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
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.gpuccio
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT
"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.mikeenders
March 13, 2018
March
03
Mar
13
13
2018
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT
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.Upright BiPed
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT
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 :)mikeenders
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
@ 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.mikeenders
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT
@ 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.mikeenders
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
The position I defend is that ID is compatible with materialism.
Why? ID is not compatible with a failed philosophy.ET
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
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.Origenes
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
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.Origenes
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
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.gpuccio
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
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.Origenes
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
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.mikeenders
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
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.gpuccio
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
"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.mikeenders
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
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.Origenes
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
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)Upright BiPed
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
"“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.mikeenders
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
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?Origenes
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
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/2011/03/failing_the_turing_test045141.html
bornagain77
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
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.mikeenders
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
@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.EricMH
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
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)??mikeenders
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
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.mikeenders
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
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.EricMH
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
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.ET
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
ME #24: ID does not hold that biology alone is designed ME #34 I suggested nothing about biological ID in post 24
;)Upright BiPed
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
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.com/view/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-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/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.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.”
bornagain77
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT
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! :)gpuccio
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT
"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.mikeenders
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply