Intelligent Design

New UD Policy

Spread the love

Dear readers,

We have just added the following to our “Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design” in the “Resources” section linked on our home page:

41] What About the Canaanites?

Whataboutism is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent’s position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.

A frequent example of whataboutism employed by materialists:

ID Proponent: “The Holocaust was objectively evil. Therefore, objective moral standards exist.”

Materialist: “What about God’s command to kill the Canaanites? If the Holocaust was evil, wasn’t that evil too?”

Notice what the materialist did not do: He did not even address the ID proponent’s argument, far less refute it. Instead, the materialist tried to discredit the argument by charging the ID proponent with hypocrisy.

Materialists employee whataboutism frequently because it works. It puts the ID proponent on the defensive, and time after time arguments about whether objective moral standards exist get bogged down in attempts to justify God’s commands concerning the Canaanites 3,400 years ago.

From a strictly logical point of view, there is no reason this should ever happen. The proper response is to decline the invitation to change the subject: “I don’t believe it, but let’s assume for the sake of argument you are right. Getting back to the argument before you tried to change the subject . . .”

Strictly speaking, whataboutism is not a “weak argument.”  It is, rather, an attempt to derail an argument, and many times it has been used very effectively by the materialists that frequent these pages.  Arguments about whether objective moral truth exists go nowhere, because they are bogged down by theists’ apologies for God’s commands to the Israelites 3,400 years ago.

No more.  UD’s purpose is to serve the intelligent design community, and while there is a great deal of overlap between that community and various stripes of theists, they are not the same thing.  UD is not a platform for apologetics.  Therefore, henceforth, materialists’ whataboutism tactics designed to derail arguments similar to “what about the Canaanites?” AND apologies from theists who fall for the tactic will be discouraged.  We hope warnings will be sufficient, but reserve the option of deleting comments and/or putting commenters in moderation if the warnings are ignored.

To the materialists who are disappointed this particular tactic for derailing arguments will no longer be available at UD, don’t worry.  We are sure you will find other ways to try to deflect from a reasoned examination of your views.

To the theists who are disappointed they will not be able to post apologies for God’s commands concerning Canaan, you too should not worry.  There is a time and place for apologetic concerning this matter.  UD is not the place.

130 Replies to “New UD Policy

  1. 1
    Bob O'H says:

    No more. UD’s purpose is to serve the intelligent design community, and while there is a great deal of overlap between that community and various stripes of theists, they are not the same thing. UD is not a platform for apologetics.

    Well, that’s going to stop the fun. 🙂

    Does this mean that issues about whether morals are objective or not will also be off the table? I’m asking just so I know where the line is being drawn.

  2. 2
    Barry Arrington says:

    Bob,

    Does this mean that issues about whether morals are objective or not will also be off the table?

    Bob, go back and read the post, this time for comprehension. The whole purpose of the policy is to avoid materialists’ attempts to derail discussions about whether morals are objective or not. *sigh*

  3. 3
    Bob O'H says:

    Barry, I was just asking for clarification. It reads to me like you are saying that you won’t be putting up posts like your Becky’s Lesson post (and sequels), but I might be reading more into this than I should.

    The alternative interpretation is that you are saying that you will still put up such posts, but that you will censor certain responses. The problem I foresee is that there are times when mentioning Cannanites will be relevant (and yes, times times when they are not), so how will you police the difference?

  4. 4
    Barry Arrington says:

    Bob,

    but that you will censor certain responses

    Bob, seriously, read the post. I’m sure any reasonably intelligent child would know the answer to your question.

    No, we will not censor responses to arguments. We will warn against attempts to avoid responding to arguments by attempting to derail the discussion with whataboutism tactics. And if the warnings go unheeded, stronger measures will follow.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Barry: Puppy poop in the house will be removed!

    Bob: But pooping in the house is fun. Where is the exact line for pooping in the house?

    Barry: To clarify, all puppy poop in the house will be removed!

    Bob: The “alternative interpretation” is that you allow puppies in the house but will not allow me to personally poop in the house.

    Barry: Puppies are not poop. Puppies are not banned from the house. Puppy poop is banned from the house.

    Prediction,,, Bob will do his damnedest to find a way to continue to poop in the house.

    🙂

  6. 6

    This is great news! The a/mat trolls need to find a new hobby.

    Also, BA @ 5: Brilliant!

  7. 7
    mikeenders says:

    “To the theists who are disappointed they will not be able to post apologies for God’s commands concerning Canaan, you too should not worry”

    this is one theist that isn’t disappointed at all. I have felt a little uncomfortable having disscusions aobut biblical texts on an ID blog and engaged only when I saw the subject was allowed to be sniped on. It feeds into the false claim that ID is just creationism.

    What I would request is that it be more firm than “discouraged”. Its difficult not to respond when one side is allowed to “snipe” on a topic. No one needs to defend anything if the attacks are not allowed.

    The only issue I have with the rule as worded is that you actually raise the issue of the canaanites in the rule so its somewhat self defeating if the issue is not relevant at all. Raising the issue in a rule and then not addressing it gives more the impression of a duck from answering it rather than just ignoring particualr references since they are irrelevant.

    Widening it to any tangential conversations of any religious texts in order to detract or duck from the the point being discussed is not allowed seems to me to be better and includes all such future attempts at distraction. Its also fair and balanced since ID is not religious text based.

    Anyway, regardless of wording,As you rightfully stated – There are many other places where attacks and subsequent apologetics are discussed. UD need not be another one and this theist would be glad to see it isn’t.

  8. 8
    DarelRex says:

    I’m going to have to side with Bob O’H on this one. How do we say “no more” to arguments against the veracity/sensibility of God commanding a massacre in the Bible, on the grounds that it has nothing to do with the arguments for/against ID, while in practically the same breath implying that Nazi death camps do have something to do with ID? ID claims to be a scientific, not religious, position, and I would have to say that the strong, scientific, evidence for ID and/or against neo-Darwinism (refer to the meat of Behe’s two books and Axe’s/Gauger’s most well-known works) is at the very least compatible with, if not actually suggestive of, creator(s) who don’t give rat’s ass whether we murder each other every day — and once in a blue moon by the millions — as long as the overall project of human progress is not seriously threatened.

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    ME, one thing I found highly significant is that, quite early, I linked a discussion I developed several years ago as part of a “street-level” systematic theology 101 course, here — and that is a proper place to deal with the matter. It links onward to several quite serious discussions from various perspectives. NONE of the objectors showed signs of having looked at it much less of having taken it seriously. That speaks volumes on motives, and BA77 nails the matter. In context, I also duly noted how the point that our rationality is itself under moral government, on pain of reducing mindedness to clever manipulation was also studiously ducked. KF

    PS: I would probably broaden slightly to deal with the wider habitual dirty rhetorical pattern, the trifecta: red herring distractors, led away to strawmen soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, poison, polarise thus frustrating serious discussion of the original problem AND of the red herring used to distract attention, or even the strawman tactic. In short, an expression of hostile contempt and prejudice manifesting utter disrespect.

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    DR,

    perhaps it would help to start from morality and self-evident moral truths that lead to understanding that we are under moral government. Then, we may address how that comes to be, on what world-order must we stand in order that the IS-OUGHT gap may be bridged. This is independent of debates on Bible texts and the heritage of the sins and blessings of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. (I explore those at 101 level in the just above linked.)

    I clip 36 in the previous thread:

    Either our rational faculties are morally governed through duties to truth, right, justice and much more, or else they are little more than means of clever manipulation. Where, to follow that path is instantly absurd, utterly undermining reasoned discussion.

    Including, in this thr4ead.

    So, we face a challenge, that reason and right must be unified, the is and the ought must be unified.

    How?

    What Hume actually accomplishes is that moral government can only be unified with rationality and reality at world-root level. The IS-OUGHT gap is critical.

    The Euthyphro dilemma actually fails, also. ARBITRARY commands of a small-g god cannot ground morality, but what happens when we have a unification of all these things in the root of reality?

    As in, we cannot but be morally governed, starting with our reasoning. That has to be at world root level or we will find ungrounded ought. And it cannot be in a small-g god giving commands with no necessary connexion to the roots of reality.

    This is part of the context that leads to the only serious candidate root of reality: the inherently good and wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature.

    This good wise Creator God is the framework for reality, so there is no root of reality independent of him. As he is inherently good, his commands will be right, good and wise, thus trustworthy and commending themselves to us as reasonable. As morality — governing ourselves according to sound principles of value, truth and conduct — will be inextricably fused into the root of what is, there is no ultimate gap. As a serious candidate maximally great and necessary being, the creator God will either be impossible (as a square circle is) or else will be actual.

    Now, this is not an arbitrary imposition, this is philosophy. If you have a serious alternative, simply put it up: ______ .

    I suspect it will be found far harder to do so than one may at the first imagine.

    For instance, remember, grounding of rationality and its credibility are also in the stakes.

    67 adds:

    a loaded question is not simple or straightforward.

    A loaded, toxic question needs to be answered in light of underlying agendas of issues and the likelihood of twisting of an answer that is naive. (Funny, I was dealing with that in a strategic change management context just yesterday [ –> now, last week]: a “simple” answer to a loaded question does little more than allow a trap to be sprung.)

    Meanwhile THIRTY comments later, objectors have shown no sign of examining a 101 on the subject of their question; cf. the linked from 36 above.

    In short, for coming on a day, a 101 level answer has been on the table, just that it has been studiously evaded.

    That tells us that we are not dealing with straightforwardness.

    That now patently goes to showing more interest in pushing what is commonly used as a “shut up” rhetorical talking point than a serious position. And, sadly, it reveals the force of the issue raised in 36, that the first point of contact for moral government is our rational faculty itself.

    As in,

    >>are we under objective moral government, starting with government of the rational faculties used to discuss issues. If not, those faculties are little more than clever tools of cynical manipulation; destroying reasoned discussion — something that all too aptly explains the patent approach of too many political, media and even academic voices today: might and/or manipulation make ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘knowledge’ ‘justice’ etc. If yes, then we do have to address the grounding of morality and the world root level solution of the IS-OUGHT gap as context for evaluating any particular moral issue or talking point. Which, makes all the difference in how we approach such issues. And no, I will not be drawn into debating perceptions and feelings in absence of a clear understanding of the underlying foundational matters at stake; e.g. that there are self-evident moral truths which thus are universal and cannot be effectively denied or dismissed without falling at once into patent absurdity.>>

    In my considered opinion, these need to be straightened out first, setting a context for a more balanced discussion of the sort of loaded questions that BA has raised as a “whatabboutism” issue.

    Derailing serious discussion backed up by refusal to deal with serious discussion of morality AND refusal to discuss an actual serious response all speak. And the message is, shut up rhetoric driven by contempt or worse.

    KF

  11. 11
    Querius says:

    Barry,

    Good decision and complete agreement on my part.

    Thank you.

    -Q

  12. 12
    mikeenders says:

    DR,

    “I’m going to have to side with Bob O’H on this one. How do we say “no more” to arguments against the veracity/sensibility of God commanding a massacre in the Bible, on the grounds that it has nothing to do with the arguments for/against ID, while in practically the same breath implying that Nazi death camps do have something to do with ID?”

    Which God commanded a massacre? ID does not specify the God in the Bible. Thats the whole point why from an ID point of view the argument must stay on the merits and facts of the holocaust because whats in the Bible is no rebuttal to the moral argument of a Hindu Idist.

    “if not actually suggestive of, creator(s) who don’t give rat’s ass whether we murder each other every day”

    You mean besides the part where almost all major religions denounce murder or is this based on some imagination that denouncing murder is not giving a “rat’s ass”?

  13. 13
    DarelRex says:

    To comment a bit more: Suppose an ID skeptic asked me, “What about such-and-such God-mandated massacre in the Bible?” That strikes me as a reasonable question that deserves a very straightforward answer. If instead I replied, “That’s a logical fallacy; stop saying it,” then I would be entirely uninformative to someone who perhaps really does want to know how a Biblical massacre might be compatible with a pro-ID position.

    My best attempt at a direct, honest, and hopefully informative answer to this person? To me, the overall evidence indicates pretty clearly that:

    a) It is significantly possible that this story in the Bible did not occur. Or, if a big massacre did occur there-and-then, it is very possible that it was not commanded by our creator(s).

    b) Our creator(s) probably don’t care about occasional massacres, not to mention equally bad (and much more frequent) natural disasters. All species on Earth suffer such things from time to time. C’est la vie — or in the case of highly intelligent humans, live and learn.

    If my motivation was not scientific curiosity to know what actually happened, but rather a desire to promote the particular organized religion in which I was raised, then I would not be able to directly answer the Bible-massacre question, and might choose to resort to an uninformative deflection.

  14. 14
    ET says:

    DarelRex:

    Suppose an ID skeptic asked me, “What about such-and-such God-mandated massacre in the Bible?”

    Send them to a Biblical scholar and tell them good luck.

  15. 15
    DarelRex says:

    mikeenders: I think I am in agreement with your above response to my comment.

    The scientific core of ID, I think, is simply that mutation-selection evolution (a.k.a. neo-Darwinism), per available evidence cannot be the correct explanation for how a world with only single-celled life turned into a world with rhinos (e.g.). Then, the inference to the best explanation says that life was probably designed by pre-existing intelligence, much as we humans design cars and computers.

    ID does not, in my opinion, support any particular religion. But I would go further and say that all of the religions could be completely made up, and even the bare concept that we are individually judged after death for how we behaved in this life could be completely made up, and the scientific evidence for ID would still be compellingly strong.

    The thing that disturbs me most about UD, and goads me into occasionally submitting comments here, is the constant attempts to spot-weld the truth/falsehood of “objective morality” to the truth/falsehood of ID.

  16. 16
    Barry Arrington says:

    Darel the King,

    The thing that disturbs me most about UD, and goads me into occasionally submitting comments here, is the constant attempts to spot-weld the truth/falsehood of “objective morality” to the truth/falsehood of ID.

    Then you do not understand ID. If materialism is true, ID is false. It is important to demonstrate that materialism is not true. One way to show materialism is false is to demonstrate the patently logical absurdity of denying self-evident objective moral truth.

  17. 17
    Bob O'H says:

    Barry @ 16 –

    Then you do not understand ID. If materialism is true, ID is false.

    What if the designer was material? I thought ID maintained that it said nothing about the designer, but you now seem to be insisting that ID not be material.

  18. 18
    ET says:

    What if the designer was material?

    That alone doesn’t say that materialistic processes produced the Designer nor that the intelligence can be reduced to materialistic processes.

  19. 19
    Barry Arrington says:

    Bob @ 17,

    You actually have a point, one which I have made myself. At the biological level the designer could be material. I should have said if materialism is true, ID at the cosmological level is false.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Materialists have tried to use the “Extraterrestrial (ET) escape hatch” before so as to avoid an inference to God.

    Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick, each militant atheists, both appealed to ETs rather than God to explain life.
    Richard Dawkins stated the situation as such in his interview with Ben Stein:

    BEN STEIN: “What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?”
    DAWKINS: “Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.”
    – Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview (3:18 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

    Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA helix, was much more explicit than Dawkins, and stated it best in his book “Life Itself”

    “Life did not evolve first on Earth; a highly advanced civilization became threatened so they devised a way to pass on their existence. They genetically-modified their DNA and sent it out from their planet on bacteria or meteorites with the hope that it would collide with another planet. It did, and that’s why we’re here. The DNA molecule is the most efficient information storage system in the entire universe. The immensity of complex, coded and precisely sequenced information is absolutely staggering. The DNA evidence speaks of intelligent, information-bearing design.
    Complex DNA coding would have been necessary for even the hypothetical first so-called’ simple cell(s). Our DNA was encoded with messages from that other civilization. They programmed the molecules so that when we reached a certain level of intelligence, we would be able to access their information, and they could therefore — teach” us about ourselves, and how to progress. For life to form by chance is mathematically virtually impossible.”
    Francis Crick – Life Itself – September 1982

    Some researchers have apparently taken Dawkins and Crick’s suggestion that, “Our DNA was encoded with messages from that other civilization”, seriously and they now claim to have detected an Intelligently Designed extraterrestrial ‘WOW signal’ in DNA

    In the Planetary Science Journal Icarus, the “Wow!” Signal of Intelligent Design – March 12, 2013
    Excerpt: “The ‘Wow! signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code.” Their paper has been accepted for publication in the prestigious planetary science journal Icarus, where it’s already available online.
    Their title comes from a curious SETI signal back in 1977 that looked so artificial at first, a researcher wrote “Wow!” next to it.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....69941.html

    The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code – May 2013
    Excerpt: Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10–13). The patterns are profound to the extent that the code mapping itself is uniquely deduced from their algebraic representation. The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin,,,
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791

    The main elephant in the living room problem that is overlooked in these supposed material extraterrestrial intelligences, that are postulated by atheists so as to avoid an inference to God, is that Intelligence does not collapse into any conceivable materialistic explanation. In fact the main claim of Intelligent Design is that there are NO material explanations for the creation of functional information and that only minds are known to be able to create functional information.

    As Paul Nelson states in the following article, your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.)

    Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism – Paul Nelson September 24, 2014
    Excerpt: Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds.
    MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact.
    “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer?
    Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,,
    You are certainly an intelligent cause,, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90071.html

    Thus, in their appeal to ETs, atheist only tried to kick the can down the road, and have still neglected to explain exactly where the functional information came from and, more importantly, have failed to explain exactly where the designing intelligence came from.

    Moreover, the Theists, instead of letting things hang in limbo, with the supposed extraterrestrial ‘material intelligences’ of atheists, can now appeal to advances in ‘quantum biology’ to directly and experimentally support their belief that God, who is beyond space and time, designed life and even ‘holds life together’. And Theists can also appeal to advances in quantum biology to support their belief that we have transcendent souls that are capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies.

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – video
    https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am1g5Y

    And whereas the Christian Theist can appeal directly to our best cutting edge science in quantum biology to support their beliefs that God designed life and that we have transcendent souls, the militant atheist, on the other hand, is sent packing in his quest to find evidence for ETs:

    Search for signs of alien civilisations in 100,000 galaxies has turned up nothing – 12 MAY 2015
    Excerpt: “Our results mean that, out of the 100,000 galaxies that WISE could see in sufficient detail, none of them is widely populated by an alien civilisation using most of the starlight in its galaxy for its own purposes,” said Wright. “That’s interesting because these galaxies are billions of years old, which should have been plenty of time for them to have been filled with alien civilisations, if they exist. Either they don’t exist, or they don’t yet use enough energy for us to recognise them.”
    This is the dilemma at the heart of the Fermi Paradox. Logically, there have been plenty of opportunities for life to occur around the Universe, so where are all the aliens?
    http://www.sciencealert.com/se.....up-nothing

    As a Christian who has seen a few answered prayers during my life, I find it strange that the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) organization spends millions of dollars vainly searching for signs of extra-terrestrial life in this universe, when all anyone has to do to make solid contact with THE primary ‘extra-terrestrial intelligence’ of the entire universe is to pray with a sincere heart.
    God, who created heaven and earth, certainly does not hide from those who sincerely seek Him.
    I would think that personally communicating with the Creator of the universe would be a lot more exciting than not communicating with some little green men that in all realistic probability, given naturalism, do not even exist.

    Isaiah 45:18-19
    For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.”

  21. 21
    ET says:

    Yes, but…

    If we are discussing proximate causes then allowing for ET colonization is OK with ID. Yes it does push it back but we still have to take it one step at a time.

    These ETs, or some other intelligent agency, seems to have also designed our solar system. Or do you really think innumerable cosmic collisions produced this planet with its just-so rotation? The large moon that we need to stabilize the planet just happens to produce perfect solar eclipses that allow us to understand nature. The design reason why the moon has very little metal content is mass. Too much mass and you sacrifice on eclipse experiments or you risk enormous tides on your one habitable planet.

    The point being ID isn’t limited to biology and it allows for God to farm out the details to His enlightened engineers.

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Quantum biology requires a beyond space and time cause, period. Theists have a cause to appeal to, materialists don’t.

  23. 23
    gpuccio says:

    Bob O’H:

    Of course a material designer could explain the desing in biological beings on our planet.

    The major problem with that, however (beyond the basic problem of finding some explanation for those material designers) is that there is no observation in favor of material intelligent beings acting on our planet throughout natural history.

    We should rememner, indeed, that the problem of design in biological beings is not restricted to OOL: desing is clearly detectable at all stages of life development on our planet.

    So, it is rather difficult to believe that material desingers could have acted through 4+ billion years on this planet without leaving any trace. It is possible, of course, but rather unlikely, at least IMO.

    That’s why I think that the idea of some non physical conscious agent(s) with some interface to biological matter is a better scientific hypothesis. And I do believe that the interface must be searched at quantum level.

  24. 24
    mikeenders says:

    not buying that ID can posit a material designer without contradiction. ID does not hold that biology alone is designed but the entire universe including its laws.

    Whatever precedes our universe and its laws wouldn’t fit any present definition of material and would be so significantly different as not fit into any classification near it.

  25. 25
    Barry Arrington says:

    Mike,

    Why do you insist that the designer of biological life must have been supernatural? What suspension of the laws of physics (i.e., miracle) is necessary for terrestrial biological life to exist?

  26. 26
    ET says:

    Much confusion comes from the want to contrast ID with the supernatural whereas ID contrasts natural with artificial.

  27. 27
    mikeenders says:

    “To me, the overall evidence indicates pretty clearly that:

    a) It is significantly possible that this story in the Bible did not occur. Or, if a big massacre did occur there-and-then, it is very possible that it was not commanded by our creator(s).”

    this is just continuing the discussion on canaanites despite being told its outside the rules and I am sorry but “evidences indicates pretty clearly” paired with “significant possibility” is vacuous (and unsubstantiated).

  28. 28
    mikeenders says:

    BA

    “Why do you insist that the designer of biological life must have been supernatural? What suspension of the laws of physics (i.e., miracle) is necessary for terrestrial biological life to exist?”

    A) Unless something has changed in the world of ID it does not limit itself to “biological life” (and my response did not limit itself to biological life). Isn’t the point of appealing to fine tuning to show that an intelligence set constants and laws? If not why is the point made in many ID publications? If you made the claim that biological Id can have a material designer then you would be correct but not applied to Id in general. Once you claim the universe and its constants and laws were designed claiming it fits within “material” makes little sense.

    B) by definition that which is outside of our universe is super (beyond) natural(that which we refer to as our nature). I am not at all implying that the designer need be spiritual but that anything that precedes our laws and our understanding of time and space would not fit into any practical parameters of our present human understanding of what is classified now as “material”. An ET is an extra terrestrial -outside of earth. This would be someone/thing outside of our universe if claims that ID makes in regard to law and constants have any validity.

  29. 29
    Barry Arrington says:

    Mike:

    If you made the claim that biological Id can have a material designer then you would be correct but not applied to Id in general.

    Almost correct. Try this:

    If you made the claim that biological Id can have a material designer AT THE TERRESTRIAL LEVEL then you would be correct but not applied to Id in general AT THE COSMOLOGICAL LEVEL.

  30. 30
    mikeenders says:

    “If you made the claim that biological Id can have a material designer AT THE TERRESTRIAL LEVEL then you would be correct but not applied to Id in general AT THE COSMOLOGICAL LEVEL.”

    I am entirely correct because your original statement I replied after reading made no such distinction. It simple stated ID. IF you misspoke/wrote or were too general in that statement that’s fine. I accept your own subsequent correction

    However after further consideration – try this . they are both incorrect in regard to ID. Why? because ID at the so called cosmological level makes a claim at fine tuning for life which is the biological level. Your attempt to separate them fails on many levels of thought in ID. In most ID literature its fine tuning for intelligent biological life.

    You can either rewrite what Id is and the claims it makes, ignore it or accept the fact that they are intertwined in ID. You don’t get to logically do both.

  31. 31

    In most ID literature its fine tuning for biological life.

    Would you point out to me who is making the claim that the information in DNA is the result of fine tuning. After several years of involvement, I’ve not read that.

  32. 32
    mikeenders says:

    “Would you point out to me who is making the claim that the information in DNA is the result of fine tuning. After several years of involvement, I’ve not read that.”

    I said nothing about DNA in particular. You can’t seriously have been well read on the subject if you are denying arguments made in Id do not claim fine tuning for intelligent life on this planet. just one well known source of ID thought retrieved in a five second Google search

    https://www.google.com/search?q=fien+tuning+for+life+evolution+news&oq=fien+tuning+for+life++evolution+news&aqs=chrome..69i57.6151j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

  33. 33

    Perhaps I am not well enough read in ID, but I do make a distinction between different types of evidence. There is argument and evidence in favor of biological ID and there is argument and evidence in favor of cosmological ID. I can assure you that a coherent argument on the evidence for biological ID does not require an immaterial designer, as you suggest in #24.

  34. 34
    mikeenders says:

    “I can assure you that a coherent argument on the evidence for biological ID does not require an immaterial designer, as you suggest in #24.”

    I suggested nothing about biological ID in post 24 (please do look and be more thoughtful in your reading) so its kind of rebutting a strawman not an assurance of anything.

    “but I do make a distinction between different types of evidence. There is argument and evidence in favor of biological ID and there is argument and evidence in favor of cosmological ID. ”

    this is a false argument and somewhat of a special pleading invention made in this thread in regard to ID. Most of the publications on ID do not even make reference to “biological ID” and “cosmological ID” neither do most adhere to a multiple designer theory (which would add more complexity) – no one designer in relation to cosmological and another one in relation to biological in anything I have read over the decades in ID thought.

    Its just a plain fact that I have demonstrated conclusively by showing you Di covering fine tuning for biological life over and over again – ID does make the argument and its a well known argument (with evidence) of a fine tuning for biological life.

    Fine tuning IS at the cosmological level. Now to be clear this does NOT equal God but once you start talking of a designing entity fine tuning laws and cosmological constants as ID does – those beings/things or entities are way beyond being confined to our present definition of “material” (which is understood and defined by the constraints of the created/designed space we live in). If you claim as ID does that life is a result of designed fine tuning then the entity exists outside and beyond the physical laws and constants – or else they/it cannot be ascribed a designer of those constants and laws.

  35. 35
    mikeenders says:

    Since this seems to be a point of discussion I would love a definition of “material” that survives outside of this universe, time and space and laws contained within.

  36. 36

    #24

    not buying that ID can posit a material designer without contradiction. ID does not hold that biology alone is designed but the entire universe including its laws.

    It appears to me that you yourself can draw an intellectual distinction between design in biology and design on a cosmological scale. Otherwise, your comment above would not make any sense.

    In any case, if one presents an argument for an act of intelligence related to DNA for instance (which does not posit or require a immaterial designer), the problem you are suggesting is not that their argument will necessarily or inherently contain an internal contradiction in its descriptions of evidence and rationale, but only that the intelligence being posited by the argument must (from your perspective) also set the cosmological constants in the universe — and this is because other ID arguments have been made elsewhere (outside the biological argument being presented) that point to design in the cosmos.

    Is that it?

  37. 37
    bornagain77 says:

    Quantum information and/or entanglement is a whole different ‘non-material’ puppy than the classical information IDists usually defend.

    Quantum Entanglement and Information
    Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

    Simply put, Quantum information is its own unique ‘physical’ entity, that is separate from matter and energy. A unique physical entity that requires a beyond space and time cause to explain its existence.

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Entangled objects (particles) simply do not cause each other to behave the way they do, therefore a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause MUST be appealed to.

    Quantum correlations do not imply instant causation – August 12, 2016
    Excerpt: A research team led by a Heriot-Watt scientist has shown that the universe is even weirder than had previously been thought.
    In 2015 the universe was officially proven to be weird. After many decades of research, a series of experiments showed that distant, entangled objects can seemingly interact with each other through what Albert Einstein famously dismissed as “Spooky action at a distance”.
    A new experiment by an international team led by Heriot-Watt’s Dr Alessandro Fedrizzi has now found that the universe is even weirder than that: entangled objects do not cause each other to behave the way they do.
    http://phys.org/news/2016-08-q.....ation.html

    This ‘spooky’ entanglement which requires a beyond space and time cause, is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale:

    In the following video, at the 22:20 minute mark, Dr Rieper shows why high temperatures do not prevent DNA from having entanglement and then at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper goes on to remark that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it.

    “What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state.”
    Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it)
    https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176

    At the 6:52 minute mark of the video, Jim Al-Khalili states:

    “To paraphrase, (Erwin Schrödinger in his book “What Is Life”), he says at the molecular level living organisms have a certain order. A structure to them that’s very different from the random thermodynamic jostling of atoms and molecules in inanimate matter of the same complexity. In fact, living matter seems to behave in its order and its structure just like inanimate matter cooled down to near absolute zero. Where quantum effects play a very important role. There is something special about the structure, about the order, inside a living cell. So Schrodinger speculated that maybe quantum mechanics plays a role in life”.
    Jim Al-Khalili – Quantum biology – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOzCkeTPR3Q

    And in confirmation of Al-Khalili, and Erwin Schrodinger’s, contention that life acts like inanimate matter cooled down to near absolute zero, in the following experiment it was found that protein molecules do indeed act like inanimate matter cooled down to near absolute zero.

    Quantum coherent-like state observed in a biological protein for the first time – October 13, 2015
    Excerpt: If you take certain atoms and make them almost as cold as they possibly can be, the atoms will fuse into a collective low-energy quantum state called a Bose-Einstein condensate. In 1968 physicist Herbert Fröhlich predicted that a similar process at a much higher temperature could concentrate all of the vibrational energy in a biological protein into its lowest-frequency vibrational mode. Now scientists in Sweden and Germany have the first experimental evidence of such so-called Fröhlich condensation (in proteins).,,,
    The real-world support for Fröhlich’s theory took so long to obtain because of the technical challenges of the experiment, Katona said.
    https://phys.org/news/2015-10-quantum-coherent-like-state-biological-protein.html

    In the following paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules”, it was found that the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,

    Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015
    Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say.
    That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.”
    The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
    “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?”
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

    Further notes on quantum entanglement in a wide range of biological molecules are in this following video

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – video
    https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am1g5Y

    In conclusion, Quantum entanglement in biology requires a beyond space and time cause, period. Theists have a cause to appeal to, materialists don’t.

    i.e. Hypothesized ‘material’ ET designers simply will no longer suffice for the type of ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum design we are now finding in molecular biology.

    In fact, it is now also strongly implicated that ‘non-local’ information must be coming into developing embryos from beyond space and time:

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    And again, as a Christian, I have a beyond space and time cause to appeal to for life, whereas materialists don’t:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and 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. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

  38. 38
    mikeenders says:

    UB @ 36

    “It appears to me that you yourself can draw an intellectual distinction between design in biology and design on a cosmological scale. Otherwise, your comment above would not make any sense.”

    You are making some extremely poor arguments. You basically quoted me saying that ID consists of more than biology (because of previous claims of that) and so is made up of both and trying to use that as an assertion that they are seperate and distinct for me as well. poor form.

    “In any case, if one presents an argument for an act of intelligence related to DNA for instance.”

    Again I made no such argument based on DNA and DNA is not the totality of the ID argument in regard to biology. You are attempting to limit the ID argument of the design of life to DNA but there is no such limit and anyone that has read any thing of ID knows there is no such limit.

    “(which does not posit or require a immaterial designer), ”

    of course it does – the very instance it claims that constants and laws are designed for intelligent biological life which ID UNDOUBTEDLY HAS AND DOES POSIT.

    “the problem you are suggesting is not that their argument will necessarily or inherently contain an internal contradiction in its descriptions of evidence and rationale, but only that the intelligence being posited by the argument must”

    Wrong. This has nothing to do with inherent contradictions or even what must be the case – it has to do with the popular and well known position of ID – That the universe shows signs at the constants and law level of being designed for life. The inherent contradictions are gravvy.

    The problenm I have with both your assertions and Barry’s is they are not completely honest regarding what it is that ID posits. You are essentially arguing that Id posits a designer for biological life as separate from the cosmological level and pretending that the majority of Idist walk around referring to “biological ID” and “cosmological ID”, don’t claim that cosmological constants are designed for life and they posit seperated designers.

    Which is just utterly and obviously false.

    I don’t know whether this fabrication of what it is ID posits is out of some fear that recognizing our definition of material would not hold up to different laws and constants would mean ID equals theism but thats not the point being made. Its that whether the designers is it/they or her, omnisicent, or a know nothing or a barking dog like creature if it designed material and all its constants and laws for biological life it does not logically stand to fit under the category of the material it created.

  39. 39

    ME: not buying that ID can posit a material designer without contradiction. ID does not hold that biology alone is designed but the entire universe including its laws.

    UB: It appears to me that you yourself can draw an intellectual distinction between design in biology and design on a cosmological scale. Otherwise, your comment above would not make any sense.

    ME: You are making some extremely poor arguments. You basically quoted me saying that ID consists of more than biology (because of previous claims of that) and so is made up of both and trying to use that as an assertion that they are seperate and distinct for me as well. poor form.

    I can’t detangle this enough to make any real sense of it.

    UB: In any case, if one presents an argument for an act of intelligence related to DNA for instance (which does not posit or require a immaterial designer), the problem you are suggesting is not that their argument will necessarily or inherently contain an internal contradiction in its descriptions of evidence and rationale, but only that the intelligence being posited by the argument must (from your perspective) also set the cosmological constants in the universe — and this is because other ID arguments have been made elsewhere (outside the biological argument being presented) that point to design in the cosmos.

    Is that it?

    ME: Again I made no such argument based on DNA and DNA is not the totality of the ID argument in regard to biology. You are attempting to limit the ID argument of the design of life to DNA but there is no such limit and anyone that has read any thing of ID knows there is no such limit.

    Again? Again!?

    Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it.

    If you want to try again, perhaps I will respond. Otherwise it may simply be easier for you to just make up whatever you think I might say.

  40. 40
    Bob O'H says:

    Barry @ 19 – Woohooo! We agree on something! And we even agree that we agree! 🙂

    The reason I brought that up was because it then suggests that an ID blog should be agnostic over materialism, because both supporters and opponents of materialism can be both supporters and opponents of ID.

  41. 41
    mikeenders says:

    “I can’t detangle this enough to make any real sense of it.”

    Thats fair enough for that paragraph as sometimes when I type quickly word order gets jumbled etc. But as for all the rest of your points? I can’t make any real sense of them myself. even this makes none.

    “Again? Again!?”

    Yes UB again – post 31 your argument was on DNA as well. I had to correct that in 32 since then I hadn’t referenced DNA either. Doing all the reading for you and me is tedious

    “Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it.”

    thats rich for a person who actually said I made a point I never made in a specific numbered post. Frankly at this point I don’t really care if you respond. You haven’t made any good points so its probably best to leave it there.

  42. 42
    gpuccio says:

    Bob O’H:

    I agree with you too, so you can really rejoice! 🙂

    Indeed, I have always thought that many so called “materialists” should really embrace ID, because the evidence for biological ID is so strong that any honest person with some sense should at least seriously consider it. The only reason why biological ID is so strongly ostracized, IMO, is that it cannot be accepted because of its possible “religious” implications. But it’s not good science to ostracize good scientific theories because of their possible religious implications, otherwise the big bang theory would never have been even considered.

    Regarding the blog, of course any blog can discuss anything, and there is no reason that a blog where most of the participants are religious be agnostic about the problem. Personally, even if I am religious, I have always made a choice not to discuss religion here, and to limit my interventions to scientific matters, or at most to wide philosophical problmes with big relevance for science, like the problem of consciousness or free will. But that’s just my personal choice, and of course all the others are free to discuss what they feel is important. After all, this is a blog, and not a scientific journal or an university hall.

    I have many times expressed the idea that, anyway, scientific and specially biological debate should have a relevant place in a blog like this. Maybe that is not always the case, but there is no doubt that some of us try to do their best to debate scientific issues here.

    I will be the first to be happy when “materialists” will decide to seriously consider the evidence for biological ID, and maybe make up their minds about that in a new way. Would you like to be the first? 🙂

    For the moment, I would be just honored to have you as an “opponent” at my threads! 🙂

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    as to my claim in post 37,,, “it is now also strongly implicated that ‘non-local’ information must be coming into developing embryos from beyond space and time”:

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    Here are a few excerpted notes from the preceding video to make this point clear:

    what can be termed, positional information, which is not reducible to DNA sequences and which specifies the three-dimensional arrangement of the molecular components of the cell, is found to be enormous. Much greater than the sequential information, as great as that sequential information is, that is encoded on DNA.

    In the following video, it is noted that the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000.

    In a TED Talk, (the Question You May Not Ask,,, Where did the information come from?) – November 29, 2017
    Excerpt: Sabatini is charming.,,, he deploys some memorable images. He points out that the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000. Later he wheels out the entire genome, in printed form, of a human being,,,,:
    [F]or the first time in history, this is the genome of a specific human, printed page-by-page, letter-by-letter: 262,000 pages of information, 450 kilograms.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/in-a-ted-talk-heres-the-question-you-may-not-ask/

    The following video states that “There are 10^28 atoms in the human body.,, The amount of data contained in the whole human,, is 3.02 x 10^32 gigabytes of information. Using a high bandwidth transfer, that data would take about 4.5 x 10^18 years to teleport 1 time. That is 350,000 times the age of the universe.”

    Will Teleportation Ever Be Possible? – video – 2013
    https://youtu.be/yfePpMTbFYY?t=76
    Quote from video:
    “There are 10^28 atoms in the human body.,, The amount of data contained in the whole human,, is 3.02 x 10^32 gigabytes of information. Using a high bandwidth transfer that data would take about 4.5 x 10^18 years to teleport 1 time. That is 350,000 times the age of the universe.”

    If we forget about recognizing atoms and measuring their velocities and just scale that to a resolution of one-atomic length in each direction that’s about 10^32 bits (a one followed by thirty two zeros). This is so much information that even with the best optical fibers conceivable it would take over one hundred million centuries to transmit all that information!,,,
    (A fun talk on teleportation – Professor Samuel Braunstein-
    http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~schmuel/tport.html

    Moreover, we have fairly strong evidence indicating that this enormous amount of positional information, that is telling all the atoms of the developing embryo exactly where to be, is not contained within the material particles of the developing embryo itself, as is held in the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution, but that this enormous amount of positional information, that is telling all these atoms of the developing embryo exactly where to be, is somehow coming into the developing embryo from outside the material realm.

    For instance, at about the 41:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Wells, using a branch of mathematics called category theory, demonstrates that, during embryological development, information must somehow be added to the developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method.

    Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (41:00 minute mark) – January 2017
    https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=2484

    Moreover, the following article points out that the unresolved enigma of protein folding, that is to say, the unresolved enigma for how a protein might achieve its basic form, can be easily explained if the process of folding is regarded as a quantum affair.

    Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011
    Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way.
    Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from.
    To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,,
    Today, Luo and Lo say these curves can be easily explained if the process of folding is a quantum affair. By conventional thinking, a chain of amino acids can only change from one shape to another by mechanically passing through various shapes in between.
    But Luo and Lo say that if this process were a quantum one, the shape could change by quantum transition, meaning that the protein could ‘jump’ from one shape to another without necessarily forming the shapes in between.,,,
    Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins.
    That’s a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo’s equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics.
    http://www.technologyreview.co.....f-protein/

    And indeed, quantum correlations have now been found in proteins:

    Quantum coherent-like state observed in a biological protein for the first time – October 13, 2015
    Excerpt: If you take certain atoms and make them almost as cold as they possibly can be, the atoms will fuse into a collective low-energy quantum state called a Bose-Einstein condensate. In 1968 physicist Herbert Fröhlich predicted that a similar process at a much higher temperature could concentrate all of the vibrational energy in a biological protein into its lowest-frequency vibrational mode. Now scientists in Sweden and Germany have the first experimental evidence of such so-called Fröhlich condensation (in proteins).,,,
    The real-world support for Fröhlich’s theory took so long to obtain because of the technical challenges of the experiment, Katona said.
    https://phys.org/news/2015-10-quantum-coherent-like-state-biological-protein.html

    Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015
    Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say.
    That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.”
    The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
    “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?”
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

    , it is also important to reiterate that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,,,

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    In conclusion, Quantum entanglement in biology requires a beyond space and time cause, period. Theists have a cause to appeal to, materialists don’t.

    i.e. Hypothesized ‘material’ ET designers (operating in the remote past) simply will no longer suffice for the type of ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum design we are now finding in molecular biology, (especially since this ‘non-local’ information is coming into biological organisms as they develop from embryos.)

    And again, as a Christian, I have a beyond space and time cause to appeal to for life, whereas materialists don’t:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and 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. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

    Jeremiah 1:5
    “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
    before you were born I set you apart;
    I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

  44. 44

    ME #24:

    ID does not hold that biology alone is designed

    ME #34

    I suggested nothing about biological ID in post 24

    😉

  45. 45
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks,

    A long train of interesting issues.

    I first suggest as at 10 above, that there are discussions on the issues that can be looked at, but it is reasonable for UD to be a forum on scientific and linked phil issues in the main, with science, lab coat clad evolutionary materialist ideology and scientism in society issues by reasonable extension. But to get bogged down repeatedly over Sunday School tickler, soapbox skeptic talking points and patent attempts to taint — especially where responses at 101 level and responsible length (given a large cluster of onward connected issues) are studiously ignored by way of drumbeat repetition unresponsive to linked or summarised responses — raises questions as to the agenda at work on the part of skeptics who act like that.

    Next, I am by no means convinced that wholly material designers are possible, as opposed to embodied designers such as we are. This, is being slowly explored in the ongoing series on AI-linked themes that pivots on the rise of the memristor (and now the memtransistor also). In effect, a cause-effect driven, dynamic-stochastic computational entity, whether analogue or digital, is not actually working by insight and inference based on understanding but on signal processing based on mechanisms and structures.

    So, the issue of a wholly material designer is an open and serious linked question, not one to be foreclosed by assumption.

    That said, the inference to design on complex, coherent, functionally specific organisation and associated information in biological life from the cell on up stands as an inference to design as process not to designer as agent. Thus, it is detachable to whatever answer may in the end be arrived at on the subject of wholly material designers.

    As we shift to the cosmoslogical level, I suggest as a balancing point that the relevant fine tuning is to a cosmos that enables biological life, starting with element availability and dynamics of interaction of atoms or even particles.

    For this, the balance of C and O, the existence of H2O and the existence of stable long term solar systems with terrestrial planets in habitable zones and the like are key considerations. It can be taken to the bank that our observed cosmos is special in the space of mathematical-cosmological possibilities, and that our solar system is also very special indeed, even privileged.

    That raises the question of extracosmic design, and ultimately the issues of logic of being that point to a necessary being world root.

    Going further, we find ourselves as morally governed rational, thus significantly free creatures.

    That constrains possibilities on the nature of a credible world root.

    It also points to the self-falsifying incoherence of evolutionary materialistic scientism, which renders that institutionally privileged view actually absurd. In many ways.

    Such, too, are reasonable themes for UD, and so it is not at all improper to raise the point that evolutionary materialistic scientism, never mind the lab coat, is scientifically and logically deeply questionable. Indeed, absurd. When someone like J B S Haldane puts the matter on the table, we should at minimum pay heed to its seriousness. As in:

    “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. (NB: DI Fellow, Nancy Pearcey brings this right up to date (HT: ENV) in a current book, Finding Truth.)]

    Likewise, it is worth noting that the pagan philosopher Plato raised the matter of the amorality and open door to what we now term nihilism provided by evolutionary materialism, 2350+ years ago in his The laws Bk X.

    So, no, one cannot properly attach the concerns on moral grounding to Biblical Creationism and debates over how one should interpret passages dealing with hereditary clan feud warfare in the OT and the like. What the Romans found themselves resorting to in fighting the Phoenician colony Carthage — essentially the same culture — given the oath by Hannibal et al to Hamilcar to sustain eternal enmity to Rome — speaks illuminating volumes on the toxic nature of the sort of war-culture we are dealing with. Likewise, we should give pause to note the attempt almost a thousand years later to wipe out Israel in exile, by a Canaanite descendant who was Prime Minister and drinking buddy of Artaxerxes, who just happened to have Esther as Chief consort [not quite queen in the proper sense it seems], who had been taken as one of many pretty virgins after Vashti had been dismissed. that led to the last case of licensed feud warfare in the OT. By then of course Haman had already been impaled on the high gallows he had prepared for Mordecai, on the kings angry reaction on seeing him taking liberties with Esther in trying to plead for his life.

    We need to understand a very different, alien cultural order not influenced by gospel ethics sensibilities. the nearest we have come in living memory is the Japanese contempt for soldiers who surrendered and the current Islamist mentality that calls westerners “Romans,” and holds us to account today for events of a thousand years ago. Notice, it took utter devastating defeat including the threat of a wave of nuke attacks . . . a bluff for the moment, the inventory of usable bombs had been used up already and a pause would have followed, doubtless full of fire storm raids . . . to break that Japanese mentality.

    Until our hearts have lurched in the face of existential warfare and grinding battles of attrition, we simply do not have a basis to properly assess what the likes of a Joshua faced. Or for that matter, those struggling for years to defeat Hannibal’s invasion of Italy.

    With settlement jihad and war by mass rape now on the table as a manifestation of 4th generation warfare, maybe we too will now have to learn such awful lessons.

    God help us all, the learning will be horrible.

    And, the reckoning.

    KF

  46. 46
    ET says:

    Bob:

    The reason I brought that up was because it then suggests that an ID blog should be agnostic over materialism, because both supporters and opponents of materialism can be both supporters and opponents of ID.

    That is false as materialistic processes (ie non-telic) cannot account for living organisms.

  47. 47
    EricMH says:

    If a designer can be entirely physical, then so can the universe’s designer, as in many ancient cosmologies. First you start with chaos, which begats the titans, and then the rest of the pantheon. So, there is no intrinsic reason ID and strong materialism are incompatible.

  48. 48
    mikeenders says:

    UB @44

    “ME #24:

    ID does not hold that biology alone is designed

    ME #34

    I suggested nothing about biological ID in post 24”

    Yep. Stand by it. I made no claim concerning anything called “Biological ID” in that post and didn’ even use the phrase. Mentioning biology makes no claim whatsoever of there being anything called biological ID as distinct and seperate from ID and/or “cosmological id”. Again can’t help that you can’t read. I can only accept that you can’t and pray for you.

  49. 49
    mikeenders says:

    eric@ 47

    “If a designer can be entirely physical, then so can the universe’s designer, as in many ancient cosmologies”

    I think this sums up best why that argument its totally illogical regardless if its in ancient cosmologies.

    How do you maintain something is “‘entirely physical” outside of the universe you define physical by?? It makes zero sense and its surprising so many readers of UD can’t understand such a basic point.

    “So, there is no intrinsic reason ID and strong materialism are incompatible.”

    I guess. If you just totally ignore the definition of physical so that the intrinsic reason isn’t heard screaming loudly in protest.

    The only thing I can gather from this discussion is that a small group within ID has been so affected by the claim of atheists that ID is creationism you are prepared to not follow where solid logic and facts take you if that path takes you to a place that might be construed to support theism (as if theism is synonymous with Creationism).

    So much for letting the facts take us wherever they lead.

    How else can you explain claiming that which created or designed the physical (and therefore preceded it) would fit within the present human definition of physical (which only has reference points within the designed universe)??

  50. 50
    EricMH says:

    @ME I agree, it doesn’t make sense to say the designer is entirely physical. But, that raises the question of what precisely designers do that cannot be done physically. I, as a designer, do everything with my physical body. Which of these acts cannot be replicated with an entirely physical machine? If they all can be replicated with a physical machine, then how can one reliably distinguish the physical acts of a designer from those of a machine? In order for the design inference to be solid, there must be concrete acts human designers do that cannot be replicated with machines.

  51. 51
    mikeenders says:

    Thats not very hard though Eric. I didn’t design myself and a physical machine cannot design what it means to be physical or it wasn’t physical to begin with. You can as you say create things physically being already physical. You can’t be said to design the things that you owe your physcial existence and abilities to for self evident reasons.

    However thank you for acknowledging the absurdity of the argument. I was beginning to think UD was redirectng to the twilight zone. Intellectual honesty always gets hgh praise from me. Much appreciated.

  52. 52
    bornagain77 says:

    In response to the notion that designer of life on earth may be ‘physical’, I second Michel Egnor’s sentiment: “human beings have succumbed to the astonishingly naive hubris that we can create souls.,,,”

    Can a Computer Think? – Michael Egnor – March 31, 2011
    Excerpt: The Turing test isn’t a test of a computer. Computers can’t take tests, because computers can’t think. The Turing test is a test of us. If a computer “passes” it, we fail it. We fail because of our hubris, a delusion that seems to be something original in us. The Turing test is a test of whether human beings have succumbed to the astonishingly naive hubris that we can create souls.,,, It’s such irony that the first personal computer was an Apple.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....45141.html

  53. 53
    Origenes says:

    ME: How do you maintain something is “‘entirely physical” outside of the universe you define physical by?? It makes zero sense and its surprising so many readers of UD can’t understand such a basic point.

    I am surprised by your assumption that our universe exhausts physical reality. “The universe you define physical by”. Who defined the physical by the universe? How can you, or anyone, know that there is nothing physical outside our universe?
    Did I miss something and is the multiverse hypothesis debunked?

  54. 54
    mikeenders says:

    ““The universe you define physical by”. Who defined the physical by the universe?”

    isn’t that obvious? The occupants of this universe. Who have you (or anyone else) consulted outside the universe that defines physical?

    “How can you, or anyone, know that there is nothing physical outside our universe?”

    and how can you define the physical outside this universe when your only reference point is within this universe?

    “Did I miss something and is the multiverse hypothesis debunked?”

    A) the multiverse theory does not mandate that all universes contain similar laws (thus that being fluid, the definition of physical has no need to fit our universes definition of physical)

    B) the multiverse as a theory presently has has no objective testable observation parameters to be verified much less any way of verifying any particular universe created this one (and was physical).

    C) from an ID perspective which is the context of this discussion a multiverse would not be an “intelligent designer”

    You may be surprised but I might as well be surprised that you are surprised and can’t see the obvious in this discussion.

    In fact a perfectly legit definition for physical would be that which is perceived or possible of being perceived as obeying laws of nature.

    Where is that for a multiverse?

    So for all technical purposes at this point in time envisioning a universe you can not do that for would be classified as – imaginary not physical.

  55. 55

    ME #24:

    ID does not hold that biology alone is designed

    ME #34:

    I suggested nothing about biological ID in post 24”

    ME #48:

    I made no claim concerning anything called “Biological ID” in that post

    Yeah right. You didn’t use the phrase “biological ID”, you just made a clear distinction between ID in biology (“ID does not hold that biology alone is designed”) and ID in cosmology (“the entire universe including its laws”). And after the substance of your comment is exposed for its silliness, you want to cover it up with the ridiculous notion that you said nothing about biological ID and did not make any such distinction.

    (yawn)

  56. 56
    Origenes says:

    ME@

    O: “The universe you define physical by”… Who defined the physical by the universe?”

    ME: isn’t that obvious?

    Not at all.

    ME: The occupants of this universe.

    False. For instance, there are occupants of this universe who hold that there is a multiverse.

    ME: Who have you (or anyone else) consulted outside the universe that defines physical?

    Why do you ask? What grounds your silly question?

    O: “How can you, or anyone, know that there is nothing physical outside our universe?”

    ME: and how can you define the physical outside this universe when your only reference point is within this universe?

    I do not define the physical outside this universe. What I’m saying is that we cannot be sure that there is nothing physical outside the universe.

    O: “Did I miss something and is the multiverse hypothesis debunked?”

    ME: A) the multiverse theory does not mandate that all universes contain similar laws (thus that being fluid, the definition of physical has no need to fit our universes definition of physical)

    Irrelevant. The multiverse theory does not posit a spiritual multiverse, now does it?

    ME: B) the multiverse as a theory presently has has no objective testable observation parameters to be verified much less any way of verifying any particular universe created this one (and was physical).

    So what if multiverse theory cannot be proven? My question was: “How can you, or anyone, know that there is nothing physical outside our universe?”

    ME: C) from an ID perspective which is the context of this discussion a multiverse would not be an “intelligent designer”

    That’s not the point, now is it? You claim that the universe exhausts physical reality, the multiverse is a theory which suggests otherwise.

    ME: You may be surprised but I might as well be surprised that you are surprised that you can’t see the obvious in this discussion.

    I am not surprised by that.

  57. 57
    mikeenders says:

    “And after the substance of your comment is exposed for its silliness, ”

    I will grant that you have in fact exposed your own rich imagination skills UB. beyond that ? failure

    You claimed I made a claim against biological ID in your post 33 (its still sitting there for all to see) –

    “I can assure you that a coherent argument on the evidence for biological ID does not require an immaterial designer, as you suggest in #24.”

    I said Nothing about an immaterial Designer being needed for “biological ID” in #24. No such phrase or claim was made . You fabricated it. My entire point through this thread is that so called “biological ID” cannot be separated from “cosmological ID” and its just ID. If you wish to dishonestly claim that mentioning biology equates to some acceptance of a distinction between biological Id and cosmological Id that’s your own silliness and sin to own.

    Post 24 actually argues AGAINST separating “biology from ID not affirming a distinct so called “Biological id” So at this point your fabrications are obvious and I’ll let you run free with more lying.

  58. 58
    gpuccio says:

    mikeenders:

    I don’t know if it’s worth the while, but I would like just the same to offer a few thoughts:

    1) The principle of design detection can be applied both to the whole universe (cosmological ID) and to biological objects (biological ID). While the idea of detecting design is similar, the details of the reasoning are different, and the evidence is different. The two ideas are certainly complementary, and in no way antagonistic, but still they are different under many aspects.

    2) I do support both cosmological ID and biological ID. I think both are very good theories. However, I have always said that IMO the evidence for biological ID is much stronger. I stick to that.

    3) The reason why biological ID is a stronger scientific theory is that it is about events that happened in space and time, while cosmological ID nececssarily must include reasonings about what is out of space and time.

    4) That said, biological ID is in theory compatible with a physical designer or designers, as UB and others have tried to say here. But beware, that does not mean that the designer, even in this scenario, must be completely physical, but simply that it would have a physical body. See next point.

    5) The best model for design that we have is, of course, human design. Now, it is difficult to deny that humans have a physical body, and in that sense they are physical designers. But that does not mean that they are completely physical. See next point.

    6) As I have always tried to say, the only way to define design is by referring to consciousness: design is a process where some configurations are outputted from consciousness to material objects. As we have no evidence that consciusness can be explained in terms of configurations of matter, we must admit that any designer is potentially not completely physical, because he has to be conscious to be able to design.

    7) Therefore, when we say that biological design is compatible with a physical designer, we just mean that the theory is compatible with a designer who acts through a physical body, like humans. After all, humans can desing biological objects (for example, new proteins). Therefore, the idea is certainly not absurd.

    8) That said, I don’t believe, as I have said many times, that the idea of one or more designer with physical bodies is a good solution for the problem of biological objects. There are two reasons for that.

    9) The first reason is that designers with a physical body (let’s say some extraterrestrial designers) could have designed biological objects on our planet, as humans do. But that would probably leave the question of how their physical bodies came into existence, if those bodies were shown to be, themselves, biological objects, or anyway characterized by functional complexity (complex functional configurations of matter)

    10) The second reason is that if extraterrestrial designers with physical bodies and tools had been acting on our planet for 4+ billion years, I would expect at least some trace of that.

    11) The best solution for the problem of biological onjetcs, instead, is design by some conscious intelligent designer, or designers, who does not have a physical body (like us), but still can access some interface, probably at quantum level, with biological matter (exactly as our personal consciousness can access an interface with our personal brain). That hypothesis is simple, consistent and based on an observable (and explorable) model (our consciousness-brain interface).

    That’s all.

  59. 59
    mikeenders says:

    Origenes @ 56

    “False. For instance, there are occupants of this universe who hold that there is a multiverse.”

    Nonsensical and laughably nonsensical. How does the existence of a multiverse that no one has seen or can even test inform anyone of the definition of physical?? You are begging bread with no flour. Thats a sure sign of your desperation.

    “Why do you ask? What grounds your silly question?”

    Umm on the grounds of your silly question where you asked who defines words of English as “physical” (English people in this universe perhaps?). Last time I checked dictionaries were written by people in this universe but since you apparently have read one that was written by someone in another universe you can inform us otherwise and accept the accolades and awards from having made first contact).

    I asked it for exactly the reason that you cannot answer it and knowing you would dodge to save your point. Your duck did not disappoint. On an Olympic scale. I give a 9 (only because you did not stick the landing)

    “That’s not the point, now is it?”

    Actually it IS the point. You don’t get to claim the discussion was about multiverses vs no multiverses when it was ENTIRELY about material intelligent design agents (which a multiverse would not be).

    Quote mining out of context won’t work with me. IF you want to have a discussion about multiverses with me we can take it up when its actually the subject being discussed or even pertinent. The response in question (As was the entire thread) was about DESIGNERS (it has little hope I know but had to take a shot at caps to perhaps get through your fog on context) being material/physical.

    I am sure multiverses and their existence or non existence will come up – so get prepared. Although regardless I don;t know how you are going to claim physical universes sans any evidence.

    Hint: you will have to come up with some firm evidence old school style – like tests and observation. Fact by imagination won’t do.

  60. 60
    Origenes says:

    gpuccio @

    GPuccio: … when we say that biological design is compatible with a physical designer, we just mean that the theory is compatible with a designer who acts through a physical body, like humans. …

    I hold that ID is compatible with a purely physical designer of earth’s biology.

    8) That said, I don’t believe, as I have said many times, that the idea of one or more designer with physical bodies is a good solution for the problem of biological objects. There are two reasons for that.
    9) The first reason is that designers with a physical body (let’s say some extraterrestrial designers) could have designed biological objects on our planet, as humans do. But that would probably leave the question of how their physical bodies came into existence, …

    ID does not have to answer that question before it can examine extraterrestrial designers.

    … if those bodies were shown to be, themselves, biological objects, or anyway characterized by functional complexity (complex functional configurations of matter) …

    … then there could be other purely physical extraterrestrial designers who created them. Again, ID is under no obligation to answer ultimate questions.

    10) The second reason is that if extraterrestrial designers with physical bodies and tools had been acting on our planet for 4+ billion years, I would expect at least some trace of that.

    You may have good reasons to expect that, but it is not beyond reason to allow for the possibility that these (purely physical) masterminds are capable of fooling us.

    11) The best solution for the problem of biological onjetcs, instead, is design by some conscious intelligent designer, or designers, who does not have a physical body (like us), …

    I agree, but that does not mean that ID is incompatible with purely physical designer(s) of earth’s biology.

  61. 61
    gpuccio says:

    Origenes:

    “I hold that ID is compatible with a purely physical designer of earth’s biology.”

    Are you sure that a designer can be “purely physical”? Are you sure that humans are “purely physical”?

    Do you agree that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of configurations of objects? Do you agree that any designer needs to be conscious?

    What is your idea of a “purely physical” designer?

    “ID does not have to answer that question before it can examine extraterrestrial designers.”

    I agree. However, it’s reasonable to expect that physical bodies which serve intelligent designers should be functionally complex. But OK, we can wait to see them before arguing! 🙂

    “… then there could be other purely physical extraterrestrial designers who created them. Again, ID is under no obligation to answer ultimate questions.”

    I agree. But you know, the physical universe seems to be only 14 billion years old, just three times our planet. And if it is difficult to explain life on our planet, I am not sure that a little more time woul do the trick. But again, we can wait, there is no necessity to answer questions in advance. However, these reasonings certainly can be applied to the credibility of a scientific explanation, starting from what we know at present.

    “You may have good reasons to expect that, but it is not beyond reason to allow for the possibility that these (purely physical) masterminds are capable of fooling us.”

    I have never said that it is impossible, only that it is not really convincing. I stick to that.

    “I agree, but that does not mean that ID is incompatible with purely physical designer(s) of earth’s biology.”

    I have never said that it is incompatible, but I object to the idea of “purely physical”, for the reasons above.

    Indeed, I have clearly stated just from the beginning that:

    4) That said, biological ID is in theory compatible with a physical designer or designers, as UB and others have tried to say here. But beware, that does not mean that the designer, even in this scenario, must be completely physical, but simply that it would have a physical body.

    I stick to that. The designer would have a physical body, like us. But it should also be conscious, like us. As I firmly believe that we cannot assume that consciousness is purely physical (indeed, there is nothing in favor of that idea) we cannot assume that any designer, including us, can be “purely physical”. At best, we have to leave that unsolved, admitting that the nature of consciousness is not really understood.

  62. 62
    Origenes says:

    Mikeenders #59

    ME: Nonsensical and laughably nonsensical. How does the existence of a multiverse that no one has seen or can even test inform anyone of the definition of physical??

    What a weird question. On a theoretical level, how does it not?

    O: “Why do you ask? What grounds your silly question?”

    ME: Umm on the grounds of your silly question where you asked who defines words of English as “physical” (English people in this universe perhaps?).

    You are obviously delusional. You wrote: “The universe you define physical by”. I asked who you are referring to.

    ME: I asked it for exactly the reason that you cannot answer it and knowing you would dodge to save your point.

    What are you talking about? I can certainly answer your silly question, here it is: “No, I have not consulted outside the universe.” Why on earth do you think that I could not answer your silly question and that there is a point to it?

    O: “That’s not the point, now is it?”

    ME: Actually it IS the point. You don’t get to claim the discussion was about multiverses vs no multiverses when it was ENTIRELY about material intelligent design agents (which a multiverse would not be).

    Nope, my simple point was, and still is, that, contrary to your claim, we cannot know that our universe exhausts physical reality. The consequence of this is that there can conceivably be physical designers outside our universe.

  63. 63
    Origenes says:

    GPuccio: What is your idea of a “purely physical” designer?

    Personally I am convinced that all intelligent design — all matter included — stems from conscious spiritual beings. For clarity, I hold that materialism is false. But this is not about me.

    The position I defend is that ID is compatible with materialism. This is important WRT debating our opponents.

    GPuccio: I have never said that it is impossible, only that it is not really convincing. I stick to that.

    Sure. But the important point is that it is possible. For one thing, this means that a materialist cannot reject ID simply because ID has to posit an immaterial designer.

  64. 64
    ET says:

    The position I defend is that ID is compatible with materialism.

    Why? ID is not compatible with a failed philosophy.

  65. 65
    mikeenders says:

    @ gpuccio

    You have no reason to fear a thoughtful substantive response (as you have just given) to any of my posts will not be worthwhile. I will always to the best of my ability respond to that kind of post with a higher level of respect.

    Certainly higher than three sentence dismissive paragraphs and questions that necessarily imply because I may disagree with the poster (and perhaps am not glued to UD week after week) I have not given my position any thought.

    First let me say that my issue of “biological ID” and “cosmological ID” is not merely based on the merits of either but on actual practice and history. I can grant your
    preference for one over the other as logical (even though not agreeing with it) but problem is it simply is just not true that ID has so compartmentalized the two. Either in the past or in the present.

    The fine tuning of life IS a biologically referenced argument yet IS probably the quintessential cosmological argument having to do with constants and laws built in at creation.

    I do not see ID as a group decoupling it nor do I feel they should. To represent there being this divide to me is just false and dishonest (though not intentionally dishonest).

    I don’t want my response to be too long or I would respond to each point. If you feel I have ducked from any point then feel free to redirect me to what you think I have missed. As you admit a great many of the numbered points made flow into others.

    I’m just going to respond to the points that I think are where our disagreement flows from.

    “The reason why biological ID is a stronger scientific theory is that it is about events that happened in space and time, while cosmological ID nececssarily must include reasonings about what is out of space and time.”

    Actually that does not follow. The only thing that makes a scientific theory strong or weak is observable facts not the alleged but undiscovered location of the facts. If you know nothing of the designer in this universe it doesn’t make it any stronger or weaker if he steps out of this universe (or never entered it). Secondly since you elsewhere make the analogy to human design…where and when does design begin? – I’d say logically – before the implementation of the design. so the designing did not take place in observable space and time anyway.

    Finally Fine tuning arguments in my opinion have made faaar more a dent in anti ID arguments in the public sphere than biological ones. Materialists have been more or less forced to only one good solution that has no observable evidence – multiverses. In the realm of biology – sorry I just don’t see that level of being put back on their heels.

    “The best model for design that we have is, of course, human design. Now, it is difficult to deny that humans have a physical body, and in that sense they are physical designers. But that does not mean that they are completely physical”

    I understand that in subsequent points (9 to the end) you walked this back some but I wouldn’t use it at all – not just walk it back. This point isn’t even walked back by many in ID and it is an EPIC fail in ID at the moment. I grant that it “smells ” right (is intuitive) but on logical grounds it has huge problems which are unsurmountable.

    Your point 11 is the truth and doesn’t need to be walked back. In a round-about way you are actually agreeing with the core of what i have been saying.

    I still see zero evidence presented that decouples “Biological ID” from “cosmological” or any logic whatsoever that we can apply physical definitions to something outside our universe when all we know, and define physical as, is whats inside of our own.

    Despite protests by a few (not you) no one has presented a stitch of evidence or logic that justifies the claim.

  66. 66
    mikeenders says:

    @ origenes

    “What a weird question. On a theoretical level, how does it not?”

    I’m beginning to wonder how you figure out how to get up int he morning O. If you propose a multiverse that you have never observed and cannot experience how in the world does that give you anything to define physical with outside of your universe which is the only thing you have observed or had experience with? Twilight trans- dimensional soul planing under the influence of Cannabis to another universe experience? 🙂

    “You are obviously delusional. You wrote: “The universe you define physical by”. I asked who you are referring to.”

    If you are telling me you are not in this universe I think We have finally reached a place of agreement.

    “No, I have not consulted outside the universe.” Why on earth do you think that I could not answer your silly question and that there is a point to it?”

    Greaat! See it wasn’t that hard and your back will be better for not continuing to duck. SO you have no other worldy reference point to determine what physical is but this universe? Light bulb come on yet? That was the entire point of the question.

    “Nope, my simple point was, and still is, that, contrary to your claim, we cannot know that our universe exhausts physical reality.”

    And my simple point which is beyond your ability to grasp is that it is our definition that cannot be extrapolated from our universe to apply to another one because it is entirely derived for our experience here. That and the the fact your point is total gibberish in the context of a material designer (which the discussion for any half sane or 10% honest person has always been about).

    A multiverse is not an intelligent designer and snorting and fuming won’t make that fact change.

  67. 67
    mikeenders says:

    Never mind I get it now. The insanity is not limited to my posts. Alien conspiracy theory rebuttals are in my fav top 3.

    @ origenes
    “You may have good reasons to expect that, but it is not beyond reason to allow for the possibility that these (purely physical) masterminds are capable of fooling us.”

    I submit a more elegant comprehensive solution that is more in keeping with an advanced race. We must allow for the possibility that they are NOT fooling us but they have designed us in such a way that we cannot see the evidence of their designing us.

    Similar to how Clark Kent never had anyone recognize him with or without glasses even though the evidence was right there in front of them (especially Lois Lane. Less so Lana Lang who didn’t get as much face time). Our only hope is Kryptonite. Who knew that comics would inform us of real life much less give us a testable theory to discover alien life among us 🙂

  68. 68

    Good grief, the amount of smokescreen some people will throw up in order to hide what they’ve said …

    ME at #24:

    Not buying that ID can posit a material designer without contradiction. ID does not hold that biology alone is designed but the entire universe including its laws.

    ME at #57:

    I said Nothing about an immaterial Designer being needed for “biological ID” in #24.

    Yeah right. You didn’t use the phrase “immaterial” designer. Instead, you used the opposite phrase “material” designer, and then claimed ID couldn’t posit one of those for biological arguments.

    To do so would be a no-no because (from your perspective) ID cannot posit a material designer for biology in contradiction to the immaterial designer required to precede our universe in order to create it (i.e. that which “wouldn’t fit any present definition of material”).

    And of course, you are wrong. Perhaps you are one of those people who thinks ID must conform to their ideological beliefs, but it doesn’t.

    ID is a scientific project, and as such, it only has to answer to physical evidence and reason. When that evidence stems from biology, we properly and commonly refer to it as biological ID (as distinct from the type of evidence in favor of cosmological ID) and few will even notice your unfounded demand that the two can’t be separated. If it makes you feel any better (and I know it won’t) ID doesn’t posit either a material or immaterial designer for biology – it posits an act of intelligence based on empirical evidence and universal experience. The source and constitution of the intelligence is properly a secondary question, since it cannot be discerned from the available evidence.

    My entire point through this thread is that so called “biological ID” cannot be separated from “cosmological ID” and its just ID.

    No kidding.

    If you wish to dishonestly claim that mentioning biology equates to some acceptance of a distinction between biological Id and cosmological Id that’s your own silliness and sin to own.

    It’s not a matter of dishonesty; it’s just the way the practice of science functions to increase our understanding of life and cosmos. When you develop a compelling necessary link between the setting of cosmological constants and the formation of a language structure in DNA, then you can lecture people about it and expect them to listen. Until then you might want to try being a little less of a horse’s ass when you are patently wrong.

  69. 69
    mikeenders says:

    “Yeah right. You didn’t use the phrase “immaterial” designer. Instead, you used the opposite phrase “material” designer, ”

    I think at this point you have earned some kind of award for obtuseness. You’ve definitely put in the body of work to own it with sweat and vigor. You know like the Golden Razberry awards for worst actor in film. I’d donate toward the plaque. Fair is fair. The point of contention was”biological id” which I do not own and has not been owned in the greater ID community as being distinct and separate from “cosmological ID” – and wasn’t even a phrase in that post despite your fabrications. I’d say try to keep up but you are too far behind the van to hear the admonishment.

    “ID is a scientific project, and as such, it only has to answer to physical evidence and reason.”

    yes Thats why we await with bated breath for your physical evidence for the multiverse that no one has visited , seen and cannot verify with um physical evidence from an alleged multiverse.. You know the one your partners in crime claim rebuts a definition of physical being a reference understood by experience in this universe. Um that one. Get the studies “with physical evidence” going sufficient to claim a proof and then sing a song instead of this screeching.

    Be less of a hypocrite and live up to your own claims that ID “only has to answer to physical evidence and reason”

    “When that evidence stems from biology, we properly and commonly refer to it as biological ID (as distinct from the type of evidence in favor of cosmological ID) ”

    try that lying on someone else. There is no constant division of biological Id as a phrase and cosmological ID as separate endeavor across all ID literature. If the we is here at UD -who cares? Its sporadic in wider literature not anywhere near a universal reference as you try to imply. You shirk over and over again without any intellectual honesty whatsoever from answering how Fine tuning of constants and laws is not a “cosmological ID” appeal for “biological ID” and thus not separate in this neat division you are begging, pleading and weeping for – – to no logical avail.

    Quite right that I don’t get to determine what ID is and is not and neither do you or even UD. You’ll have to live outside of your fantasy world that you do.

    Does Id posit that there is a “cosmological” (merely to use your phrase) designer? Yes! and does ID posit that there is a biological designer? Why yes! and does the majority of the ID world claim that they are separate and distinct? Why no. not at all! Only flakes such as yourself make that distinction.

    So the logical consequence of even some of your supporters here admitting that a cosmological designer is incoherent as being a material entity and the fact that the Id world does not consider two different designing entities as rational?

    connect the dots (I mean if you could) non Einstein. That would mean with one designer or design entity the one that cannot be material (cosmological) is one and the same with the biological designer”

    Now go ahead and huff and puff or feign not understanding. Your intellectual volume is too low to blow anything down. You could I guess go back to another nut job conspiracy yur partners have floated – the ET designers may be fooling us – argument. Be my guess

    “When you develop a compelling necessary link between the setting of cosmological constants and the formation of a language structure in DNA, then you can lecture people about it and expect them to listen. ”

    You lay down no conditions I have to oblige you on poor soul. You have not even come close to earning that right with logical reasoning to do so. That you think that the language structure of DNA is the sole argument made by ID in regard to biology just gives me more reason to point in your direction and chuckle.

    To use your phrase. its your own horse braying and not out of the normal orifice side.

  70. 70
    gpuccio says:

    Origenes:

    “The position I defend is that ID is compatible with materialism. This is important WRT debating our opponents.”

    I can agree with that. Of course, I would say that both cosmological ID and biological ID have implications that can cause some problems to some forms of strict materialism. That’s probably the reason why they are so strongly ostracized.

    In the end, it’s anyone’s problem to decide what is compatible with one’s worldvuew, and what is not.

    The point is, as far as ID has valid scientific points, anyone should be able to seriously consider those points independently from possible problems with one’s worldview.

    “Sure. But the important point is that it is possible. For one thing, this means that a materialist cannot reject ID simply because ID has to posit an immaterial designer.”

    Again, I think that the problem is what is empirically supported. The design inference requires to posit conscious designers. That cannot be renounced.

    In that sense, cosmological ID has to posit consciousness out of the universe as we know it. Biological ID has to posit consciousness acting during natural history. That said, any materialist can decide if his worldview is compatible with that or not.

    And then, he can decide if he chooses to give priority to facts or to his personal worldview.

  71. 71
    gpuccio says:

    mikeenders at #64:

    Thank you for your thoughtful and kind response.

    My doubt about “being worthwhile” was just a natural reluctance to intervene in a rather “hot” discussion between people that I respect, and with whom I share many fundamental ideas.

    In general, I think that there can be acceptance of diversity between peopole who share the basic ID intuition. Diversity is a form of strength, not of weakness. ID is not a political party, but a field of thought where the basic feature is the intuition and detection of design in reality.

    So, I fully respect your ideas, and I will try to go in some more detail about a few points for the sake of clarity, not to convince anyone.

    I can agree with many of the things you say, but still I think that some points deserve further thoughts.

    You say:

    First let me say that my issue of “biological ID” and “cosmological ID” is not merely based on the merits of either but on actual practice and history. I can grant your preference for one over the other as logical (even though not agreeing with it) but problem is it simply is just not true that ID has so compartmentalized the two. Either in the past or in the present.

    OK, I would like to say that I am not interested in discussing what ID is or is not as an historical movement. Usually, I just discuss my ideas about what is true. So, please consider any statement byb me as just my personal ideas about truth. They are mi udeas about ID, and they can be evaluated for their merits or lack of them. ID is, IMO, a very dynamic filed of thought, and it can and will change, while certainly retaining its basci intuitions and arguments.

    You say:

    The fine tuning of life IS a biologically referenced argument yet IS probably the quintessential cosmological argument having to do with constants and laws built in at creation.

    I do not see ID as a group decoupling it nor do I feel they should. To represent there being this divide to me is just false and dishonest (though not intentionally dishonest).

    This is probably the main point of disagreement, and I think that I must clarify better.

    I don’t want ot “decouple” anything. I just want to clarify the differences, because there are differences.

    To avoid misunderstanding, I think we should clarify our terminology. So, I will give a couple of personal definitions. There is no need that you agree with them, but I make them explicit because my discussion is based on them, so I want you to understand what I mean with the words I use.

    a) Cosmological ID is the idea that some features of the universe as we can observe it (in particular, fine tuning) originated from some conscious act of design.

    b) Biological ID is the idea that some features that originate inside the universe after its origin, in particular in the biological world, originated from some conscious act of design.

    As you can see, using words in that sense (as I have always done) the fact that our universe is fine-tuned to allow life is a strong and valid argument for cosmological ID, but has nothing to do with biological ID, unless one accepts the general position of TEs, that given the finetuning of the universe life can originate withoun any furthur act of design. I don’t accept that position, because I believe that it is wholly falsified by the arguments of biological ID.

    So, again, I have no reason to decouple two important aspects of ID theory: I am just saying that they have different form and different arguments.

    a) Cosmological ID infers design for the whole universe from the empirical observation of feature in its basic laws (fine tuning). Therefore, it infers some acts of design which by definition take place “before” (logically, not chronologically) the beginning of the universe as we know it (IOWs, “before” the Big Bang, if we accept that model).

    b) Biological ID infers design for specific events that took place at specific times and places inside the universe (in particualr, on our planet and in the biological world). Therefore, it infers some acts of design that by definition take place at specific times and places.

    To avoid confusion, please consider that I am speaking of the events here, not of the designer, when I speak of “time and place”. I am not debating if the designer is in time and space. I am just saying that the acts of biological design cause events in time and space, while the acts of cosmological design cause the whole universe, including its time-space structure.

    IMO, these are important differences. Of course, the facts that are used to get the design inference are different too:

    a) In cosmological ID, those facts are linked to the basic laws of the universe, and they are provided essentially by physics, astrophysics and cosmology.

    b) In biological ID, those facts derive from the observation of biological objects and their properties, and they have nothing to do with the basic laws of the universe. Those facts are essentially provided by biology.

    IOWs, cosmological ID reasons about fine tuning of laws, while biological ID reasons about functional complexity, semiosis and irreducible complexity in specific biological objects.

    Even the properties that can be inferred for the designer are slightly different, even if absolutely compatible. While a designer always needs to be conscious, I would say that we can infer a few different features from the two lines of thought:

    a) We can infer that the designer of cosmological ID had to exist “before” (logically) the Big Bang, and be able to input functional information in the universe as a whole.

    b) We can infer that the designer of biological ID had to be able to input functional information into material objects at specific times and places.

    I would say that these are different inferences. In many senses, b) is a weaker inference than a) (weaker in the implications, not in validity). Of course, they are in no way incompatible, only different.

    I am not arguing with you. I am just interested to understand if you agree that those differences exist, or if you don’t, what are your reasons.

    More in next post.

  72. 72
    gpuccio says:

    mikeenders at #64:

    I have still a couple of things to say about your post, but I have not the time now. I will come back later.

    Of course, you can comment on what I have already said, and maybe that can help our future communication! 🙂

  73. 73
    mikeenders says:

    BTW

    “To do so would be a no-no because (from your perspective) ID cannot posit a material designer for biology in contradiction to the immaterial designer required to precede our universe in order to create it (i.e. that which “wouldn’t fit any present definition of material”).”

    I think this best illustrates the silly desperation that has set in to try and accommodate materialists and gain wider acceptance among them (which has close to zero chance of working for reasons I’ll lay out quickly later).

    consider the implausibility of this contrived scenario

    one ahem “Cosmological” intelligent designer happens along and creates the universe with all the inherent possibilities of life but says “meh I’ll pass on the creation of life even though I have everything setup to do so in the laws and constants ” (bored? or he/she/it/they got tired? Or maybe immaterial Wife said time to come home now? or else?).

    I mean this is where just about all of you arguing for a material designer have come down on the alleged “cosmological intelligent designer”.

    then from somewhere else another intelligent designer (or design group) happens along from some other material place (it cannot be the cosmological designers universe because he didn’t design life much less intelligent life in his stint on the job) and says “aha. Here is a universe that some cosmological intelligent designer setup and we will intelligent design biological life on in because we just happen to have the understanding of that universes setup (but are not a part of that cosmological design team) to create life in it.

    Seriously? (I’ll skip all the hilarity I could have with just those claims for now)

    and I am being chastised for my perspective that this contrived forced nonsense isn’t logical? as if it just offends my perspective and isn’t offensive to logic and reason in general?

    I’ve mischaracterized it? Fine. Explain it differently so as to make – no pun intended – a material difference.

    Why won’t it work to gain a wider acceptance among materialists? Simple because materialists not only don’t want anything that is theistic. They don’t want anything the even SMELLS of theism.

    Swing high or swing low having an intelligent entity that you owe your existence to and are not related by ancestry to IS a construct identical to some aspects of theism.

    You can run but you can’t hide. If you think you can just slap material on it and that makes that theological aspect palatable and acceptable to materialists – You are all just kidding yourselves.

  74. 74
    mikeenders says:

    gpuccio

    by all means take your time. I will be busy the next day or two so there is no rush. I’ll look over your post and responds as I can as well. Thanks.

    I can say though on a quick glance that that this line of argument I see you use at least twice needs more substance in my opinion

    “As you can see, using words in that sense (as I have always done) the fact that our universe is fine-tuned to allow life is a strong and valid argument for cosmological ID, but has nothing to do with biological ID,”

    to claim nothing to do with implies that there are no laws and constants that make life work (not just passively allow it). Science does not support that. A good deal of life is chemistry after all and you cannot claim constants have nothing to do with the chemistry involved.

  75. 75
    Origenes says:

    ET et al.

    O: The position I defend is that ID is compatible with materialism.

    ET: Why? ID is not compatible with a failed philosophy.

    My main reason is this: allowing for a purely physical designer shields ID from the claim that ID is not compatible with methodological naturalism.
    If, as materialists believe, brains are solely responsible for intelligent designed objects, then ID makes the case that intelligent designed objects can only be explained by brains. So, the story the materialist must go with is the following:
    An extraterrestrial brain has designed life on earth and an extrauniversal brain has created the universe.
    Where do these brains (or brain) come from? Well, that is not a question that ID has to answer.

  76. 76

    Mike Enders at 69.

    The difference between you and I Mike is that I can back up my statements with evidence and reason, while you are forced to spit yours out with that certain 2000 year old humility that has served us all so well.

    I’ve read about you in a little black book. It said something about you cleaning the shit out of your ears.

  77. 77

    I’ve mischaracterized it? Fine.

    A brief respite of honesty. You might try starting there. You’ll need a mirror.

  78. 78
    Origenes says:

    GPuccio @

    GPuccio: The design inference requires to posit conscious designers. That cannot be renounced.

    In that sense, cosmological ID has to posit consciousness out of the universe as we know it. Biological ID has to posit consciousness acting during natural history. That said, any materialist can decide if his worldview is compatible with that or not.

    I have yet to see sound arguments as to why the materialist world view is not compatible with that scenario. Mikeenders is doing his utmost, but his incoherent arguments do not stick.
    Plausibility is of course another matter. In my estimation the materialist will have a hard time selling his interpretation of ID to the public.

  79. 79
    Quaesitor says:

    “… ID generates testable hypotheses based upon our knowledge of how the world works, and can be reliably inferred through the scientific method. In this way, intelligent design does not violate any mandates of predictability, testability, or reliability laid down for science by MN [methodological naturalism].”

    Intelligent Design and Methodological Naturalism — No Necessary Contradiction, evolutionnews.org, 2017

    “… the intentions of a designer and even the nature of a designer (whether, for instance, the designer is a conscious personal agent or an impersonal telic process) lie outside the scope of intelligent design. As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such.”

    — William Dembski, Gauging Intelligent Design’s Success, billdembski.com, 2003

    Do naturalism or materialism really rule out teleological forces, like intelligent design?

  80. 80
    gpuccio says:

    mikeenders:

    “to claim nothing to do with implies that there are no laws and constants that make life work (not just passively allow it). Science does not support that. A good deal of life is chemistry after all and you cannot claim constants have nothing to do with the chemistry involved.”

    No, this is simple to asnwer.

    What I mean is that in biological ID the inference of designis made from the specific configurations that generate functional information: the sequence of nucleotides or AAs, for example. That has nothing to do with biochemical laws, because the sequence is arbitrary from a biochemical point of view. It’s exactlt because it does not depend on biochemical laws that we use the functional sequence to infer design.

    IOWs, biochemical laws have no role in the design inference we make in biological ID. That’s my simple point.

  81. 81
    Origenes says:

    Mikeenders@

    SO you have no other worldy reference point to determine what physical is but this universe? Light bulb come on yet? That was the entire point of the question.

    You seem to be arguing that outside the universe there can be nothing physical, because we cannot determine it. That strikes me as nonsense. Not being able to determine something obviously does not guarantee that it is not there.

    And my simple point which is beyond your ability to grasp is that it is our definition that cannot be extrapolated from our universe to apply to another one because it is entirely derived for our experience here.

    So, everything outside of this universe cannot be physical, because we cannot experience it? Doesn’t follow. But, let’s, arguendo, suppose that you have made this case, then your idea should be embraced by Hawking, Weinberg, Higgs and so forth — not just by ID. I do not see any support for that.

  82. 82
    jdk says:

    I agree with mikeenders, who is not saying what origenes says he is. Mike is NOT saying that, as Origenes says, “everything outside of this universe cannot be physical, because we cannot experience it.”

    Mie is saying, rather, that we have no justification for extrapolating our experience of what is physical to outside the universe. We just can’t know what is outside the universe, but we certainly can’t assume that the outside of the universe is like the inside.

    That is much different than saying everything “outside this universe cannot be physical”.

  83. 83
    Origenes says:

    jdk @82

    JDK: Mie is saying, rather, that we have no justification for extrapolating our experience of what is physical to outside the universe. We just can’t know what is outside the universe …

    I do not get your point. Can there be physical things outside the universe or not? Mike seems to argue that there cannot possibly be physical things outside this universe because “we have no justification for extrapolating our experience of what is physical to outside the universe”, but that doesn’t suffice as a reason, does it?

  84. 84
    jdk says:

    No, mike is saying that that we can’t know whether outside the universe is like what is inside the universe, or not.

    That is different than saying “there cannot possibly be physical things outside this universe”, which would be a definitive statement about knowledge of what is outside the universe.

    Different things.

  85. 85
    Origenes says:

    JDK: No, mike is saying that that we can’t know whether outside the universe is like what is inside the universe, or not.

    Nope, that is the position which I defend.

    Origenes (to Mikeenders): … my simple point was, and still is, that, contrary to your claim, we cannot know that our universe exhausts physical reality. The consequence of this is that there can conceivably be physical designers outside our universe.

    And BTW I am not arguing that the “outside the universe is like what is inside the universe”. I am arguing that there could be physical things outside our universe.

  86. 86
    ET says:

    My main reason is this: allowing for a purely physical designer shields ID from the claim that ID is not compatible with methodological naturalism.

    That is different from what you said earlier. Could you please make up your mind.

  87. 87
    jdk says:

    I can’t really speak for Mike – all I’ve done is look at the sentence you have quoted – but I think that these are two different statements:

    1. “There could be physical things outside our universe.” That is true. I agree with that. This is a logical possibility.

    2. “We are not justified in thinking that there actually are physical things outside our universe based on the evidence of physical things existing within our universe.”

    Physical things might exist outside our universe, but the existence of physical things in our universe cannot be considered evidence for the existence of such things. The first statement is an ontological statement about what might exist, and the second is an epistemological statement about what we are justified in saying that we might know.

  88. 88
    Origenes says:

    ET@86

    Are you perhaps referring to this:

    O: For one thing, this means that a materialist cannot reject ID simply because ID has to posit an immaterial designer.

    If so, what is wrong with offering multiple reasons? They overlap, actually, since an immaterial designer is incompatible with methodological naturalism.
    – – – –
    For clarity, I hold materialism to be an utterly failed philosophy. It is absolutely false.

  89. 89
    Origenes says:

    jdk @87

    JDK: 1. “There could be physical things outside our universe.” That is true. This is a logical possibility. I agree with that.

    But Mike does not.

    JDK: 2. “We are not justified in thinking that there actually are physical things outside our universe based on the evidence of physical things existing within our universe.”

    And that is Mike’s ‘reason’ as to why there can be no physical things outside the universe. But, again, that does not suffice as a reason, does it?

    JDK: Physical things might exist outside our universe, but the existence of physical things in our universe cannot be considered evidence for the existence of such things.

    “Evidence”? Well, of course not. Who in his right mind would suggest such a thing?

  90. 90
    ET says:

    ID is not compatible with materialism. ID is not ok with:

    Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

    Yes ID is OK with a physical designer. But ID is not OK with materialistic processes producing that designer.

  91. 91
    Origenes says:

    ET: Yes ID is OK with a physical designer.

    I take it that you mean a purely physical designer.

    ET: But ID is not OK with materialistic processes producing that designer.

    If we are talking about an extraterrestrial physical designer of life, then ID can easily afford to be neutral on its origin. If, after examination, it can be shown that the extraterrestrial physical designer is itself the product of intelligent design, then, again, ID can remain neutral on the identity of that intelligent designer, and so on.

  92. 92
    mikeenders says:

    JDk @82

    “Mike is saying, rather, that we have no justification for extrapolating our experience of what is physical to outside the universe. We just can’t know what is outside the universe, but we certainly can’t assume that the outside of the universe is like the inside.”

    Good night man! Give this man a cookie. Between him and gpuccio they have demonstrated that there IS intelligent life on UD after all.

  93. 93
    asauber says:

    We just can’t know what is outside the universe, but we certainly can’t assume that the outside of the universe is like the inside.

    True. We don’t even know the inside very well!

    Andrew

  94. 94
    mikeenders says:

    UB @76

    “I’ve read about you in a little black book. It said something about you cleaning the shit out of your ears.”

    At the point someone demonstrates the smallness of their mind by the limits of their vocabulary it is usually indicative of two related things

    a) its safe to ignore them
    b) they’ve come to the end of their mind’s capacity to deal with your points so in desperation are just flushing the toilet because – what else do they have left?

    toodles

  95. 95
    mikeenders says:

    origenes @89

    Mike does not agree with that not because JDK’s position is not coherent in regard to the issue with our understanding of “physical ” but because of the nonsense scenario I laid out in 73 where you have two designers one non material and one material who happen upon the same universe. As you have whined about I don’t accept the biological designing entity as being separate from the cosmological designing entity for the same reason I don’t buy your Alien designer conspiracy theory that the designers might be fooling us (wish I had an eyeroll emoji) – its contrived and near gibberish.

    I wrote that the issue was with the DEFINITION Of the word physical on many occassions thats why JDK was easily able to see the point on “physical” even if we may not be in total agreement.

  96. 96

    “At the point someone demonstrates the smallness of their mind by the limits of their vocabulary it is usually indictive of two related things”

    That wasn’t a limit of vocabulary, Mike, I picked every word on purpose.

    And by the way, I entered this conversation with a completely benign request for clarification of something you said. You responded with one insult after another, ending with me committing the sin of dishonesty for having disagreed with you (something I suspect you allege quite often). And at the end of the day, two things remain entirely true; 1) the physical evidence forming an inference to design in biology is of a different nature than the evidence forming the inference to design of the universe, and 2) you haven’t provided a single iota of rationale why the two must be treated the same, or even that they can be. In other words, your argument, such that it is, is completely empty.

  97. 97

    jdk,

    No, mike is saying that that we can’t know whether outside the universe is like what is inside the universe

    Perhaps Origenes is merely responding to his more definitive statements:

    “Whatever precedes our universe and its laws wouldn’t fit any present definition of material”

  98. 98
    Origenes says:

    Mikeenders @

    Mike does not agree with that not because JDK’s position is not coherent in regard to the issue with our understanding of “physical ” but because of the nonsense scenario I laid out in 73 where you have two designers one non material and one material who happen upon the same universe.

    I am not sure that I can make sense of this. You do not agree that there can be physical things outside the universe, because you laid out a nonsense scenario? … BTW why do you keep insisting on a non-material designer who is supposedly “required” for the existence of the universe?

    … immaterial designer required to precede our universe in order to create it …

    Do you disagree with JDK (and me) who holds that “There could be physical things outside our universe”? And if you do not, and you actually agree with him, why can there be no material designers of the universe?

    As you have whined about I don’t accept the biological designing entity as being separate from the cosmological designing entity …

    I did not discuss this topic with you.

    … for the same reason I don’t buy your Alien designer conspiracy theory that the designers might be fooling us (wish I had an eyeroll emoji) – its contrived and near gibberish.

    I would like to argue that materialism is “contrived and near gibberish” in many ways.

    I wrote that the issue was with the DEFINITION Of the word physical on many occassions thats why JDK was easily able to see the point on “physical” even if we may not be in total agreement.

    Why would that be the issue? What is the relevance? The fact that we define the physical from the inside of the universe has no bearing on the possibility that there could be physical things, like material designers, outside our universe.

  99. 99

    I don’t accept the biological designing entity as being separate from the cosmological designing entity

    Here’s a clue:

    No one has argued that the designer of biology is “separate” from the designer of the universe. You invented that caricature yourself as a means to deflect attention away from the glaring flaws in your position. Instead, it has been argued that the evidence that forms the inference to design in biology is different than the evidence that forms the inference to design of the universe. They do not overlap. You say ” A good deal of life is chemistry after all and you cannot claim constants have nothing to do with the chemistry involved.” Right. And good deal of a painting is paint, but you can’t derive one from the other. That is the argument that you have not successfully addressed.

    It appears that you simply want to assume your conclusions and dispense with the practice of science altogether. That’s not going to happen.

  100. 100
    Origenes says:

    UB: Perhaps Origenes is merely responding to his more definitive statements:

    “Whatever precedes our universe and its laws wouldn’t fit any present definition of material”

    Honesty compels me to say that I overlooked that statement by Mikeenders. Thank you UB.

    Well, that’s settles it. Nothing before, or outside, the universe can be material, is what Mike is saying. And on that basis he wants ID to posit an immaterial designer of the universe. Subsequently he wants ID to posit an immaterial designer for earth’s biology as well, because he feels that it is “false and dishonest” to make a distinction between biological and cosmological ID.

    Guess what would happen if ID would comply with Mike’s (baseless) demands? What would he say next? That ‘ID is not compatible with methodological naturalism and is therefor not science’ perhaps?

  101. 101
    gpuccio says:

    mikeenders re: Upright BiPed at #99:

    Yes, that is probably one of the main points of debate here, as I have tried to say at #80. The evodence is different, the inference has a different form.

    Just as an example, you could look at my recent OP:

    The Ubiquitin System: Functional Complexity and Semiosis joined together.

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ubiquitin-system-functional-complexity-and-semiosis-joined-together/

    You will find a detailed OP and a long discussion between me and a few friends, entirely centered on the arguments of biological ID: functional complexity, irreducible complexity, semiosis.

    There is no reference at all to biochemical laws to infer design in the whole discussion. Of course, we are well aware of biochemical laws in our biochemical arguments, but never we use them to infer design.

    That’s an example of a biological ID discussion. It is in no way antagonistic to any cosmological ID discussion, it’s only different.

    Another proof that the two lines of discussion can be separated is that some people can easily believe one, and reject the other. Take for example the position of some theistic evolutionists, which essentially seems to be that they accept the cosmological ID arguments, and reject the biological ID argument, accepting neo-darwinism as an explanation for biological functional complexity.

    For them, fine-tuning includes fine-tuning for neo-darwinism!

    (I apologize if I am mis-representing TEs, probably there are many different facets to the problem, however I believe that there are many theists who think exactly the way I have described).

  102. 102
    mikeenders says:

    “I am not sure that I can make sense of this. You do not agree that there can be physical things outside the universe, because you laid out a nonsense scenario? ”

    sigh….after reading you for the last day or two its obvious that you cannot think very well so it might all be pointless because yet another explanation will just fly over your head as did all others.

    has not the general consensus (and consensus need not your approval) been that a cosmological” designer cannnot be material (for the sound reason that the cosmological DESIGNER invents the material/physical)?

    Is it not the position that – though this is true for cosmological ID it may not be true for biolgoical ID?

    Okay,so

    if A equals immaterial
    And B equals material (possibly)

    then the only way that B is material if it doesn’t equal A (good night having to break it down to a five years olds level on an adult blog is tedious)

    SO you need two different designers one creating the universe (but not life) and another converging on it unrelated to the cosmological designer (because if part of a designing group you are stuck with immaterial for both).

    this is not my “scenario” nitwit. Its a necessary condition of the consensus of the argumunet regarding the cosmological designer having to be immaterial which has been posted by MULTIPLE posters. Perhaps you have been reading another blog and posting here. It would explain the incoherence of your posts.

    “BTW why do you keep insisting on a non-material designer who is supposedly “required” for the existence of the universe?”

    because I (and many others here ) have some common sense and you don’t. in order to DESIGN material (not merely create it based on another’s design) you cannot be material anymore than you can claim to have DESIGNED your skin or your own mind.

    If an entity DESIGNS and creates material then it is his/her /its invention

    Thats how it works in the world of common sense but not in the minds of gibberish ET conspiracy theories you hold to.

  103. 103
    Origenes says:

    Mikeenders@

    has not the general consensus (and consensus need not your approval) been that a cosmological” designer cannnot be material (for the sound reason that the cosmological DESIGNER invents the material/physical)?

    That is only true, if our universe exhausts all physical reality, Einstein.

    Is it not the position that – though this is true for cosmological ID it may not be true for biolgoical ID?

    Well, no — see #79.

    O: “BTW why do you keep insisting on a non-material designer who is supposedly “required” for the existence of the universe?”

    because I (and many others here ) have some common sense and you don’t. in order to DESIGN material (not merely create it based on another’s design) you cannot be material anymore than you can claim to have DESIGNED your skin or your own mind.

    Indeed, it cannot be the case that a material designer designs “all matter that exists, including itself”. You are right, that would be incoherent. However, and this is what you seem to continually overlook, it can be the case that a material designer designs a part of material reality, for instance our universe — allowing for the possibility that our universe is not all matter that exists.

  104. 104
    mikeenders says:

    GP

    “What I mean is that in biological ID the inference of design is made from the specific configurations that generate functional information: the sequence of nucleotides or AAs, for example. That has nothing to do with biochemical laws, because the sequence is arbitrary from a biochemical point of view.”

    Sorry but that will not fly. You’ve attempted to neatly divide ID into two parts of one whole – biological ID and cosmological ID and now you are artificially limiting the biological half only to arguments made in reference to DNA. What do we do? throw out all the other biological related arguments ID makes to Another unspoken (in this thread) category?

    Surely you must be aware that ID has not limited itself solely to the primary arguments made in the Signature in the Cell.

    Id draws from convergence, it draws from morphological arguments above the level of DNA (regardless of their dependence on DNA) and on an on.

    What are we to call that? Non biological ID? or do we need a third designing entity? To be fair If it had not been positioned as ID being made up of “Biolgical ID” and “cosmological ID” as the whole then it would make more sense. I’d simple see how you are defining the term but when its been presented as half of a two piece whole its incongruent. Even less so now that we are beginning to learn there is an interplay between the environment and “configuration”

    Furthermore the analysis is superficial at best. I can understand why it is because science has become more and more compartmentalized so you might only think of it in terms that relate to your field of interest.

    Functional information itslef is dependent on the “cosmological” . Information and life operates within the abilities of the cosmological not merely the allowance.
    Laws and constants infuse any abilty in the universe at work. They cannot be neatly divided from each other. DNA doesnt even work without the “cosmological”. You are using words like information and function as if they stand apart from the universe in some biological ether.

    Id has been infected a bit with materialism. Theres this unsubstantiated belief that the universe just works once you set things up. like a clock you just wind up and it goes regardless. we have a sea of virtual particles and the “strange” way light behaves when we observe or measure it that would suggest its nor quite like that at all.

    At this point we probably have a bigger disagreement on what the so called cosmological designer even designed.

  105. 105

    good grief

    ad hoc nonsense

  106. 106
    mikeenders says:

    “That is only true, if our universe exhausts all physical reality, Einstein.”

    I fear UB has lost the award for most obtuse. We now have the truly idiotic claim that consensus in this thread is dependent on what the universe exhausts (or given who I am responding to what the aliens might have fooled us into thinking the universe exhausts….lol)

    We can wait here for you while you check an online dicitionary for what consensus is since you object to my statement regarding consensus in this thread. I understand it might take awhile because you will have to look up all the words in the defintion as well.

    Meanwhile we can all ponder the great scientific principle that unsubstantiated, no way to observe and at present untested propositions of other universes is a strong argument for claiming physical extends beyond everything we know of what physical means within this universe.

    the fresh smell of science in the morning. Or is that manure?

    “Well, no — see #79.”

    The quotes in 79 make no reference to cosmological ID or biological ID. Now you are just lying.

    “However, and this is what you seem to continually overlook, it can be the case that a material designer designs a part of material reality, for instance our universe — allowing for the possibility that our universe is not all matter that exists.”

    another nitwit observation that seals the stealing of UB’s award for obtuseness. Thats precisely the issue addressed in my post you called my “scenario”. Multiple designers both of the material and immaterial in which the immaterial just happens to leaves the work to be completed by the material

    contrived nonsense that would leave even sci fi enthusiasts going “what the?” if it were made into a movie.

    Will you be playing the lead?

  107. 107
    mikeenders says:

    UB @105

    Good Job you have finally learned your place. In the peanut gallery throwing empty shells. Much better than nonsense like this

    “No one has argued that the designer of biology is “separate” from the designer of the universe. You invented that caricature yourself as a means to deflect attention away from the glaring flaws in your position.”

    If at first your logic does not succeed try try again with lying. Anyone can scroll through this thread and see MULTIPLE People admit that the so called cosmological ID designer would not be material but that the biological ID designer might be. Therefore any such universe where that held would have at least one designer that is immaterial and one that is material.

    To say that that is my contrivance just shows how emminently dumb you are. Quite frankly between you and Origene I have never seen such rank stupidity on an ID blog.

    ” Mike, I picked every word on purpose.”

    Why yes. From your vocabulary. Thats how tht works.

    “And by the way, I entered this conversation with a completely benign request for clarification of something you said. ”

    More lies to save face. the conversation became terse when you insisted on misreperesenting what i stated despite correction and proceeded more so afterwards to claim a reading comprehension problem which you couldn’t substantiate and becoming more and more profane when you couldn’t deal with the points made. Small mind and gutter limited vocabulary go hand in hand quite often.

  108. 108
    Origenes says:

    Mikeenders @

    We now have the truly idiotic claim that consensus in this thread is dependent on what the universe exhausts

    No, you misunderstood. You wrote: “… for the sound reason that the cosmological DESIGNER invents the material/physical.” To which I responded: “That is only true, if our universe exhausts all physical reality, Einstein.”, as in, ‘that is only a sound argument if .. (and so forth)’. I hope that is cleared up.

    We can wait here for you while you check an online dicitionary for what consensus …

    Again, I urge you to read #79. It is about the official position of ID on this matter.

    The quotes in 79 make no reference to cosmological ID or biological ID. Now you are just lying.

    I see that you have trouble understanding what the quotes are saying. Allow me to help you understand.

    … intelligent design does not violate any mandates of predictability, testability, or reliability laid down for science by MN [methodological naturalism].

    What this means is that ID does not posit an immaterial designer. Not for biology and not for the cosmos.

    … the intentions of a designer and even the nature of a designer (whether, for instance, the designer is a conscious personal agent or an impersonal telic process) lie outside the scope of intelligent design.

    What this means is that ID does not posit an immaterial designer. Not for biology and not for the cosmos.

    O: “However, and this is what you seem to continually overlook, it can be the case that a material designer designs a part of material reality, for instance our universe — allowing for the possibility that our universe is not all matter that exists.”

    another nitwit observation that seals the stealing of UB’s award for obtuseness. Thats precisely the issue addressed in my post you called my “scenario”. Multiple designers both of the material and immaterial in which the immaterial just happens to leaves the work to be completed by the material

    ? I am arguing that there is no need for an immaterial designer. Keep paying attention Micky.

  109. 109
    mikeenders says:

    UD: Internet troll mikeenders has been shown the exit.

  110. 110
    gpuccio says:

    Frankly, I could find no sense in mikeenders’ post #104, and I really did not know what to answer.

    Whatever. I think I have explained my views clearly enough at #71, 80 and 101. I have nothing to add.

  111. 111

    There was no sense to make of it, GP.

    The guy seamed incredibly threatened by being asked to clarify his comments, and I think he just ran out of gas, so to speak.

  112. 112
    OldAndrew says:

    Darel

    The thing that disturbs me most about UD, and goads me into occasionally submitting comments here, is the constant attempts to spot-weld the truth/falsehood of “objective morality” to the truth/falsehood of ID.

    BA

    Then you do not understand ID. If materialism is true, ID is false. It is important to demonstrate that materialism is not true. One way to show materialism is false is to demonstrate the patently logical absurdity of denying self-evident objective moral truth.

    Darel, you do understand ID. ID is science. If ID was strengthened by ‘demonstrating the patently logical absurdity of denying self-evident objective moral truth` then it would not be science, because that has nothing to do with science. It’s off the rails.

    There’s plenty of evidence for a religious person such as myself to conclude that the intelligent designer I believe in is moral, not evil. But intelligent design has nothing to do with our own morality or that of an intelligent designer.

    (This is the stuff that draws me back in too.)

  113. 113
    OldAndrew says:

    Here’s another way to handle someone raising issues about the Canaanites:

    Canaanites? This is about the science of ID. What do Canaanites have to do with it?

    If a discussion has Canaanites in it then either it’s not about ID or someone is trying to change the subject away from ID.

  114. 114
    Bob O'H says:

    OldAndrew @ 113 – That’s a sensible suggestion, but if Canaanites are brought up in response to the Holocaust then one could also ask what the holocaust has to do with the science of ID. can you see Barry banning mention of the Holocaust?

  115. 115
    OldAndrew says:

    Bob.

    That’s sort of the point. I’ll copy and paste what I said above and change one word.

    Holocaust? This is about the science of ID. What does the Holocaust have to do with it?

    If a discussion has the Holocaust in it then either it’s not about ID or someone is trying to change the subject away from ID.

    No, I don’t see anyone banning it. From my perspective, ID faces an uphill battle against the perception that it’s creationism disguised as science. If someone promotes ID but lumps it together with the Holocaust or objective morality, that’s friendly fire. Their heart is in the right place but they’re firing bullets at their own side. They’re doing Dawkins’ and Matzke’s work for them.

  116. 116
    john_a_designer says:

    I have my own personal standard when it comes to interacting with our regular interlocutors. I usually only engage under two conditions:

    First, our interlocutor must be willing to ask and answer honest questions.

    Second, they need make a logically valid argument, which can be stated using succinct fact based premises. (Being argumentative is not the same as arguing.)

    For example, notice that all of the following quotes are from men who believe that evolution is a mindless and purposeless process. (ht: BA77)

    “This appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature…. Accounting for this apparent purposefulness is a basic problem for any system of philosophy or of science.”

    George Gaylord Simpson – “The Problem of Plan and Purpose in Nature” – 1947

    living organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed”

    Richard C. Lewontin – Adaptation,” Scientific American, and Scientific American book ‘Evolution’ (September 1978)

    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”

    Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – p. 138 (1990)

    “Organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this”

    Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – p. 30

    “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

    Richard Dawkins – The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.1

    If something appears to be designed isn’t it logically possible it really could be designed?

    The main premise then for an argument for design then can be stated very simply:

    If it looks designed, it really could be designed.

    And from that the main argument for the design can be stated as follows:

    1.If it looks designed, it really could be designed.

    2. Even the simplest self-replicating life form, Mycoplasma genitalium, looks designed.

    3. Therefore, it really could be designed.

    In other words, if it’s logically possible that something could be designed then it’s not illegitimate to consider the possibility that it really might be designed. Indeed, it would be foolish not to.

    If, on the other hand, you believe that design is not possible then you have the burden of proof to prove that. But to do that you have to begin with a premise that is either self-evidently true or factually true.

    Smugness, snarkiness, incredulity… obfuscation and obstruction… pretension and posturing are not arguments. Unfortunately that’s typically what we get from our regular interlocutors.

  117. 117
    es58 says:

    John @116: the people you quote here get a “free lunch”; they don’t have to define rigorously what “design” means, but they are *implying that it is self-evident*; they get to talk about “appearance of design” and simply *assert* (never “prove”) that “design” isn’t really present in the objects they’re discussing; then, when someone claims they *are* designed, they suddenly get to *demand* a rigorous definition of design (What happened to the “self-evident” aspect?). If they don’t have to supply a definition of design to assert it’s absence, what right do they have to demand it of others?

  118. 118
    Allan Keith says:

    OldAndrew,

    No, I don’t see anyone banning it. From my perspective, ID faces an uphill battle against the perception that it’s creationism disguised as science. If someone promotes ID but lumps it together with the Holocaust or objective morality, that’s friendly fire. Their heart is in the right place but they’re firing bullets at their own side. They’re doing Dawkins’ and Matzke’s work for them.

    The more that things like the holocaust, abortion, near death experience, the IS-OUGHT gap, same sex marriage, objective morality, self-evident truths, the concept of evil, etc. are commented on by ID proponents, the more it plays into atheists’ hands. These types of comments by ID proponents do more damage to ID, by inadvertently equating ID to religion, than atheists ever could. To say nothing of the frequent quotes from scripture.

  119. 119
    gpuccio says:

    Allan Keith:

    So, why don’t you come to comment at my recent OP?:

    The Ubiquitin System: Functional Complexity and Semiosis joined together.

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ubiquitin-system-functional-complexity-and-semiosis-joined-together/

    You will find only scientific discussions there.

    You know, I am a loittle bit disappointed of so many repeated lamentations by ID critics here that ID lacks scientific discussions, when those same critics never come to discuss at my threads, where I really try to have only scientific discussions!

  120. 120
    tribune7 says:

    Allan Keith

    These types of comments by ID proponents do more damage to ID, by inadvertently equating ID to religion, than atheists ever could.

    You make it sound like science is a mere matter of marketing.

    Natural science is just a means of understanding nature i.e. its consistencies. It’s not meant to be worshipped and ID proponents certainly don’t.

    Atheists, OTOH, have turned “science’ into a religion with it’s own set of — rather perverse — values.

    This is why things like morality, philosophy and theology are fair game here.

    The science of ID is beyond reasonable dispute. Design exists, it can be quantified and here are the quantifications. The last point of course is potentially falsifiable hence shows ID to be not a dogma –unlike Darwinism. Dogma is an important difference between science and religion.

    That opponents of ID still dispute it as a science shows them to be unreasonable. It shows that their arguments are based on emotion and wishful thinking.

  121. 121
    kairosfocus says:

    Es58,

    in fact, a definition of design has sat for years in the UD resources tab, under glossary — intelligently directed configuration . . . which is actually obvious from our experience.

    No-one who seriously discusses the design inference or uses the explanatory figure argues that design is self-evident. That is a strawman, patently so given that we are discussing a design inference on tested empirical signs. The explanatory filter has TWO successive defaults to explain an aspect of an entity that is of interest: lawlike mechanical necessity and statistically distributed blind chance.

    It is only on seeing high contingency of outcomes under closely similar initial conditions that default 1 — things like, consistently a heavy object near earth will tend to fall under 9.8 N/kg — will fail. At that point, the presumption is that chance best explains the high contingency, similar to explaining which face of a die is uppermost after it tumbles. It is only when we find functionally specific complex organisation and associated information that chance becomes utterly implausible on needle in haystack blind searches are not likely to succeed grounds.

    Observe the glossary entry under Intelligent design:

    Intelligent design [ID] – Dr William A Dembski, a leading design theorist, has defined ID as “the science that studies signs of intelligence.” That is, as we ourselves instantiate [thus exemplify as opposed to “exhaust”], intelligent designers act into the world, and create artifacts. When such argents act, there are certain characteristics that commonly appear, and that – per massive experience — reliably mark such artifacts. It it therefore a reasonable and useful scientific project to study such signs and identify how we may credibly reliably infer from empirical sign to the signified causal factor: purposefully directed contingency or intelligent design. Among the signs of intelligence of current interest for research are: [a] FSCI — function-specifying complex information [e.g. blog posts in English text that take in more than 143 ASCII characters, and/or — as was highlighted by Yockey and Wickens by the mid-1980s — as a distinguishing marker of the macromolecules in the heart of cell-based life forms], or more broadly

    [b] CSI — complex, independently specified information [e.g. Mt Rushmore vs New Hampshire’s former Old Man of the mountain, or — as was highlighted by Orgel in 1973 — a distinguishing feature of the cell’s information-rich organized aperiodic macromolecules that are neither simply orderly like crystals nor random like chance-polymerized peptide chains], or

    [c] IC — multi-part functionality that relies on an irreducible core of mutually co-adapted, interacting components. [e.g. the hardware parts of a PC or more simply of a mousetrap; or – as was highlighted by Behe in the mid 1990’s — the bacterial flagellum and many other cell-based bodily features and functions.], or

    [d] “Oracular” active information – in some cases, e.g. many Genetic Algorithms, successful performance of a system traces to built-in information or organisation that guides algorithmic search processes and/or performance so that the system significantly outperforms random search. Such guidance may include oracles that, step by step, inform a search process that the iterations are “warmer/ colder” relative to a performance target zone. (A classic example is the Weasel phrase search program.) Also,

    [e] Complex, algorithmically active, coded information – the complex information used in systems and processes is symbolically coded in ways that are not preset by underlying physical or chemical forces, but by encoding and decoding dynamically inert but algorithmically active information that guides step by step execution sequences, i.e. algorithms. (For instance, in hard disk drives, the stored information in bits is coded based a conventional, symbolic assignment of the N/S poles, forces and fields involved, and is impressed and used algorithmically. The physics of forces and fields does not determine or control the bit-pattern of the information – or, the drive would be useless. Similarly, in DNA, the polymer chaining chemistry is effectively unrelated to the information stored in the sequence and reading frames of the A/ G/ C/ T side-groups. It is the coded genetic information in the successive three-letter D/RNA codons that is used by the cell’s molecular nano- machines in the step by step creation of proteins. Such DNA sets from observed living organisms starts at 100,000 – 500,000 four-state elements [200 k – 1 M bits], abundantly meriting the description: function- specifying, complex information, or FSCI.)

    You have been around UD for years, you should know this.

    KF

  122. 122
    john_a_designer says:

    gpuccio,

    Here is something you might consider as a seed for a future topic for a future OP.

    Self-Replicating Machines and OoL

    The following is something that I have written about couple times before, on other threads, which I think is worth is repeating here, again.

    The origin of life is like the origin of the universe. It appears to be a singular, non-repeating, highly improbable event which occurred very early in earth’s history. Furthermore, all the clues of how and why it occurred have been lost. But then added to that problem are other problems: how does chemistry create code? What is required to create an autonomously self-replicating system which has the possibility of evolving into something more complex? The naturalist/ materialist then compounds the problem by demanding a priori that the origin of life must be completely natural– undirected without an intelligent plan or purpose.

    That seems like it was a miracle… Well, maybe it was. But a completely “naturalistic miracle” seems to be an absurd self-defeating claim for the naturalist/materialist to make.

    One of my pipe dreams as a real life (now retired) machine designer is to design a self-replicating machine or automata– the kind that was first envisioned by mathematician John von Neumann. My vision is not a machine that could replicate itself from already existing parts but a machine– well actually machines– which could replicate themselves from raw material they would find on a rocky planet in some distant star system.

    One practical advantage of such machines is they could be sent out in advance some far-in-the-distant-future expedition to terraform a suitable planet in another star system preparing it for colonist who might arrive centuries or millennia later.

    By analogy, that is what the first living cells which originated on the early earth had to do.

    Even the simplest prokaryote cell is on the sub-cellular level a collection of machines networked together to replicate the whole system. To suggest that somehow the first cell emerged by some fortuitous accident is betray an ignorance how really complex primitive cells are.

    Try thinking this through on a more macro level, as I have described above, and I think you will begin to appreciate how really daunting the problem is.

    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/is-ool-part-of-darwinian-evolution/#comment-634766

    The whole thread by Eric Andersen, is not very long and IMO is worth reading. Notice how quickly our regular interlocutors bailed out of the discussion. But at least they weighted in.

  123. 123
    KD says:

    At the end of the day, the evidence and arguments that intelligent design was required for the origin and diversity of life stands or falls on its own merit.

  124. 124
    Allan Keith says:

    Gpucio,

    So, why don’t you come to comment at my recent OP?:

    The Ubiquitin System: Functional Complexity and Semiosis joined together.

    I read the OPs and comments, and find them interesting, but I prefer not to comment on something that I know very little about. It would only detract from the discussions that are going on.

    You know, I am a loittle bit disappointed of so many repeated lamentations by ID critics here that ID lacks scientific discussions, when those same critics never come to discuss at my threads, where I really try to have only scientific discussions!

    My criticism is not of the scientific discussions that do go on here. And I commend you, Johnnyb and a couple others for the scientific posts that are written. I just find it amusing how many threads are about, or become derailed into, thinks like morality. abortion, homosexuality, free will, the existence of evil, the soul, near death experiences, and criticisms of atheism and materialism. There is also the frequent posting of scripture by a couple of the commenters. These do nothing but increase the perceived link between ID and creationism. Maybe that is why so few of the people who are actually doing meaningful work in ID come to this site to provide their comments. Where are the people like Behe, Marks, Axe, Gauger, Dembski, etc.

    I would only suggest that if the goal is to promote ID as a meaningful alternative to evolution that maybe, less is more. It might reduce the hit rate of the site, but it would go a long way to improve the credibility of ID.

  125. 125
    gpuccio says:

    Allan Keith:

    Thank you for you answer.

    Well, I would say that ID is a scientific point of view, and not a movement or a political party. In the end, ID will be promoted by its scientific merits, and nothing else.

    The philophical and religious confrontations here are probably what can be expected in a free blog, and in a culture where there seems to be such a strong polarization about these arguments. It happens that most people who favor ID are in some form religious, and most people who are in some form atheists have strong reasons to reject ID. There are, of course, reasons for that, because nobody can deny that scientific ideas have implications for more general worldviews. So, I find very natural that people want to discuss about those things, and I take that as evidence of sincere committment to one’s worldview (on both sides).

    However, I still find a little amusing that atheists seem more keen to take part in religious discussions than to come at biological threads.

    I am not saying that about you, you have been honest to declare the reason for that, and I am greatful for your sincerety and for your respectful words. I understand that my OPs are rather technical, and that people who are not really acquainted with their contents may prefer not to comment about those things. Even IDist friends seem a little shy about that, but at least I can imagine that they probably agree with what I say. But must I believe that all ID critics who post here are completely reluctant to discuss biology, and are mainly experts in theology refutation? That would be strange indeed! 🙂

    People like Behe, Marks, Axe, Gauger, Dembski are doing their work in other ways, and it’s probably an intentional choice not to debate here. I am very greatful to them for what they do.

    Others have chosen to give their contribution here.

    In the end, what really counts are ID’s merits as a scientific paradigm. Time will say.

  126. 126
    Mung says:

    Allan Keith:

    I would only suggest that if the goal is to promote ID as a meaningful alternative to evolution that maybe, less is more.

    LoL.

    Where did you hear that ID is supposed to be an alternative to evolution?

  127. 127
    gpuccio says:

    john_a_designer:

    That was a very good OP by Eric Anderson, who has always been a great contributor here.

    Interesting discussion too, including your contribution, with which I definitely agree.

    My personal view is that there is no difference between OOL and evolution, in essence. Both problems are about the origin of complex funtional information in a non design syste. Which is impossible. Therefore, both problems lead to a strong, unavoidable design inference.

    The idea that self replication can help solve the problem of the origin of new complex functional information is simply wrong.

    Self- replication just implies as assumption the existence of some complex functional information, the information which implements self-replication. In that scenario, the existing information may undergo simple modifications, and computation systems already present in the system (for example, NS) can derive some new information from what already exists. But that computation (which is nothing else than well knwon microevolution) is extremely limited, because it can only:

    a) Generate very low levels of new functional information, because of the extreme limitations in the variation component

    b) Compute that low information only as regards the already defined function (replication), and not for any other new function

    I have discussed in detail these aspects in two specific OPs:

    What are the limits of Natural Selection? An interesting open discussion with Gordon Davisson

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-natural-selection-an-interesting-open-discussion-with-gordon-davisson/

    and:

    What are the limits of Random Variation? A simple evaluation of the probabilistic resources of our biological world

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-are-the-limits-of-random-variation-a-simple-evaluation-of-the-probabilistic-resources-of-our-biological-world/

    That’s why I see no reall difference between OOL and evolution: the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, for example, is as impossible as OOL in a non design setting.

    The same could be said for the Cambriam explosion, of for the transition to vertebrates.

    In the ultimate sense, each new complex and functional protein which arises in the course of natural history is as impossible as OOL, in a non design scenario.

    Moreover, my firm conviction is that life originated on our planet with LUCA, and that LUCA was essentially a full fledged prokaryote.

    So OK, I can agree that OOL presents some very special difficulties, but believe me, all that happens after that presents very special difficulties too! 🙂

  128. 128
    john_a_designer says:

    gpuccio,

    Thanks for your response. I don’t have time to respond to all the points you raised but let me key on a couple.

    You wrote:

    Self- replication just implies as assumption the existence of some complex functional information, the information which implements self-replication. In that scenario, the existing information may undergo simple modifications, and computation systems already present in the system (for example, NS) can derive some new information from what already exists. But that computation (which is nothing else than well knwon microevolution) is extremely limited, because it can only:

    a) Generate very low levels of new functional information, because of the extreme limitations in the variation component

    b) Compute that low information only as regards the already defined function (replication), and not for any other new function

    The very fact of self-replication raises the question of what I call “evolvability.” Is self-replication alone sufficient for a simple cell to evolve into something more complex? For example, is the ability of a smallest known prokaryote, Mycoplasma genitalium, to replicate, sufficient for it to eventually evolve into a eukaryote? (A lot of Darwinists without proof or evidence would “argue” yes.) Do all eukaryotes have the potential of evolving into multicellular life forms? What is it that gives them that potential? And of course, from there follow the questions about higher life forms… specialization and diversification of not only organisms but the specialized cellular architecture and organs within distinct organisms. In other words, if they evolved what are the sufficient conditions for them to evolve? Can evolution, as the naturalist/ materialist believe, occur without evolution itself being designed?

    Moreover, my firm conviction is that life originated on our planet with LUCA, and that LUCA was essentially a full fledged prokaryote.

    Why? Even Darwin was open to the suggestion that the origin of life could be polyphyletic.

    From a design perspective a polyphyletic explanation for OoL makes a lot of sense. Let me give you a couple of examples:

    First, suppose a super advanced race of ETI beings visited the earth some 3.7 billion years ago and decided to seed it with life. Would they seed it with a single simple prokaryotic life form or would the seed it with a cocktail of microorganisms. Statistically one isolated organism wouldn’t have much chance of surviving.

    Or second, does it necessarily follow that a transcendent creator (God), if that’s that’s the cause, would be required to start with a single simple microbe?

  129. 129
    gpuccio says:

    john_a_designer:

    A couple of simple comments to your comments:

    “Is self-replication alone sufficient for a simple cell to evolve into something more complex?”

    My answer is: no. IMO, as I have already said, already existing self-replication can only:

    a) Generate very low levels of new functional information, because of the extreme limitations in the variation component

    b) Compute that low information only as regards the already defined function (replication), and not for any other new function

    IOWs, the existing information which allows self-replication can undergo some tweaking in the limited measure that RV and NS can allow, and nothing more. No new functions, no new original complex functional information. Just limited adaptations of the complex functional information that alrwady exists.

    “Why? Even Darwin was open to the suggestion that the origin of life could be polyphyletic.”

    You are perfectly right. But even biologists admit that LUCA was not necesserily one orgnaism, but possibly a set of organisms.

    I am a convinced believer in common descent, but I have always said that there is no real evidence that it needs be universal common descent.

    However, what we know tends to favor, at present, the idea that prokaryotes appeared first, and eukaryotes much later. Not all agree with that, but in general I would accept that scenario, at least as the best explanation available at present.

    However, even if OOL was polyphyletic, there is no doubt that a lot of basic information necessary for life is almost universally shared between all forms of life that we know.

  130. 130

Leave a Reply