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
Barry @ 19 - Woohooo! We agree on something! And we even agree that we agree! :-) The reason I brought that up was because it then suggests that an ID blog should be agnostic over materialism, because both supporters and opponents of materialism can be both supporters and opponents of ID.Bob O'H
March 12, 2018
March
03
Mar
12
12
2018
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT
ME: not buying that ID can posit a material designer without contradiction. ID does not hold that biology alone is designed but the entire universe including its laws. UB: It appears to me that you yourself can draw an intellectual distinction between design in biology and design on a cosmological scale. Otherwise, your comment above would not make any sense.
ME: You are making some extremely poor arguments. You basically quoted me saying that ID consists of more than biology (because of previous claims of that) and so is made up of both and trying to use that as an assertion that they are seperate and distinct for me as well. poor form.
I can’t detangle this enough to make any real sense of it.
UB: In any case, if one presents an argument for an act of intelligence related to DNA for instance (which does not posit or require a immaterial designer), the problem you are suggesting is not that their argument will necessarily or inherently contain an internal contradiction in its descriptions of evidence and rationale, but only that the intelligence being posited by the argument must (from your perspective) also set the cosmological constants in the universe — and this is because other ID arguments have been made elsewhere (outside the biological argument being presented) that point to design in the cosmos. Is that it? ME: Again I made no such argument based on DNA and DNA is not the totality of the ID argument in regard to biology. You are attempting to limit the ID argument of the design of life to DNA but there is no such limit and anyone that has read any thing of ID knows there is no such limit.
Again? Again!? Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it. If you want to try again, perhaps I will respond. Otherwise it may simply be easier for you to just make up whatever you think I might say.Upright BiPed
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT
UB @ 36 "It appears to me that you yourself can draw an intellectual distinction between design in biology and design on a cosmological scale. Otherwise, your comment above would not make any sense." You are making some extremely poor arguments. You basically quoted me saying that ID consists of more than biology (because of previous claims of that) and so is made up of both and trying to use that as an assertion that they are seperate and distinct for me as well. poor form. "In any case, if one presents an argument for an act of intelligence related to DNA for instance." Again I made no such argument based on DNA and DNA is not the totality of the ID argument in regard to biology. You are attempting to limit the ID argument of the design of life to DNA but there is no such limit and anyone that has read any thing of ID knows there is no such limit. "(which does not posit or require a immaterial designer), " of course it does - the very instance it claims that constants and laws are designed for intelligent biological life which ID UNDOUBTEDLY HAS AND DOES POSIT. "the problem you are suggesting is not that their argument will necessarily or inherently contain an internal contradiction in its descriptions of evidence and rationale, but only that the intelligence being posited by the argument must" Wrong. This has nothing to do with inherent contradictions or even what must be the case - it has to do with the popular and well known position of ID - That the universe shows signs at the constants and law level of being designed for life. The inherent contradictions are gravvy. The problenm I have with both your assertions and Barry's is they are not completely honest regarding what it is that ID posits. You are essentially arguing that Id posits a designer for biological life as separate from the cosmological level and pretending that the majority of Idist walk around referring to "biological ID" and "cosmological ID", don't claim that cosmological constants are designed for life and they posit seperated designers. Which is just utterly and obviously false. I don't know whether this fabrication of what it is ID posits is out of some fear that recognizing our definition of material would not hold up to different laws and constants would mean ID equals theism but thats not the point being made. Its that whether the designers is it/they or her, omnisicent, or a know nothing or a barking dog like creature if it designed material and all its constants and laws for biological life it does not logically stand to fit under the category of the material it created.mikeenders
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT
Quantum information and/or entanglement is a whole different 'non-material' puppy than the classical information IDists usually defend.
Quantum Entanglement and Information Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
Simply put, Quantum information is its own unique 'physical' entity, that is separate from matter and energy. A unique physical entity that requires a beyond space and time cause to explain its existence.
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
Entangled objects (particles) simply do not cause each other to behave the way they do, therefore a 'non-local', beyond space and time, cause MUST be appealed to.
Quantum correlations do not imply instant causation – August 12, 2016 Excerpt: A research team led by a Heriot-Watt scientist has shown that the universe is even weirder than had previously been thought. In 2015 the universe was officially proven to be weird. After many decades of research, a series of experiments showed that distant, entangled objects can seemingly interact with each other through what Albert Einstein famously dismissed as “Spooky action at a distance”. A new experiment by an international team led by Heriot-Watt’s Dr Alessandro Fedrizzi has now found that the universe is even weirder than that: entangled objects do not cause each other to behave the way they do. http://phys.org/news/2016-08-quantum-imply-instant-causation.html
This 'spooky' entanglement which requires a beyond space and time cause, is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale: In the following video, at the 22:20 minute mark, Dr Rieper shows why high temperatures do not prevent DNA from having entanglement and then at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper goes on to remark that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it.
"What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state." Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it) https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176
At the 6:52 minute mark of the video, Jim Al-Khalili states:
“To paraphrase, (Erwin Schrödinger in his book “What Is Life”), he says at the molecular level living organisms have a certain order. A structure to them that’s very different from the random thermodynamic jostling of atoms and molecules in inanimate matter of the same complexity. In fact, living matter seems to behave in its order and its structure just like inanimate matter cooled down to near absolute zero. Where quantum effects play a very important role. There is something special about the structure, about the order, inside a living cell. So Schrodinger speculated that maybe quantum mechanics plays a role in life”. Jim Al-Khalili – Quantum biology – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOzCkeTPR3Q
And in confirmation of Al-Khalili, and Erwin Schrodinger's, contention that life acts like inanimate matter cooled down to near absolute zero, in the following experiment it was found that protein molecules do indeed act like inanimate matter cooled down to near absolute zero.
Quantum coherent-like state observed in a biological protein for the first time - October 13, 2015 Excerpt: If you take certain atoms and make them almost as cold as they possibly can be, the atoms will fuse into a collective low-energy quantum state called a Bose-Einstein condensate. In 1968 physicist Herbert Fröhlich predicted that a similar process at a much higher temperature could concentrate all of the vibrational energy in a biological protein into its lowest-frequency vibrational mode. Now scientists in Sweden and Germany have the first experimental evidence of such so-called Fröhlich condensation (in proteins).,,, The real-world support for Fröhlich's theory took so long to obtain because of the technical challenges of the experiment, Katona said. https://phys.org/news/2015-10-quantum-coherent-like-state-biological-protein.html
In the following paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules”, it was found that the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015 Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say. That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.” The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?” https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552
Further notes on quantum entanglement in a wide range of biological molecules are in this following video
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – video https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am1g5Y
In conclusion, Quantum entanglement in biology requires a beyond space and time cause, period. Theists have a cause to appeal to, materialists don’t. i.e. Hypothesized 'material' ET designers simply will no longer suffice for the type of 'non-local', beyond space and time, quantum design we are now finding in molecular biology. In fact, it is now also strongly implicated that 'non-local' information must be coming into developing embryos from beyond space and time:
Darwinism vs Biological Form - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w
And again, as a Christian, I have a beyond space and time cause to appeal to for life, whereas materialists don't:
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
#24 not buying that ID can posit a material designer without contradiction. ID does not hold that biology alone is designed but the entire universe including its laws.
It appears to me that you yourself can draw an intellectual distinction between design in biology and design on a cosmological scale. Otherwise, your comment above would not make any sense. In any case, if one presents an argument for an act of intelligence related to DNA for instance (which does not posit or require a immaterial designer), the problem you are suggesting is not that their argument will necessarily or inherently contain an internal contradiction in its descriptions of evidence and rationale, but only that the intelligence being posited by the argument must (from your perspective) also set the cosmological constants in the universe -- and this is because other ID arguments have been made elsewhere (outside the biological argument being presented) that point to design in the cosmos. Is that it?Upright BiPed
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT
Since this seems to be a point of discussion I would love a definition of "material" that survives outside of this universe, time and space and laws contained within.mikeenders
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
"I can assure you that a coherent argument on the evidence for biological ID does not require an immaterial designer, as you suggest in #24." I suggested nothing about biological ID in post 24 (please do look and be more thoughtful in your reading) so its kind of rebutting a strawman not an assurance of anything. "but I do make a distinction between different types of evidence. There is argument and evidence in favor of biological ID and there is argument and evidence in favor of cosmological ID. " this is a false argument and somewhat of a special pleading invention made in this thread in regard to ID. Most of the publications on ID do not even make reference to "biological ID" and "cosmological ID" neither do most adhere to a multiple designer theory (which would add more complexity) - no one designer in relation to cosmological and another one in relation to biological in anything I have read over the decades in ID thought. Its just a plain fact that I have demonstrated conclusively by showing you Di covering fine tuning for biological life over and over again - ID does make the argument and its a well known argument (with evidence) of a fine tuning for biological life. Fine tuning IS at the cosmological level. Now to be clear this does NOT equal God but once you start talking of a designing entity fine tuning laws and cosmological constants as ID does - those beings/things or entities are way beyond being confined to our present definition of "material" (which is understood and defined by the constraints of the created/designed space we live in). If you claim as ID does that life is a result of designed fine tuning then the entity exists outside and beyond the physical laws and constants - or else they/it cannot be ascribed a designer of those constants and laws.mikeenders
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
Perhaps I am not well enough read in ID, but I do make a distinction between different types of evidence. There is argument and evidence in favor of biological ID and there is argument and evidence in favor of cosmological ID. I can assure you that a coherent argument on the evidence for biological ID does not require an immaterial designer, as you suggest in #24.Upright BiPed
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT
"Would you point out to me who is making the claim that the information in DNA is the result of fine tuning. After several years of involvement, I’ve not read that." I said nothing about DNA in particular. You can't seriously have been well read on the subject if you are denying arguments made in Id do not claim fine tuning for intelligent life on this planet. just one well known source of ID thought retrieved in a five second Google search https://www.google.com/search?q=fien+tuning+for+life+evolution+news&oq=fien+tuning+for+life++evolution+news&aqs=chrome..69i57.6151j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8mikeenders
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT
In most ID literature its fine tuning for biological life.
Would you point out to me who is making the claim that the information in DNA is the result of fine tuning. After several years of involvement, I've not read that.Upright BiPed
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
"If you made the claim that biological Id can have a material designer AT THE TERRESTRIAL LEVEL then you would be correct but not applied to Id in general AT THE COSMOLOGICAL LEVEL." I am entirely correct because your original statement I replied after reading made no such distinction. It simple stated ID. IF you misspoke/wrote or were too general in that statement that's fine. I accept your own subsequent correction However after further consideration - try this . they are both incorrect in regard to ID. Why? because ID at the so called cosmological level makes a claim at fine tuning for life which is the biological level. Your attempt to separate them fails on many levels of thought in ID. In most ID literature its fine tuning for intelligent biological life. You can either rewrite what Id is and the claims it makes, ignore it or accept the fact that they are intertwined in ID. You don't get to logically do both.mikeenders
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
Mike: If you made the claim that biological Id can have a material designer then you would be correct but not applied to Id in general. Almost correct. Try this: If you made the claim that biological Id can have a material designer AT THE TERRESTRIAL LEVEL then you would be correct but not applied to Id in general AT THE COSMOLOGICAL LEVEL.Barry Arrington
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
BA "Why do you insist that the designer of biological life must have been supernatural? What suspension of the laws of physics (i.e., miracle) is necessary for terrestrial biological life to exist?" A) Unless something has changed in the world of ID it does not limit itself to "biological life" (and my response did not limit itself to biological life). Isn't the point of appealing to fine tuning to show that an intelligence set constants and laws? If not why is the point made in many ID publications? If you made the claim that biological Id can have a material designer then you would be correct but not applied to Id in general. Once you claim the universe and its constants and laws were designed claiming it fits within "material" makes little sense. B) by definition that which is outside of our universe is super (beyond) natural(that which we refer to as our nature). I am not at all implying that the designer need be spiritual but that anything that precedes our laws and our understanding of time and space would not fit into any practical parameters of our present human understanding of what is classified now as "material". An ET is an extra terrestrial -outside of earth. This would be someone/thing outside of our universe if claims that ID makes in regard to law and constants have any validity.mikeenders
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
"To me, the overall evidence indicates pretty clearly that: a) It is significantly possible that this story in the Bible did not occur. Or, if a big massacre did occur there-and-then, it is very possible that it was not commanded by our creator(s)." this is just continuing the discussion on canaanites despite being told its outside the rules and I am sorry but "evidences indicates pretty clearly" paired with "significant possibility" is vacuous (and unsubstantiated).mikeenders
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
Much confusion comes from the want to contrast ID with the supernatural whereas ID contrasts natural with artificial.ET
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
Mike, Why do you insist that the designer of biological life must have been supernatural? What suspension of the laws of physics (i.e., miracle) is necessary for terrestrial biological life to exist?Barry Arrington
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
not buying that ID can posit a material designer without contradiction. ID does not hold that biology alone is designed but the entire universe including its laws. Whatever precedes our universe and its laws wouldn't fit any present definition of material and would be so significantly different as not fit into any classification near it.mikeenders
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
Bob O'H: Of course a material designer could explain the desing in biological beings on our planet. The major problem with that, however (beyond the basic problem of finding some explanation for those material designers) is that there is no observation in favor of material intelligent beings acting on our planet throughout natural history. We should rememner, indeed, that the problem of design in biological beings is not restricted to OOL: desing is clearly detectable at all stages of life development on our planet. So, it is rather difficult to believe that material desingers could have acted through 4+ billion years on this planet without leaving any trace. It is possible, of course, but rather unlikely, at least IMO. That's why I think that the idea of some non physical conscious agent(s) with some interface to biological matter is a better scientific hypothesis. And I do believe that the interface must be searched at quantum level.gpuccio
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
Quantum biology requires a beyond space and time cause, period. Theists have a cause to appeal to, materialists don't.bornagain77
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
Yes, but... If we are discussing proximate causes then allowing for ET colonization is OK with ID. Yes it does push it back but we still have to take it one step at a time. These ETs, or some other intelligent agency, seems to have also designed our solar system. Or do you really think innumerable cosmic collisions produced this planet with its just-so rotation? The large moon that we need to stabilize the planet just happens to produce perfect solar eclipses that allow us to understand nature. The design reason why the moon has very little metal content is mass. Too much mass and you sacrifice on eclipse experiments or you risk enormous tides on your one habitable planet. The point being ID isn't limited to biology and it allows for God to farm out the details to His enlightened engineers.ET
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
Materialists have tried to use the "Extraterrestrial (ET) escape hatch" before so as to avoid an inference to God. Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick, each militant atheists, both appealed to ETs rather than God to explain life. Richard Dawkins stated the situation as such in his interview with Ben Stein:
BEN STEIN: “What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?” DAWKINS: “Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.” – Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview (3:18 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc
Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA helix, was much more explicit than Dawkins, and stated it best in his book “Life Itself”
“Life did not evolve first on Earth; a highly advanced civilization became threatened so they devised a way to pass on their existence. They genetically-modified their DNA and sent it out from their planet on bacteria or meteorites with the hope that it would collide with another planet. It did, and that’s why we’re here. The DNA molecule is the most efficient information storage system in the entire universe. The immensity of complex, coded and precisely sequenced information is absolutely staggering. The DNA evidence speaks of intelligent, information-bearing design. Complex DNA coding would have been necessary for even the hypothetical first so-called’ simple cell(s). Our DNA was encoded with messages from that other civilization. They programmed the molecules so that when we reached a certain level of intelligence, we would be able to access their information, and they could therefore — teach” us about ourselves, and how to progress. For life to form by chance is mathematically virtually impossible.” Francis Crick – Life Itself – September 1982
Some researchers have apparently taken Dawkins and Crick’s suggestion that, “Our DNA was encoded with messages from that other civilization”, seriously and they now claim to have detected an Intelligently Designed extraterrestrial ‘WOW signal’ in DNA
In the Planetary Science Journal Icarus, the “Wow!” Signal of Intelligent Design – March 12, 2013 Excerpt: “The ‘Wow! signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code.” Their paper has been accepted for publication in the prestigious planetary science journal Icarus, where it’s already available online. Their title comes from a curious SETI signal back in 1977 that looked so artificial at first, a researcher wrote “Wow!” next to it.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/03/a_wow_signal_of069941.html The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code - May 2013 Excerpt: Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10–13). The patterns are profound to the extent that the code mapping itself is uniquely deduced from their algebraic representation. The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin,,, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791
The main elephant in the living room problem that is overlooked in these supposed material extraterrestrial intelligences, that are postulated by atheists so as to avoid an inference to God, is that Intelligence does not collapse into any conceivable materialistic explanation. In fact the main claim of Intelligent Design is that there are NO material explanations for the creation of functional information and that only minds are known to be able to create functional information. As Paul Nelson states in the following article, your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.)
Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism – Paul Nelson September 24, 2014 Excerpt: Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact. “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause,, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set090071.html
Thus, in their appeal to ETs, atheist only tried to kick the can down the road, and have still neglected to explain exactly where the functional information came from and, more importantly, have failed to explain exactly where the designing intelligence came from. Moreover, the Theists, instead of letting things hang in limbo, with the supposed extraterrestrial 'material intelligences' of atheists, can now appeal to advances in 'quantum biology' to directly and experimentally support their belief that God, who is beyond space and time, designed life and even 'holds life together'. And Theists can also appeal to advances in quantum biology to support their belief that we have transcendent souls that are capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies.
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology - video https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am1g5Y
And whereas the Christian Theist can appeal directly to our best cutting edge science in quantum biology to support their beliefs that God designed life and that we have transcendent souls, the militant atheist, on the other hand, is sent packing in his quest to find evidence for ETs:
Search for signs of alien civilisations in 100,000 galaxies has turned up nothing - 12 MAY 2015 Excerpt: "Our results mean that, out of the 100,000 galaxies that WISE could see in sufficient detail, none of them is widely populated by an alien civilisation using most of the starlight in its galaxy for its own purposes," said Wright. "That's interesting because these galaxies are billions of years old, which should have been plenty of time for them to have been filled with alien civilisations, if they exist. Either they don't exist, or they don't yet use enough energy for us to recognise them." This is the dilemma at the heart of the Fermi Paradox. Logically, there have been plenty of opportunities for life to occur around the Universe, so where are all the aliens? http://www.sciencealert.com/search-for-signs-of-advanced-civilisation-in-100-000-galaxies-has-turned-up-nothing
As a Christian who has seen a few answered prayers during my life, I find it strange that the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) organization spends millions of dollars vainly searching for signs of extra-terrestrial life in this universe, when all anyone has to do to make solid contact with THE primary 'extra-terrestrial intelligence' of the entire universe is to pray with a sincere heart. God, who created heaven and earth, certainly does not hide from those who sincerely seek Him. I would think that personally communicating with the Creator of the universe would be a lot more exciting than not communicating with some little green men that in all realistic probability, given naturalism, do not even exist.
Isaiah 45:18-19 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.”
bornagain77
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
Bob @ 17, You actually have a point, one which I have made myself. At the biological level the designer could be material. I should have said if materialism is true, ID at the cosmological level is false.Barry Arrington
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
What if the designer was material?
That alone doesn't say that materialistic processes produced the Designer nor that the intelligence can be reduced to materialistic processes.ET
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Barry @ 16 -
Then you do not understand ID. If materialism is true, ID is false.
What if the designer was material? I thought ID maintained that it said nothing about the designer, but you now seem to be insisting that ID not be material.Bob O'H
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Darel the King,
The thing that disturbs me most about UD, and goads me into occasionally submitting comments here, is the constant attempts to spot-weld the truth/falsehood of “objective morality” to the truth/falsehood of ID.
Then you do not understand ID. If materialism is true, ID is false. It is important to demonstrate that materialism is not true. One way to show materialism is false is to demonstrate the patently logical absurdity of denying self-evident objective moral truth.Barry Arrington
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
mikeenders: I think I am in agreement with your above response to my comment. The scientific core of ID, I think, is simply that mutation-selection evolution (a.k.a. neo-Darwinism), per available evidence cannot be the correct explanation for how a world with only single-celled life turned into a world with rhinos (e.g.). Then, the inference to the best explanation says that life was probably designed by pre-existing intelligence, much as we humans design cars and computers. ID does not, in my opinion, support any particular religion. But I would go further and say that all of the religions could be completely made up, and even the bare concept that we are individually judged after death for how we behaved in this life could be completely made up, and the scientific evidence for ID would still be compellingly strong. The thing that disturbs me most about UD, and goads me into occasionally submitting comments here, is the constant attempts to spot-weld the truth/falsehood of "objective morality" to the truth/falsehood of ID.DarelRex
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
DarelRex:
Suppose an ID skeptic asked me, “What about such-and-such God-mandated massacre in the Bible?”
Send them to a Biblical scholar and tell them good luck.ET
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
To comment a bit more: Suppose an ID skeptic asked me, "What about such-and-such God-mandated massacre in the Bible?" That strikes me as a reasonable question that deserves a very straightforward answer. If instead I replied, "That's a logical fallacy; stop saying it," then I would be entirely uninformative to someone who perhaps really does want to know how a Biblical massacre might be compatible with a pro-ID position. My best attempt at a direct, honest, and hopefully informative answer to this person? To me, the overall evidence indicates pretty clearly that: a) It is significantly possible that this story in the Bible did not occur. Or, if a big massacre did occur there-and-then, it is very possible that it was not commanded by our creator(s). b) Our creator(s) probably don't care about occasional massacres, not to mention equally bad (and much more frequent) natural disasters. All species on Earth suffer such things from time to time. C'est la vie -- or in the case of highly intelligent humans, live and learn. If my motivation was not scientific curiosity to know what actually happened, but rather a desire to promote the particular organized religion in which I was raised, then I would not be able to directly answer the Bible-massacre question, and might choose to resort to an uninformative deflection.DarelRex
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
DR, "I’m going to have to side with Bob O’H on this one. How do we say “no more” to arguments against the veracity/sensibility of God commanding a massacre in the Bible, on the grounds that it has nothing to do with the arguments for/against ID, while in practically the same breath implying that Nazi death camps do have something to do with ID?" Which God commanded a massacre? ID does not specify the God in the Bible. Thats the whole point why from an ID point of view the argument must stay on the merits and facts of the holocaust because whats in the Bible is no rebuttal to the moral argument of a Hindu Idist. "if not actually suggestive of, creator(s) who don’t give rat’s ass whether we murder each other every day" You mean besides the part where almost all major religions denounce murder or is this based on some imagination that denouncing murder is not giving a "rat's ass"?mikeenders
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
Barry, Good decision and complete agreement on my part. Thank you. -QQuerius
March 11, 2018
March
03
Mar
11
11
2018
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply