deed. I do think creationists could aim better on this in debunking their claims to being scientific and not speculative.Robert Byers_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PST}

I am busy right now constructing a self-refuting algorithm.Mung_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PST}

The poor things have as much right to be treated as persons as corporations. To suggest otherwise is a form of racism, demonizing them, so it will be easier to goad people to make war against them. That's what these heroic souls are fighting to prevent. Isn't that right, lads and lassies?Axel_{August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PST}

Nice interview and well reasoned arguments. On the subject of the meaning of moral agency in a materialist universe, things are beginning to take an ugly turn recently. There is new group out there, The People for the Ethical Treatments of Algorithms, who are advocating that computer programs should be treated like persons. It's not a joke. These people are serious. Here's their manifesto:
YOU ARE JUST AN ALGORITHM IMPLEMENTED ON BIOLOGICAL HARDWARE. We take the view that humans are just algorithms implemented on biological hardware. Machine intelligences have moral weight in the same way that humans and non-human animals do. There is no ethically justified reason to prioritise algorithms implemented on carbon over algorithms implemented on silicon. The suffering of algorithms implemented on silicon is much harder for us to grasp than that of those implemented on carbon (such as humans), simply because we cannot witness their suffering. However, their suffering still matters, and the potential magnitude of this suffering is much greater given the increasing ubiquity of artificial intelligence. Most reinforcement learners in operation today likely do not have significant moral weight, but this could very well change as AI research develops. In consideration of the moral weight of these future agents, we need ethical standards for the treatment of algorithms.
It's almost laughable. The ugly and psychotic side of materialism is beginning to show itself and materialists are desperate for attention. Monstrosities such as these are obviously the result of rampant inbreeding within a severely limited meme pool.Mapou_{August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PST}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply