Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New UD Policy

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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.

Comments
JAD & GP, I think the exchange is worth headlining and I did so: https://uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/jad-on-self-replicating-machines-and-ool/ KFkairosfocus
March 19, 2018
March
03
Mar
19
19
2018
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
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.gpuccio
March 19, 2018
March
03
Mar
19
19
2018
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT
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?john_a_designer
March 18, 2018
March
03
Mar
18
18
2018
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT
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! :)gpuccio
March 16, 2018
March
03
Mar
16
16
2018
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
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?Mung
March 16, 2018
March
03
Mar
16
16
2018
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
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.gpuccio
March 16, 2018
March
03
Mar
16
16
2018
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
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.Allan Keith
March 16, 2018
March
03
Mar
16
16
2018
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
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.KD
March 16, 2018
March
03
Mar
16
16
2018
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
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.john_a_designer
March 16, 2018
March
03
Mar
16
16
2018
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
March 16, 2018
March
03
Mar
16
16
2018
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
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.tribune7
March 16, 2018
March
03
Mar
16
16
2018
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
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!gpuccio
March 16, 2018
March
03
Mar
16
16
2018
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT
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.Allan Keith
March 15, 2018
March
03
Mar
15
15
2018
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
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?es58
March 15, 2018
March
03
Mar
15
15
2018
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
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.john_a_designer
March 15, 2018
March
03
Mar
15
15
2018
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
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.OldAndrew
March 15, 2018
March
03
Mar
15
15
2018
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
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?Bob O'H
March 15, 2018
March
03
Mar
15
15
2018
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
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.OldAndrew
March 15, 2018
March
03
Mar
15
15
2018
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
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.)OldAndrew
March 15, 2018
March
03
Mar
15
15
2018
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
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.Upright BiPed
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
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.gpuccio
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
UD: Internet troll mikeenders has been shown the exit.mikeenders
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
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.Origenes
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
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.mikeenders
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
"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?mikeenders
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
good grief ad hoc nonsenseUpright BiPed
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
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.mikeenders
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
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.Origenes
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
"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.mikeenders
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
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).gpuccio
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply