Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design

Meyer-Krauss debate live in Toronto 7:00 pm EST, 4:00 pm PST

Spread the love

Pro ID Steve Meyer. No ID Larry Krauss.

As noted here, and live streamed:

A discussion of Evolution, Intelligent Design and Creation, featuring Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Meyer and Denis Lamoureux. Live at Convocation Hall in the University of Toronto. Sponsored by Wycliffe College in partnership with Faith Today, Power to Change, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries and the Network of Christian Scholars.

Questions like these will be posed to the panel:

How did the universe originate?

Does God play any role in the cosmos?

What is the relationship between science and religion?

Readers have probably heard of Steve Meyer and Larry Krauss.

More.

Lamoureux is a Canadian U Alberta religion and science prof, and this story gives some sense of his approach.  There is progress  indeed if religion-and-science meets make clear that ID is not a form of  God-and-science, like BioLogos. It’s a question of evidence.

 

 

34 Replies to “Meyer-Krauss debate live in Toronto 7:00 pm EST, 4:00 pm PST

  1. 1
    Mapou says:

    Lawrence Krauss is such a weasel. He comes right out with a lie and somehow gets away with it. It is a lie that Google’s AlphaGo program uses an evolutionary algorithm.

    Kraus continually spews out personal opinions as if they were facts. For example, he asserts that there is a lack of evidence for design in nature when, in fact, everything in nature is screaming evidence for design.

  2. 2
    bloodymurderlive says:

    It’s really a shame that Meyer was suffering from a migraine. I attempted to add my commentary over the live stream, to help supplement Meyer’s points and offer opinions. Link if anyone’s interested: https://youtu.be/WYOfy9_buO8

    In particular, I think Demski’s conservation of information would have been tremendously helpful, especially when Krauss made a big blunder by attacking a claim that he thought was a blunder: that evolution is random. Even while an iterative process, like evolution, has elements that are non-random, like selection, Dembski’s conservation of information states that algorithmic searches do not actually perform any better than random searches (examples which suggest otherwise can be, and have been, analyzed to quantify their “active information”). So for all intents and purposes, it is indeed entirely credible to say that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutation is “random,” in that it performs no better than random search.

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    Meyer could have done a better job anticipating the “evolution is not random” objection to his analogy of a bicycle thief trying to open a combination lock. But for all we know it was in his notes. He was flying blind there for a while.

    I hope he doesn’t drive with those migraines.

  4. 4
    Mung says:

    I did enjoy the presentation by Lamoureux.

  5. 5
    Aleta says:

    I met Lamoureux once. At least then he was one of those dreaded theistic evolutionists. Here’s the text of some opening remarks he made at an ID conference around 2003 or so.

    Thank you. I am delighted to be here, and I am grateful [for the opportunity] to share a few thoughts on a topic that is both personally and professionally dear to my heart.

    Let me begin by putting the cards on the table so everyone knows exacting where I am coming from.

    First, I am a thoroughly committed and unapologetic evangelical theologian trained to the PhD level.
    •I am a born-again Christian
    •I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God
    •I believe in miracles.
    •And, I believe in Intelligent Design. I see the creation “declaring the
    glory” of God’s mind everyday.

    Second, I am a thoroughly committed and unapologetic evolutionary biologist also trained to the PhD level.
    •I find that the evidence for biological evolution is overwhelming.
    •I have yet to see evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution.
    •And, I recognize the explanatory power of evolutionary theory. Biology
    ‘makes sense’ in the light of evolution.

    Therefore, I am a both a creationist and an evolutionist. I believe that God created life, including humanity, through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process, which even reflects intelligent design.

    To me, the evolution of life is similar to our creation in our mother’s womb. No one thinks that God comes out of heaven to attach a nose or an ear. Rather, most believe that the Creator “knit our fearfully and wonderfully made” bodies through His embryological natural processes.

    Many say that my views don’t make sense. And this relates to my first and most important point:

    Point #1
    The problem with the origins controversy is the way the terms of the debate are set up. Traditionally, this topic has been viewed as ‘evolution’ vs ‘creation.’ And now, it’s being seen as ‘evolution’ vs ‘design’ as promoted by this conference. In other words, ‘evolution’ is being set up in a ‘no-win situation.’ This popular ‘either/or’ approach to origins blinds us from recognizing that evolutionists can believe in a Creator and in intelligent design.

    If God did create through a designed evolutionary process, then the popular terms used in the debate are inadequate. And there are serious pastoral and educational consequences should this be the case. The ‘either/or’ approach becomes a “stumbling block” that forces both us and our children into choosing between two inadequate views of origins.

    Point #2
    Terminology is also a factor that contributes to the popularity of the Intelligent Design Movement. I am convinced that if this movement did not use the term “Intelligent Design,” then it would not be receiving the attention it enjoys today.

    Throughout history, the beauty and complexity of the world have impacted people to conclude that nature reflects a rational mind. This experience and belief transcend time and culture–from inspired Hebrew psalmists to ancient Greek philosophers to 21st century physicists.

    The ID movement is popular because intelligent design in the world is a reality. However, it is important NOT TO EQUATE this reality reflected in nature with the “theory” being promoted by the ID Movement.

    ID Theory is a ‘God-of-the-Gaps’ model of origins. It suggests that nature is not adequately equipped to create life through natural processes. Consequently, there are ‘gaps’ in nature that need to be fixed through Divine intervention. But history reveals the problem with this approach. It fails repeatedly. As science advances, the proposed “gaps” become exposed for what they truly are–“gaps” in knowledge.

    To be sure, intelligent design in nature is real. However, its origin does not necessitate Divine intervention as suggested by the ID Movement. Intelligent design could emerge through an evolutionary process in the same way that it is manifested through an embryological process in the creation of a beautiful baby bearing God’s Image.

    Point #3
    Finally, what should we teach our children about origins in the science classroom of public schools? I am sure everyone will agree–the best science available.
    The ID Movement claims to be a legitimate scientific research program. Fair enough. But like all new research programs it needs to convince the scientific community of its truthfulness. If there are gaps in nature, and that is logically possible, then ID researchers need to prove it.

    Up to this point, the ID Movement has had little to no impact on science other than provoking sharp criticism. Their contribution to the scientific literature is next to non-existent. Consequently, it is premature to present ID Theory in the science classroom as a legitimate scientific theory on origins.

    However, this is not to say that ID Theory cannot be mentioned in public school. Science is associated with values and social issues. Public education already deals with extra-scientific topics. For example, environmental policy and reproductive technology. Consequently, there is no reason why that part of the science curriculum could not include the origins debate and the views of the ID Movement. Failing to do so shortchanges children in their education of a significant aspect in American culture today. Thank you.

  6. 6
    Mapou says:

    Every time a clueless dirt worshipper like Krauss opens his mouth to spew their usual crap, I lose more respect for the scientific community.

  7. 7
    Mung says:

    Aleta, his spiel hasn’t changed much since then. 🙂

  8. 8
    Mung says:

    Krauss opened the debate and immediately engaged in poisoning the well. The students seemed to be willing to slurp it up.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Lamoureux claimed that nylonase was proof that random mutation and natural selection could produce brand new genes/proteins. He was wrong. Even Wikipedia as of January 2016, which is notorious for its bias against Intelligent Design, admits that nylonase ‘most probably developed as a single-step mutation’, thus the adaptation is well within what Dr. Behe has set for the ‘Edge of Evolution’:

    Nylon-eating bacteria – Mar. 2016
    Excerpt: There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.....n_teaching

    a bit more detail is here

    Nylon Degradation – Analysis of Genetic Entropy
    Excerpt: At the phenotypic level, the appearance of nylon degrading bacteria would seem to involve “evolution” of new enzymes and transport systems. However, further molecular analysis of the bacterial transformation reveals mutations resulting in degeneration of pre-existing systems. The most studied of the nylon degrading bacteria is Arthrobacter sp. K172 (formerly Flavobacterium sp.70). This bacterium employs three enzymes for nylon degradation, EI (NylA), EII (NylB), and EIII (NylC), which are found on the plasmid, pOAD2.71, 72 EI and EIII (also NylC in Agromyces sp.) have been initially characterized.73, 72 They apparently hydrolyze the cyclic forms of some nylons, which provides a linear substrate for EII. However, no detailed analysis of the mutational changes of EI or EIII has yet been performed.
    The mutational changes of EII (6-aminohexanoatedimer hydrolase) have been characterized in detail. This analysis suggests that point mutations in a carboxyesterase gene lead to amino acid substitutions in the enzyme’s catalytic cleft. This altered the enzyme’s substrate specificity sufficiently that it could also hydrolyze linear nylon oligomers.74, 75 Yet, the EII enzyme still possesses the esterase function of the parent esterase. Thus, the mutational alteration results in a reduction of the parent enzyme’s specificity (Figure 4). This enables it to hydrolyze a wider range of oligomers that include nylon oligomers.76
    Nonetheless, reduced specificity of a pre-existing enzyme is biochemically degenerative to the enzyme,77, 78 even if it provides a presumed phenotypic benefit. The “beneficial” phenotype of nylon degradation requires the a priori existence of the enzyme and its specificity. Its degeneration is not a mechanism that accounts for the origin of either the enzyme or its specificity.,,,
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....n-bacteria

    Of related note,

    High school girl discovers Styrofoam-eating bacterium – June 2009
    Excerpt: Tseng I-Ching swept the world’s largest science fair in the Peoples Choice Category at the Intel International Science & Engineering Fair (ISEF) for her discovery of a polystyrene-decomposing bacterium derived from mealworm beetles.
    I-Ching vivisected more than 500 mealworm beetles to isolate the single bacterium that allows the mealworm to digest one of the most troublesome forms of waste on the planet — Styrofoam.
    http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/.....-bacterium

    also of note: two preexisting enzymes have recently been isolated that have the capacity to degrade the plastic in soda and water bottles

    Newly identified bacteria cleans up common plastic (used in soda and water bottles)
    Two enzymes take a common plastic back to its starting materials. – by Shalini Saxena – Mar 19, 2016
    http://arstechnica.com/science.....e-plastic/

    The preexisting ability of microbes to ‘detoxify’ the earth of toxic substances should not be all that surprising. Microbes have been ‘terra-forming’ the earth for 4 billion years making it habitable for higher life forms:

    How Microbes Make Earth Habitable – February 10, 2016
    Excerpt: Nitrogen-Fixing Bacterium Does Solo Performance,,,
    Plankton Maintain Carbon Cycle,,,
    Diatoms Promote Diatomic Oxygen,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02600.html

    The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles – Falkowski 2008
    Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.
    – Paul G. Falkowski – Professor Geological Sciences – Rutgers
    http://www.genetics.iastate.edu/delong1.pdf

    Just how fine-tuned’ this terra-forming of the earth by bacteria can be is revealed here:

    Engineering and Science Magazine – Caltech – March 2010
    Excerpt: “Without these microbes, the planet would run out of biologically available nitrogen in less than a month,” Realizations like this are stimulating a flourishing field of “geobiology” – the study of relationships between life and the earth. One member of the Caltech team commented, “If all bacteria and archaea just stopped functioning, life on Earth would come to an abrupt halt.” Microbes are key players in earth’s nutrient cycles. Dr. Orphan added, “…every fifth breath you take, thank a microbe.”
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20100316a

    Planet’s Nitrogen Cycle Overturned – Oct. 2009
    Excerpt: “Ammonia is a waste product that can be toxic to animals.,,, archaea can scavenge nitrogen-containing ammonia in the most barren environments of the deep sea, solving a long-running mystery of how the microorganisms can survive in that environment. Archaea therefore not only play a role, but are central to the planetary nitrogen cycles on which all life depends.,,,the organism can survive on a mere whiff of ammonia – 10 nanomolar concentration, equivalent to a teaspoon of ammonia salt in 10 million gallons of water.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....132656.htm

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Interestingly, while the photo-synthetic bacteria were reducing greenhouse gases and producing oxygen and minerals, which would all be of benefit to modern man, other types of bacteria were also producing their own natural resources which would be very useful to modern man. Some types of bacteria helped prepare the earth for advanced life by detoxifying the primeval earth and oceans of poisonous levels of heavy metals while depositing them as relatively inert metal ores. Metal ores which are very useful for modern man, as well as fairly easy for man to extract today (mercury, cadmium, zinc, cobalt, arsenic, chromate, tellurium and copper to name a few). To this day, various types of bacteria maintain an essential minimal level of these heavy metals in the ecosystem which are high enough so as to be available to the biological systems of the higher life forms that need them yet low enough so as not to be poisonous to those very same higher life forms.

    Bacterial Heavy Metal Detoxification and Resistance Systems:
    Excerpt: Bacterial plasmids contain genetic determinants for resistance systems for Hg2+ (and organomercurials), Cd2+, AsO2, AsO43-, CrO4 2-, TeO3 2-, Cu2+, Ag+, Co2+, Pb2+, and other metals of environmental concern.,, Recombinant DNA analysis has been applied to mercury, cadmium, zinc, cobalt, arsenic, chromate, tellurium and copper resistance systems.
    http://www.springerlink.com/co.....04577v8t3/
    http://www.int-res.com/article.....26p203.pdf

    The role of bacteria in hydrogeochemistry, metal cycling and ore deposit formation:
    Textures of sulfide minerals formed by SRB (sulfate-reducing bacteria) during bioremediation (most notably pyrite and sphalerite) have textures reminiscent of those in certain sediment-hosted ores, supporting the concept that SRB may have been directly involved in forming ore minerals.
    http://www.goldschmidt2009.org...../A1161.pdf

    Similar organisms deal with life in the extreme differently, research finds – September 24, 2012
    Excerpt: One single-celled organism from a hot spring near Mount Vesuvius in Italy fights uranium toxicity directly – by eating the heavy metal and acquiring energy from it. Another single-celled organism that lives on a “smoldering heap” near an abandoned uranium mine in Germany overcomes uranium toxicity indirectly – essentially shutting down its cellular processes to induce a type of cellular coma when toxic levels of uranium are present in its environment. Interestingly, these very different responses to environmental stress come from two organisms that are 99.99 percent genetically identical.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-09-s.....ently.html

    The Concentration of Metals for Humanity’s Benefit:
    Excerpt: They demonstrated that hydrothermal fluid flow could enrich the concentration of metals like zinc, lead, and copper by at least a factor of a thousand. They also showed that ore deposits formed by hydrothermal fluid flows at or above these concentration levels exist throughout Earth’s crust. The necessary just-right precipitation conditions needed to yield such high concentrations demand extraordinary fine-tuning. That such ore deposits are common in Earth’s crust strongly suggests supernatural design.
    http://www.reasons.org/TheConc.....tysBenefit

    of related note to uranium eating bacteria is this falsification of the ‘central dogma’ of neo-Darwinian evolution

    The World’s Toughest Bacterium – 2002
    Deinococcus radiodurans may be a tool for cleaning up toxic waste and more
    Excerpt: An efficient system for repairing DNA is what makes the microbe so tough. High doses of radiation shatter the D. radiodurans genome, but the organism stitches the fragments back together, sometimes in just a few hours. The repaired genome appears to be as good as new.
    “The organism can put its genome back together with absolute fidelity,” says Claire M. Fraser, of The Institute for Genome Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland. She was the leader of the TIGR team that sequenced D. radiodurans in 1999.
    “I was pretty much blown away by it,” says John Battista, a microbiologist at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, recalling his introduction to the bacterium in 1988.
    http://www.genomenewsnetwork.o.....ccus.shtml

  11. 11
    GaryGaulin says:

    After having seen most of it: I have to say that Denis Lamoureux did surprisingly well. Years ago we were by email discussing things related to science and ID. Even back then he seemed to parallel my thoughts.

  12. 12
    hnorman5 says:

    Denis Lamoureux appears to be a real theistic evolutionist. He does not try to wed a theistic position with evolution by blind forces.

  13. 13
    Mapou says:

    Denis Lamoureux is an idiot. Just like Krauss.

  14. 14
    GaryGaulin says:

    hnorman5:

    Denis Lamoureux appears to be a real theistic evolutionist. He does not try to wed a theistic position with evolution by blind forces.

    I like the way Denis can accept the idea that we are a product of “intelligent design”, but he cannot accept the God in the gaps (arguments from ignorance) that Stephen Meyer and others in the ID movement are promoting.

    This might help explain why Mapou thinks Denis is an “idiot” but not an “IDiot”.

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    “God is not a “god of the gaps”, He is God of the whole show.”
    John Lennox – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaXO_wkwtCI

    Theism compared to Materialism/Naturalism – an overview – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1139512636061668/?type=2&theater

    The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Death as the “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1143437869002478/?type=2&theater

    General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy & The Shroud Of Turin – (video)
    http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=9FCEMJNU

    Special Relativity and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences – video
    https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1113745045305094/?type=2&theater

  16. 16
    Origenes says:

    Gary,

    What exactly is wrong with “God of the gaps” reasoning?

    “[I]t is a commonplace that there are gaps in nature’s capabilities that intelligent agents can bridge. Scientists in a variety of disciplines routinely posit intelligent agency to account for the gaps that would otherwise exist in their explanations. No one accuses archaeologists of a “scribe of the gaps” fallacy when they infer an intelligent cause for the inscriptions on the Rosetta stone. Neither do they censure anthropologists who posit intelligent agency on the basis that certain chipped flint patterns cannot be explained by reference to unintelligent causes.
    There is, then, nothing unscientific about the idea that there are things that nature does not or cannot do and that intelligent agents can bring about events that nature would not or could not otherwise do. We customarily attribute the operation of intelligent agency on precisely this basis and any recognition of alien intelligence, as in the case of the SETI project, proceeds on these two assumptions. This implies that if “God of the gaps” explanations are to be rejected as in principle scientifically illegitimate it must be solely on the basis of their inferring a supernatural cause and not on the basis that gap arguments are in principle unscientific.

    [Robert Larmer]

    I also like this commentary on Reppert’s blog:

    Why haven’t more people countered criticism of the “God of the Gaps” argument by pointing out that atheists instinctively use a mirror-image “Science of the Gaps” reasoning? By this I mean where they’ll inevitably say, when faced with some unsolvable mystery, “Oh, science will eventually discover the explanation for that.” Such faith I have not found even in Israel! Punting to the future is a cop out. All you’ve done is move the goalposts an infinite distance, since there will forever be a “future” to dump all your hopes in.
    [Edgestowe]

  17. 17
    hnorman5 says:

    My primary problem with Denis L (don’t make me spell that last name again – please), is that given his ideology he should be probably be accepting someone like Wallace as the best advocate of evolution rather than Darwin. I do not see his brand of TE as being just his brand of atheism

  18. 18
    Me_Think says:

    Origenes @ 16

    What exactly is wrong with “God of the gaps” reasoning? …

    ‘God’ is a placeholder for something omnipotent and omniscient. Such a being(s) exist only in religious stories of thousands of religions who have their own God(s). You haven’t solved the problem of infinite regress by invoking a placeholder.
    About SETI – No claim is made that the alien is omnipotent and omniscient. The assumption is that he has some better technology.
    ‘Science of Gaps’ is considered reasonable because science has always reduced the gap! In some areas more questions arise, but invariably the gaps do reduce or if you are a pessimist – tend towards reduction in the gap!

  19. 19
    Origenes says:

    Me_Think: ‘God’ is a placeholder for something omnipotent and omniscient.

    So, according to you, “God of the gaps” reasoning is coherent providing that one refrains from ‘omnipotent’ and ‘omniscient’ wrt gods and aliens? And isn’t that exactly what ID is doing, since ID doesn’t make assumptions about the designer?

  20. 20
    REW says:

    I thought the debate was a real disappointment. It wouldn’t have mattered if Meyer didnt have the migraine, Krauss wasn’t prepared to talk about the current topics ID has made ‘the-tip-of-the-spear’ He couldnt argue the nature of biological information, the ENCODE results, the Cambrian explosion etc. Of course he’s a physicist so we really shouldnt expect him to. They could have asked one or more people who could discuss those topics but they wouldnt have the name recognition that would draw a crowd.

  21. 21
    jerry says:

    ID says that the origin of certain phenomena could be due to an intelligent intervention and in some cases this is the best explanation. It is not a theory per se in the sense of physics, chemistry, biology, geology etc. It is a conclusion that takes place within every science developed by man. So to attack ID as a theory is missing the point. It uses the tools of each science to come to the most likely conclusion within that science.

    Did a certain result happen through natural means as a result of the four basic forces or is it more likely that something overrode these forces at some time in the past. Do we see this happening in the world today. Of course we do as our discussions here are examples of millions of occasions of overcoming the four basic forces to complete the comments we make.

    The so called “God of the Gaps” argument used against ID is an admission that we do not know how the four forces created an event. It is a rhetorical trick made to appear that one side is narrow minded while the other side is broad minded. But what is really happening is that an event is deemed to be unlikely to have happened through naturalistic means because the probability of the event is incredibly small. So why not state it that way. ID would be happy with that. But the so called broad minded people are actually the narrow minded ones and would not be happy with this conclusion. Actually it is those who use the term “God of the Gaps” who are narrow minded.

    ID does not deny the possibility of an event, only that the probability is so small that it is actually realistically impossible. Why cannot people admit this? If Lamoureux used the term “God of the Gaps”, then he is at best disingenuous. Actually anyone who uses the term “God of the Gaps” is disingenuous.

    I find it rather interesting that it is ID proponents that constantly use science to back their conclusions while their opponents use rhetoric or faith based argument to back their conclusions. The most egregious example of this was the debate between Philipp Johnson and Will Provine at Stanford in 1994. It was Johnson who was all science and Provine who was all rhetoric. Something we see all the time here on UD.

  22. 22
    Mung says:

    Lamoureux repeatedly claimed Darwin was not a dysteleologist, which I found rather odd.

  23. 23
    PaV says:

    GaryGaulin:

    I like the way Denis can accept the idea that we are a product of “intelligent design”, but he cannot accept the God in the gaps (arguments from ignorance) that Stephen Meyer and others in the ID movement are promoting.

    Is this statement factual? No. No one that I know of that is involved with ID makes the case that God “designed” DNA–end of story!

    It’s “intelligence-IN-the gaps” that ID argues.

    First, the gaps are real. Gaps in the fossil record exist. Gaps in protein domains of higher taxa exist.

    Second, the best way of explaining these “gaps” in protein domains is to posit the operation of “intelligence.” Darwinian methods are painfully inadequate as an explanation.

    So, the “God-of-the-gaps” is hardly more than a canard.

    How has Darwin’s theory of evolution done anything to fill-in these gaps?

  24. 24
    Mapou says:

    Origines:

    So, according to you, “God of the gaps” reasoning is coherent providing that one refrains from ‘omnipotent’ and ‘omniscient’ wrt gods and aliens? And isn’t that exactly what ID is doing, since ID doesn’t make assumptions about the designer?

    It’s obvious that materialists/Darwinists/atheists in general are fighting with a strawman of their own making. Their motivation has nothing to do with science. It has always been about religion and more precisely, about Christian fundamentalists. It’s a war of religions.

  25. 25
    leodp says:

    The question I wanted to ask Denis O. was:
    As a professing Christian with a professed full faith in Scripture, do you agree with Romans 1:20 “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
    His TE seems that modern evolutionary theory is an adequate explanation, and ‘faith in God’ is simply the position he personally prefers. That is, the evidence of creation is not compelling.

  26. 26
    Me_Think says:

    Origenes @ 19

    So, according to you, “God of the gaps” reasoning is coherent providing that one refrains from ‘omnipotent’ and ‘omniscient’ wrt gods and aliens? And isn’t that exactly what ID is doing, since ID doesn’t make assumptions about the designer?

    Ofcourse. ID stops at the level of identifying design. Just take another step and attempt to explain how designer interacts to guide improbable processes. At least have a theory. Once you identify how interaction happen, it is easy task to figure out the fermions which might help in interaction, from the weight of the fermion , you can deduce the Compton wavelength and then you will get the rough effective range from where a designer or the designer’s interface can interact. In fact this will help you to know if designer exists within those range. If a designer is found within those range, ID is a winner. However when you posit a ‘omnipotent’ and ‘omniscient’ designer, we can do none of the calculations (May be that’s the reason you don’t want to go beyond design ‘detection’)

  27. 27
    Origenes says:

    Me_Think #26,

    I’m happy to note that you no longer argue that “God of the gaps” reasoning is invalid. Now you are arguing that ID should explain how a designer interacts with matter.
    The short answer is: we don’t know. We also don’t know how our own intelligence is capable of producing material forum posts. What we do know is that blind physical processes do not offer a full explanation; see the argument from reason.
    However, it is a indisputable fact that we intelligently design forum posts and this factuality is distinct from any proposed mechanism that attempts to explain it.
    Similarly QM informs us of the reality of entangled particles even if a coherent proposal for an underlying mechanism is lacking.

  28. 28
    GaryGaulin says:

    Origenes:

    However, it is a indisputable fact that we intelligently design forum posts and this factuality is distinct from any proposed mechanism that attempts to explain it.

    Forum posts are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

    If it were not for ID then we would never know how forum posts were created?

  29. 29
    GaryGaulin says:

    Origenes:

    The short answer is: we don’t know. We also don’t know how our own intelligence is capable of producing material forum posts.

    I and some others know how our own intelligence is capable of producing material forum posts.

    I am though not at all surprised that you don’t know. If you did know then the precious “gap” in your understanding would disappear. As they say “Ignorance is bliss”.

  30. 30
    Origenes says:

    Gary,

    GG: Forum posts are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

    You indicate, implicitly, that the two are mutually exclusive. I can only commend such profound insight.

    GG: If it were not for ID then we would never know how forum posts were created?

    As you may well know, one is often forced to state the obvious when the adversary is being unreasonable.

    GG: I and some others know how our own intelligence is capable of producing material forum posts.

    It follows from the argument of reason, which excludes the possibility of a physical explanation for intelligence, that you claim to be able to explain how an immaterial mind interacts with matter. You have my undivided attention.

  31. 31
  32. 32
  33. 33
    GaryGaulin says:

    Philosophy again.

    Origenes, just in case you ever become scientifically literate: let me know when you can intelligently discuss scientific concepts pertaining to “intelligence”.

    ————————————————-

    P.S.
    I was forced to state the obvious when the adversary is being unreasonable. Thanks for the advice.

  34. 34
    Origenes says:

    Materialism again.

    Gary, just in case you ever become philosophically literate: let me know when you can intelligently discuss scientific concepts pertaining to “intelligence”.
    ————————————————-
    P.S.
    Providing philosophical arguments is “being unreasonable” … Got it. Thanks.

Leave a Reply