Natural — Supernatural FAQ

_{Barry Arrington
February 10, 2009

Intelligent Design

3}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

The Natural — Supernatural trope appears so frequently, I have decided to add it to the FAQ. The following new FAQ (many thanks to StephenB and DaveScot, from whom I have cribbed freely) is now open for comment:

(38) When an ID theorist says “natural forces” cannot account for certain features of the universe, he must mean that only supernatural forces can account for these features.

“If phenomena are not naturally caused, they are supernaturally caused. There is no other alternative.” Barbara Forrest

“Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.” Ludwig Wittgenstein

Ms. Forrest has tied herself into linguistic knots, causing her to succumb to the logical fallacy of “false dilemma.” There are three categories of causation: (a) agency, (b) law, and (c) chance. Of these three, law and chance are both “natural” causes. Agency, on the other hand, is a non-natural – but not necessarily “supernatural” cause. Any particular agent may be a human agent; a superhuman but non-divine agent; or a divine agent, and only this last category would be “supernatural.” Effects caused by an agent (whether divine, superhuman or human) leave similar traces (e.g., complex specified information, irreducible complexity) that simply cannot be replicated by effects caused by law and chance.

Ms. Forrest errs when she fails to take into account that the word “natural” has multiple shades of meaning. Her argument has a first-blush plausibility, because depending upon the context in which it is used, the word “natural” can be an antonym of “supernatural,” and in that context every phenomenon may indeed be categorized as either natural or supernatural. Ms. Forest fails to take into account, however, that in other contexts – as any thesaurus will confirm – the word “natural” can be an antonym to “technological” or “artificial.”

Now suppose an archeologist finds a spear point. Will he conclude that the spear point is a natural phenomenon? Obviously not. The whole point of calling it a spear point (instead of just “rock”) is that an agent (some ancient Indian perhaps) worked on it, and his work left traces that can be distinguished from the traces left by non-intelligent (i.e., “natural”) causes such as erosion. But wait a minute, under Ms. Forrest’s formulation, the spear point must be a natural phenomenon, because it was caused by a (presumably) non-supernatural human agent. The confusion vanishes when we realize that the archeologist is using “natural” as an antonym to “technological” or “artificial,” and not as an antonym to “supernatural.”

ID uses the term “natural” the way the archeologist uses it, not the way Ms. Forest uses it. In summary, therefore, Ms. Forest’s objection to ID is based not on the substance of ID’s theories, but on her failure to use language in a precise manner. Whether she has equivocated intentionally to muddy the waters and bring an unfair charge against ID, we will leave for others to decide.

Comments

Joseph @52
What knowledge has increased? What insights has methodological naturalism given us?
What have the Romans ever done for us? Methodological naturalism has given us all of modern science. That's a bit of a side note, though. The issue is whether or not intelligence is or is not a natural phenomena. Simply claiming that it isn't, with no logical argument or empirical observations, isn't particularly compelling to even a sympathetic listener such as myself, let alone the aforementioned methodological naturalists. JJJayM_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

"Oh yea of simple mind. A#1 IDists contend that the intelligence is detectable. Secondly, we may discover that the intelligent agent lives on the dark side of pluto. If so, the agent will no longer be invisible. Please remember that a few years ago individual atoms were invisible also. Quarks remain invisible. We need not invoke “supernatural” just because something is invisible, or just because the only way we can detect something is to see its effects." When beings, such as gods or leprechauns or fairy wood-nymphs, are invisible and undetectable they are referred to as supernatural. That is simply the common usage of the word. The being(s) in question would also be displaying unearthly power in being able to manipulate the genomes of all living things all over the Earth all through the history of the Earth.B L Harville_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

JT, If you disagree that the necessity of intelligent activity to create a car is not self-evident, this implies that you have some reason to believe that unintelligent activity can create a car. If you do not have reason to believe this, then your rejection of the self-evident necessity of intelligent activity to produce certain things is un-reasonable. You may argue that intelligent activity is simply one mode of "natural" activity. But so what? Must we study all things on the level of laws and fundamental particles?? Obviously, we don't lose our ability to study something once we have determined that it is "natural". I think a lot of the difficulty you are having is in how you perceive intelligent design. It is more about relating what we observe with our prior knowledge of what effects are uniquely caused by intelligent activity, than about complexity. When the FBI is trying to determine whether or not a person died "naturally," they are comparing what they observe with their prior knowledge about what effects are uniquely caused by intelligent activity. Who cares if it's complex or not? Do scientists not create *simple* elements in the laboratory that are NOT naturally occurring? The real question is whether the effects in question are known to occur "naturally" - which, if you pay attention to how the term is actually used, means "occurs without intelligent activity."QuadFather_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

QF [60]:
I think you simply have difficulty in separating a property from the thing that possesses the property.
You would have to provide a quote here.
Intelligence is a property. A human is a thing that possesses this property.
These sorts of distinctions would be arbitary and a matter of convenience. For example, you can quite legitimately consider code to be data and data as code depending on the context, and even at the same time.
Let’s start by considering the self-evident fact that intelligent activity creates things that do not occur naturally.
I wouldn't say that is self-evident.
Furthermore, we may consider a bird’s nest or a beaver dam, and realize that it does not even require *human* intelligence to create things that are not naturally occurring.
In responding to Joseph previously, I mentioned the earthworm as something that probably wouldn't be considered an agent, because its behavior is not complex enough, and that that's what people are implicitly considering when designating certain things agents - i.e. some arbitrary standard of behavorial complexity. But he said that an earthworm would be an agent as well, which is surprising to me.
When observing something for which we did not observe the origin, we ask what this thing most resembles: Things that occur naturally or things that do not occur naturally?
When ID talks about nature, there's typically a lot of references to wind and erosion, so yes you could look at something and say, "This is too complex to have been caused by wind and erosion. Or more typically, "This isn't the sort of thing that we intuitively understand that wind and erosion could create." When the FBI is combing the graphics files in someone's mail looking for messages from domestic terrorists - they are trying to detect design: the messages designed (written) by someone. So the environment in which they're searching is presumably not natural either from an I.D. perspective, as the graphics file could be a painting by Leonardo Da Vinci or Mozart. But they're trying to look for something that is different from the surrounding context in which they're searching. OK I thought of an example: What if terrorists had access to raw detailed seismic data for an area under the Capitol Building and were going to exploit that data in planting a bomb so they sent that raw data from nature embedded in a graphics file that was a three year old's drawing of a mountain, where that drawing was just one very crooked line ascending and another crooked line descending. I'm just going to end this abruptly here.JT_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed, Exactly.QuadFather_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Quad, Jerry... ..and then there is of course the minor point that the distinction, the argument, the founding of this whole concept is NOT PART OF THE EVIDENCE for ID!Upright BiPed_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

jerry, A voice of reason at last! The distinction between these problematic terms is patently non-existent, and any arguments premised upon these distinctions is therefore absurd. Categories must be worked out definitively before something can be excluded from science categorically. So riddle me this: Why do IDers like Barry Arrington still concede that "supernatural" is a real category for "divine"? Holy moly, my head could just explode every time I read a well-reasoned post from an obviously intelligent individual who nevertheless assigns one poorly-defined category on the basis of ANOTHER poorly-defined category! It's like ... Really! I'm reminded of a dad explaining to his bright four-year-old son how the family car works. The kid is, afterall, at the head of his pre-school class, so the dad figures he should be able to handle it. Dad explains how the engine converts gasoline into forward motion. He explains all the buttons, nobs, and levers. The child is so bright, he absorbs it all. He even scribbles Crayola depictions of the ideal interior set up for a four-year-old. Then at the end of the day, the boy looks up at his dad and says, "But what does it DO?"QuadFather_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Quadfather, I will consider your points, but may or may not respond as I may be diverging too much from the topic of this thread. BarryA was implicitly making an argument in responding to me that may not have been apparent, but an argument that seems to be prevalent in ID, so I did want to clarify that.JT_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

I find the whole discussion of supernatural and natural to be an absurd one. Not because it may not exist but because the distinction is not yet provable by any definitive means we have. There is no proof one way or the other about this yet one side wants to eliminate the consideration whether the distinction has merit or not. Some people hypothesize the existence of an intelligence, force, power, whatever you want to call it that explains some phenomena of the material world but which may not exist in this world. There is nothing wrong with that because it explains the potential problem under consideration. It doesn't mean that a materialistic explanation may not be found but that this intelligence etc. is a possibility. As we find more evidence in the materialistic world, this possibility goes up or down for each phenomenon under scrutiny. The other philosophy says 100% that such an intelligence, force, power etc. does not exist. Let's say this intelligence is the Judeo-Christian God that is hypothesized. That intelligence would explain the fine tuning of the universe, the origin of life and potentially many other phenomena. It would not stop any investigation into a particular phenomenon. But those who oppose such an explanation would actually limit some types of investigation. But those opposed to any such intelligence, power, force do not have to believe it. They can believe it somehow happened without any intelligence, force, power etc. and may at some day in the future be explained even if the current evidence says it may be impossible. And they can continue to work as if it was not there. Both are faith based. We can explore why the alternative is abhorrent to each group and it would be interesting to see what each group would volunteeringly say. Interesting is that those who oppose such a possibility are willing to believe in an impersonal force that might create multiple universes or that somehow these other universes might affect ours. But what is non negotiable is that some willful intelligence is operating to affect this universe. But this intelligence etc does not have to be anything like the Judeo-Chrisitan God and those who believe it is are just as guilty of faith as those who oppose it are.jerry_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Let me amend what I said: Obviously, it is the property of intelligence, not the humans who possess this property, that is necessary to make possible the things that are not naturally occurring.QuadFather_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

JT, I think you simply have difficulty in separating a property from the thing that possesses the property. Intelligence is a property. A human is a thing that possesses this property. Let's start by considering the self-evident fact that intelligent activity creates things that do not occur naturally. Was it humans or was it intelligence? Now, consider the fact that a brain-dead human can not create things that do not occur naturally. Furthermore, we may consider a bird's nest or a beaver dam, and realize that it does not even require *human* intelligence to create things that are not naturally occurring. Obviously, it is the property of intelligence, not the humans who possess this property, that makes possible the things that are not naturally occurring. When observing something for which we did not observe the origin, we ask what this thing most resembles: Things that occur naturally or things that do not occur naturally? And when we observe something that resembles things that are not naturally occurring, it is obvious that we can infer intelligent activity without also inferring human or animal activity.QuadFather_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

[58] The formatting that resulted for the following may cause confusion:
JT writes: “Don’t you understand that “agency” is an abstraction that by no means everyone accepts as being a meaningful concept?” Dont’ you understand that the rest of us are unwilling to deny the self-evident – that intelligent agents cause effects. The fact that you are reading this sentence proves the point.
The comment starting "Don't you undertand..." is BarryA's comment.JT_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

R0b wrote [51]:
Barry[21]:
JT writes: “Don’t you understand that “agency” is an abstraction that by no means everyone accepts as being a meaningful concept?” Dont’ you understand that the rest of us are unwilling to deny the self-evident – that intelligent agents cause effects. The fact that you are reading this sentence proves the point. If, after reading it, you continue to deny it, your denial is self-referentially incoherent, and, consequently, irrational. The rest of us cannot base they way we use language on trying to satifsy irrational people. We have no common frame of reference, and further discussion with you is pointless.
May I suggest that Barry’s response exemplifies the rift between ID and the scientific community. If ID theory involves terms like agency, but ID theorists won’t flesh those terms out scientifically, then perhaps we should view ID’s “expulsion” from science as self-expulsion.
I think I can clarify what Barry's argument is above by referencing a comment by Paul Giem directed to me in the G.K. Chesteron thread:
Whether or not we are determined, if our thoughts are determined but not by logical inferences from the evidence, they are worthless.
An extremely prevelant idea in I.D. is that if thinking is the result of law then it is worthless and incapable of ascertaining truth. You will find this idea repeated over and over again in I.D. circles, even by very intelligent people. A few week ago, Denyse discussed this guy with a doctoral degree, and in his article she linked to, he repeats the same argument. It is not a valid argument. It hardly seems worthy of comment. Its confusing that apparently really intelligent people are swayed by it, and that this argument is apparently never ever going to go away. The argument being made does not hinge on the complexity or number of laws involved . It does not say that to be able to determine truth in nontrivial domains, a LOT of rules are required. Rather, the issue is that the determinism of the enterprise supposedly rules out any ability to determine truth. But we employ automatic algorithms in all sorts of different contexts to endeavor the truth or falsity of things. In a bueracratic context employess might be instructed to follow some complex tested procedure to make a diagnosis of some sort. Is it possible as well for an automated process, a complex program, to make accurate determinations of truth or falsity in some domain? Quite obviously yes, right? How does one counter I.D.'s argument here? Its like it was being argued that water isn't wet. How do you counter that? ID adovates presumably will reply with a smile, "Ahhh yes but you forget one small detail: A program was written by a... human being!" This is supposed to make you withdraw in confusion and despair, knowing you've obviously been bested. You may withdraw in confusion, but only over how anyone could find this a compelling argument. Of course we know that rules - lots and lots and lots of rules, millions of them, govern many aspects of a human: the function of organs, motor reflexes and so on. So why shouldn't we assume rules govern human thought as well? I don't know. Do rules not govern an animal's thoughts either? Can they not determine the truth of things? Furthermore, as a side note, it would seem that from a traditional Darwinian perspective that Truth would have to be something favored by survival. Truth would be how accurate an organism's comprehension of the external world is. Wouldn't more accurate sense organs, a more reliable reasoning process be favored? You would think so.JT_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Scotto @ [38], The answer is: Intelligent design fits with BOTH 1 and 2. The *important* thing is that intelligent activity is a *distinct* category of activity, and it is in both scenarios. The question that people continue to get caught up in is on what level does this distinction take place. But it matters not. Either way, there is a distinction, and that is what allows us to study intelligent activity as a distinct phenomenon. So what's the problem? :sigh:QuadFather_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

R0b, I think it is self-evident that mind is a distinct category of things, would you not agree? We obviously would have to work out exactly what makes it distinct - cars, for example, don't just assemble themselves - but we really are just trying to articulate something that is already self-evident. If you are getting caught up on the point that even minds are naturally-occurring, then I think you are missing the point. Even granting that mind is a naturally-occurring phenomenon, it is still a distinct category of phenomenon, and we ought to be able to study it as such.QuadFather_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

Ok, the only point I would like to make is this: No matter how these terms are defined, intelligent design fits. It fits within a naturalistic approach to science just as easily as a non-naturalistic approach. So what's the big deal? If Forrest tries to exclude ID, just tell her how ID fits ANYWAY - grant her premises, rather than getting caught up in some frustrating merry-go-round of shape-shifting terminology, and tell her how she's STILL wrong. It seems like it should be so easy ...QuadFather_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

jpg564 @ [41], I think you misunderstand the points that I'm trying to make. I am NOT proposing specific definitions for these terms, I am trying to point out that these terms are *used* in so MANY *overlapping* ways as to make any distinction between them largely irrelevant. The term "supernatural" is particularly problematic because it does not describe anything that "natural" or "intelligent" does not describe already. Some people do take the view that anything that is real or understood is "natural". Here, intelligent design can be understood as a category of natural phenomena. Other people are more conservative in defining "natural", saying that intelligently created things are not naturally occurring. Intelligent design exists quite comfortably within this view as well. My point is that, no matter how we define these terms, there is NO WAY TO CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDE INTELLIGENT DESIGN from science. Since these terms are defined so poorly and *promiscuously*, there can be no premise for such an exclusion. My point is ALSO that "supernatural" is a FALSE category of things. It is a hopelessly redundant term. At best, it describes our knowledge - and that's stretching it - and it certainly does NOT describe things themselves. Ultimately, my point is that all of this blather about natural, supernatural, and intelligent is the REAL false controversy. Also, I think it is important to point out that IDers themselves are guilty of relying on poorly defined terms (How I wish that they would acknowledge the uselessness of "supernatural" rather than arguing that it is mis-used!). Barry Arrington's post here is one of many examples that I could dig up. I REALLY wish that Barry would respond to my comments to him in post [31]: [You cannot assign something to a poorly defined category (supernatural) on the basis of ANOTHER poorly defined category (divine).] Until we can provide a *unique* definition for "supernatural", we should throw the term out altogether rather than trying to work with it. Oi, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.QuadFather_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

If ID theory involves terms like agency, but ID theorists won’t flesh those terms out scientifically, then perhaps we should view ID’s “expulsion” from science as self-expulsion.
Read "Nature, Design and Science" by Del Ratzsch. That would be a good start. IOW "agency" has been "fleshed out". It is only those who choose not to read the relevant literature who remain confused.Joseph_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

JayM, Science is not about proving anything. And yes anyone can say that methodological naturalism has led to a great increase of knowledge but just saying that is meaningless. What knowledge has increased? What insights has methodological naturalism given us? Heck MN can't even provide a testable hypothsesis. MN does not provide any predictiove power- that is beacuse it can't even muster a testable hypothesis. As for the limits- one peer-reviewed paper tat tried to refute Behe's "Edge.." tells us that with humans it would take more than 100 million years just to "evolve" a new binding site! Yet the alleged split was about 7.5 million years ago. Methodological naturalism is dead. There isn't any data to support it. Those who support it have just forgotten to roll over. PS "evolutonary mechanisms" is a misnomer. Undirected vs directed as "evolution" is not being debated.Joseph_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Barry[21]:
JT writes: “Don’t you understand that “agency” is an abstraction that by no means everyone accepts as being a meaningful concept?” Dont’ you understand that the rest of us are unwilling to deny the self-evident – that intelligent agents cause effects. The fact that you are reading this sentence proves the point. If, after reading it, you continue to deny it, your denial is self-referentially incoherent, and, consequently, irrational. The rest of us cannot base they way we use language on trying to satifsy irrational people. We have no common frame of reference, and further discussion with you is pointless.
May I suggest that Barry's response exemplifies the rift between ID and the scientific community. If ID theory involves terms like agency, but ID theorists won't flesh those terms out scientifically, then perhaps we should view ID's "expulsion" from science as self-expulsion.R0b_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

First, superhuman and divine were taken directly from the FAQ. Perhaps they should be gotten rid of.
I would have to see the context. All I know is that ID does NOT posit a superhuman nor a divine agency.
Second, I’m not denying the design inference because we don’t no the agency, I’m denying that there is reason to bestow ability to agency with no evidence that said agency has that ability.
How is that any different than denying the design inference because we do not know the designer? Ya see designers- successful designers anyway- have the ability to design what it is they are designing.
And, of course, you cannot use life as the evidence that an agency (superhuman, divine, whatever you want) can produce CSI.
As I said every time we have observed CSI and knew the cause it has always been via an intelligent agency. To refute that premise all one has to do is to demonstrate that nature, operating freely, can do so.
That would be no different that a Darwinist claiming nature can produce CSI and using a salamander and the example.
Yet no one has ever observed nature, operating freely, produce a salamander. Salamanders come from other salamanders. That is what science has shown us.Joseph_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Joseph @45

Why is human agency “non-natural”?
For the same reason my car is non-natural.
And that is why, exactly?
Because nature, operating freely, did NOT design nor build it.
That is exactly the question in dispute. We need to prove it, not simply assert it.

The methodological naturalist position is that humans are the result of billions of years of evolution from a universal common ancestor. The mind is an emergent phenomena made possible by the immensely complex, but still naturally occurring, human brain.
I know their position. It nis up to THEM to demonstrate it.
Just as it is up to us to demonstrate ours. Simple assertions don't achieve that goal. I've had similar discussions with methodological naturalists before. It always comes down to "We've seen natural processes at work. While we don't know everything, methodological naturalism has resulted in a great increase in knowledge. Unless you can provide an equally powerful predictive process, there is no reason to assume that anything other than natural mechanisms are required." One could argue that this is a double standard, but it's a double standard at the philosophy of science level rather than at the practice of science level. Progress is being made in understanding the brain. There may be limits to how much progress can be made, just as there may be limits to how far evolutionary mechanisms can go, but it is up to ID researchers to demonstrate those limits, not simply assert that they exist. JJJayM_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

And, of course, you cannot use life as the evidence that an agency (superhuman, divine, whatever you want) can produce CSI. That would be no different that a Darwinist claiming nature can produce CSI and using a salamander and the example.Winston Macchi_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

First get rid of “superhuman” and “divine”. First, superhuman and divine were taken directly from the FAQ. Perhaps they should be gotten rid of. Second, I'm not denying the design inference because we don't no the agency, I'm denying that there is reason to bestow ability to agency with no evidence that said agency has that ability.Winston Macchi_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

I know that we have ample evidence of the effects of humans leading to CSI. May I ask, what are the effects of superhumans and divine agents leading to CSI that you used in your comparison?
First get rid of "superhuman" and "divine". Next if EVERY time we observe CSI it has always come from an intelligent agency- even a human- then when we observe CSI and do NOT know the cause it is a safe inference that an intelligent agency caused it. Now as with ALL scientific inferences future research acn either confirm or refute it. However to deny the design inference just because we do not know the agency is just nonsense.Joseph_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

Why is human agency “non-natural”?
For the same reason my car is non-natural.
And that is why, exactly?
Because nature, operating freely, did NOT design nor build it.
The methodological naturalist position is that humans are the result of billions of years of evolution from a universal common ancestor. The mind is an emergent phenomena made possible by the immensely complex, but still naturally occurring, human brain.
I know their position. It nis up to THEM to demonstrate it. Without that demonstration they have nothing.
In the sense that Forrest is using the term, all results of human intelligence are therefore “natural.”
The way SCIENTISTS use the word "natural" everything man-made is an "artifact". Just look at the ingredients of bubble-gum. They include "natural and artificial" flavors.
The intelligence postulated by ID theory is therefore also either a product of natural processes or is supernatural.
Or PRE-natural, as I have already posted and defended.
When dealing with methodological naturalism, which defines mainstream science, we must demonstrate that human intelligence cannot be explained within that paradigm.
That is false. The current paradigm has to have some data which supports it. Or else it gets canned. Ya see when dealing with mainsteam science all alternatives just have to meet the currently accpted level of evidence. Otherwise there is a double-standard.Joseph_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

Let me extend, however, that we may be a "grand experiment". An intelligence may have interjected "agency" into the system at just a few strategic points, the rest may be totally driven by the laws of nature. It may well be that the agent is observing us to discover where the laws of nature will take us to. I see no reason to believe, from the scientific evidence, that the agent(s) is a micromanager.bFast_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT}

Sotto Voce:
So the question is now, is ID committed to non-naturalism only in the first sense (fairly innocuous), or in the second sense?
In general, I would say that ID is radically committed only to the first sense. I would edit, however, that "sentience" is not ID's criteria. Sentience is never discussed. If there is one necessary charactoristic of the agent it is foresight. Is sentience required for foresight? Startreck II would suggest so. However, it is not a discussed term. I think that foresight requires intentionality. I think that if intentionality were to somehow be eliminated from the equation; if, for instance, the unintentional jossling of intelligent agents in a nearby universe were causing what we were seeing, we would recognize this as non-foresighted activity -- not ID.bFast_{February 11, 2009
February
02
Feb
11
11
2009
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT}

But a “law” that acts uniquely for every individual and situation isn’t much of a law.
Consider the trajectory of every single air molecule in your room right now. Do you think there are other rooms in which the molecules follow the exact same trajectories? The odds against this are astronomical. The air-in-a-room system is capable of an incredible diversity of behavior. Does this mean this system is not law-governed? Similarly, the fact that humans are capable of an incredible diversity of behavior is no argument against this behavior being law-governed.Sotto Voce_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT}

Quadfather, My understanding of your view of natural vs supernatural is that everything is natural, IOW, anything that is true is natural. Supernatural means it isn't true or it doesn't exist. It's a valid definition, but it doesn't help clarify anything. ROb, Your argument that agency isn't a separate category of causation is hard to defend. You argued that the earthworms would be categorized as law. I presume you would put yourself in that category as well. So then, your choice to post to this blog and the words you typed were the result of some law that acts specifically on you and compels your actions? But a "law" that acts uniquely for every individual and situation isn't much of a law. Our choices are not chance and they're not predetermined. To prove it would require supernatural or metaphysical ability to foretell the future.jpg564_{February 10, 2009
February
02
Feb
10
10
2009
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next